contemplating film scanners

Y

ywenz

Veteran
Local time
3:54 AM
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
2,457
I'm currently using an Epson 4180 flatbed to scan my 35mm negs. I mostly shoot film to post them online at web resolutions. Lately, I've been thinking of getting a dedicated film scanner because I've been convincing myself that my flatbed is not doing any justice to the images from my leica lens. (Do I have a point here?) My question to you, is will a dedicated scanner make that much of a difference when the final size of the scan will be reduced to web resolutions, 900x600-ish ? I like the Coolscan V ED, but it's $600! Maybe a cheaper alternative can make the decision easier to swallow... Let me hear your thoughts.
 
for web res presentation - no, I wouldn't waste your money on a new scanner.

Only if you were doing a print output digitally, or selling the images, then the nikons are brilliant for the price. I have a 9000 on my wishlist (barring a windfall that would allow me to buy an Imacon).

You could always scan prints, of course... the flatbeds do very well with those as well, and you have your darkroom work to show off then too. :D
 
I think even at small sizes one can see if the scan is from a good or bad scanner . Thats why I stopped using my cheapo negativ scanner (epson 2180) and just use it to scan from the prints.
 
What about picking up a used film scanner that is a few generations old? Has scanning technology improved so much that even my Epson 4180 flatbed can scann better negatives than a COOLSCAN III or II (or whatever it's called...) ?
 
For web posting, I get a high-res disk from the lab for about $7 and just skip buying prints. Their scan gets cleaned up and resized in Elements for web posting. For printing, I make a scan of the slide or neg with a dedicated Minolta film scanner. For the occasional really big print, the lab can do really big, clean scans.
 
There is a valid argument for having a good film scanner, even if your primary purpose is web posting. A film scanner will have (in general) more control over the "look" of the scan, preserving more detail in the highlights and shadows (once you learn how to use it well).

I for one, want to scan my negs once, and once only. I scan at 4000dpi, 16 bit. regardless of the immediate purpose for the scan. I then save this large file, and I make a smaller reduction for email and web.
 
The danger in buying a cheap film scanner is that after mastering its use, you'll always wonder how much better things would be if you had a better scanner...well, that's what happened with me :) though in my defence, I have to use mine for work as well.

Scanning can be frustrating and time consuming, makes sense to only have to do it once - and so do it well - and for that you need a decent scanner. I had 2 Nikons over the years - the last being the LS2000 - and both died within 24 months. The difference in quality between them and my Elite 5400 is staggering - the older generation Nikons were very poor in comparison.

Rambling a bit...sorry...my advice would be - buy a good one or not at all and don't forget that you may need to fork out some more for scanning software. Vuescan is cheap 'ish but Silverfast is my favourite and quite expensive. If it's just for web use then maybe stick with a good flatbed - at least that can do prints and MF, LF as well.

David
 
If you don't scan positive film and your negs are not too dense imho there is no point in getting a dedicated film scanner.

Maybe you could scan one example by yourself and ask someone in your region with a CS V and some scanning experience to make a scan from this negative, too?
 
I have scanned positive film in my flatbed and plan on doing so in the future. Is flatbed enourmously sub-par to dedicated film scanners for this job?
 
I have only second hand knowledge regarding this, but afaik the maximum density which the flatbeds 'see through' is lower than the one of dedicated film scanners.. So you would lose details in the shadows according to this
 
ywenz, if you don't mind scanning a not so important but rather dense neg or positive and sending to germany to get the CS V scan of this one, pm me
 
As others have posted, the big question is whether or not you intend to do anything w/the scans other than post them on the web. If you want to be able to make prints, especially anything larger than 8x10 from scans of 35mm negs/slides, then a dedicated film scanner is really the best way to go. I've seen decent little, i.e., 8x10 & smaller, prints from flatbed scans of medium & large format film, but even there a film scanner would obviously provide much better results. As a 1/2-way measure, you can always just upgrade to 1 of the newer Epson flatbeds, which are supposed to be pretty good.
 
ywenz said:
What about picking up a used film scanner that is a few generations old? Has scanning technology improved so much that even my Epson 4180 flatbed can scann better negatives than a COOLSCAN III or II (or whatever it's called...) ?
Click to expand...

I have the 4180 (as well as a KM 5400 II film scanner). The 4180 is no slouch (I keep it for MF scans). I still have a bunch of 35mm 4180 scans on my computer and they look great. The Epson flatbeds do a good job.
 
I have a Elite 5400 II

I have a Elite 5400 II

The Minolta is a great scanner. If you can find one get it.

There is a new Epson Scanner called the V750-M. It is a flatbed. ShutterBug magazine has a review of it in the Nov issue. They compare it directly to the Elite 5400 II and it is comparable quality wise. It will scan Med and large format also.

Regards
Mark
 
I had a severely underexposed 6x6 slide. By about 4 stops. (Don't ask why.) I could hardly see through it, in the brightest white spots, with a strong backlight and loupe. I tried to scan it with the Epson V700.

Here's the result.
 

Attachments

  • dia1009_k.jpg
    dia1009_k.jpg
    156.6 KB · Views: 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom