Film Scanner Ideas

[Huck Finn]

I'm considering the purchase of a film scanner. (Maybe then I'll be able to post pictures instead of being the deadbeat poster that I am.) I don't have a clue where to begin or what resources to consult because the technology changes so quickly. Any ideas?

BTW, I do have a contact who may be able to get me a Nikon at a discount, possibly wholesale. But I've heard that Minolta (now Konica-Minolta) had been out in front in the development of film scanners. Just adds to my confusion.

 

[rover]

I would love to see some shots from the 40 Sonnar. I have a Epson 3200 Photo which does a pretty good job, and has capability up to a 4x5 negative. If you are going to stick to 35mm though a dedicated film scanner would be the way to go.

 

[Kris]

Huck, as rover said, if you're going to scan 35mm film, get a film scanner. I used to own a flatbed, Canon 5000F, and sold it only after 3 months of use. Luckily my loss was only $25.

Depending on whether you shoot lots of silver based film or not, you may or may not want LED based illumination found on Nikon scanners. More extensive review here

 

[hoppinghippos]

Huck, the main consideration would be speed of scanning, then comes resolution (tho many claim once you hit can't rem what, 2800 maybe and beyond, the resolution isn't that impt anymore cuz you'll be reaching the limit of what the film can offer), then comes ICE.

don't scrimp and get a slow scanner, cuz a full scan at max resolution can take 5-10 mins!!! (NEVER believe the specifications given, prob tested with a supercomputer or something).

 

[bmattock]

I am quite pleased with my Minolta Scan Dual IV. This is from this last weekend at the Wilson Rose Garden. Film was Kodak UC 400, camera was Canon T60, Vivitar Series 1 90mm with 2x focusing macro multiplier (kind of a rare beast, but fun).

I have not yet been able to afford the extra few hundred dollars to get a unit with Digital ICE, but so far, have not really needed it. I have my film processed, but not scanned or printed, at my local Walgreens (drugstore 1-hour photo place). Costs 2 bucks. Then I scan. Usually, no scratches, or just minor ones I can touch up in PS (actually I use Linux and The Gimp, but same idea).

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Scarpia]

I have the same scanner Bill does and I echo his sentiments. I paid $239.00 at Tri State Camera in NYC and got my money's worth. It takes a bit of patience to learn the scanner's minor quirks, but the results are worth it.
Kurt M.
PS Bill gets better results because he takes better pictures.
I sampled some negatives and slides I took in the '60's and '70's and couldn't believe my eyes. I haven't posted them because they were taken with SLR's. I am now at my summer home and won't have access to them until just before Election Day.

 

[back alley]

nice shot, i like the pink.

joe

 

[Jeroen]

I shoot both 35 mm and 120, so I'm thinking about buying an Epson 3170 flatbed first. Prices are dropping now a new model (4800 dpi instead of 3200) has been introduced. Might consider the new Epson F-3200 dedicated film scanner as well. Looks like one of those old VCR's, it's specs sure are promising.

http://www.photographyblog.com/comments.php?id=4172_0_1_0_C

 

[Sonnar Brian]

How are these scanners at B&W? The Epson 3170 that I have is very "ragged" between columns as it sees the world through RGB filters. Do any of the scanners dispel with the RGB mask for B&W anymore?

 

[oftheherd]

I think the latest Epson flatbed is the 4870, with a new model either in the pipe or soon to be released. Do a search for that model in Popphoto's forum web site for a store that sells them for very low prices. That is if you need the MF and 4x5 LF abilities. All I have heard comment say if you are staying with 35mm, a dedicated film scanner gives better results. Still, those with the Epsons always seem quite happy with their results in whatever format.

 

[vladhed]

...at the other end of the spectrum

...at the other end of the spectrum

...I picked up an HP 4470c at futureshop for 99$. I think it was refurbished, not that I could tell by looking at it. Works great for what it costs, doesn't grok slides very well (can't get at the shadow detail) but seems fine with B&W negs:

My gallery photos are all scanned with it

One day I hope to buy a Minolta Image DScan

 

[GeneW]

The Minolta Scan Dual IV that Bill has is an excellent buy. High quality scans at a very reasonable price. It doesn't have Digital ICE but you can't use that anyway with traditional silver-based emulsions.

I have the Minolta Scan Elite 5400, which has ICE, and it's the best scanner I've owned (it's my third starting with an early Canon Canoscan 2700). The resolution is excellent and ICE is nice if you scan c-41 or e-6 films.

Gene

 

[bmattock]

Gene,

Do you find that you really *need* or *use* the digital ICE for scratches? Does it have a deleterious effect on the rest of the scanned image when you use it? Since I don't have ICE, I concentrated on getting scratch-free negatives, which I've come pretty close to by working closely with my local Walgreen's drug store photo people and not having prints made when I have the negs processed (that causes most scratches, I've found). So, as far as I know, I have no scratches to deal with.

However, I realize that if I was working with older negs or whatnot, ICE would be great to have. I'm interested in your take on ICE.

For everyone else - I've also got an Epson Perfection PHOTO 2400 with the optional 4x5/120 film adapter - and I like it very much for that. I don't have an example handy, but it does a great job and I'm very satisfied with the results. I can only imagine that the newer ones work even better with their higher resolutions!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[don sorsa]

I use the Epson 3170 flatbed without ICE and included Epson software for scanning 35mm and medium format B&W and color negatives, and I'm happy with it. My post-processing is in Elements so everything is scanned at 8 bits, limiting my options. A friend has an older Epson (lower resolution) but more experience and PhotoShop, and he always gets better scans than I do, so "eye" and experience can make a bigger difference than scan specs. I'd say that most current scanners (and also the last generation of Epson, Nikon, Canon, etc.) are pretty much equal and capable, so getting a good deal and spending more money on film is the way to go!

The photos in my gallery were all negatives scanned with a 3170 with minimal post-processing (automatic levels adjusted and sometimes tweakws the contract). The blown highlights come from my errors, unfortunately. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/645

Here's a larger photo from 35mm negative
http://homepage.mac.com/donsorsa/album2/library.jpg

And here's another from medium format
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2423069

So, buy whatever is available and spend your time learning to fully exploit it. http://scantips.com/ Can help in that regard.

Don

 

[GeneW]

Gene,

Do you find that you really *need* or *use* the digital ICE for scratches? Does it have a deleterious effect on the rest of the scanned image when you use it?

Yes, I have negatives that have scratches and spots that would have taken hours of retouching to fix. ICE, on the 5400, works wonders. There is a little softening of the image, but it's not bad at all and can be restored with a little USM.

If your negs are relatively free of scratches or spots, then scanning without ICE is better. A little crisper overall.

I have a lot of older negs and slides that are not in the best of condition (some are decades old). And sometimes I get cr@p processing from labs, with streaks and spots on them. Before I had a scanner with ICE fixing these up was extremely tedious work. ICE made easy work of them.

Not all ICE is created equal, however. I had a Minolta Scan Elite II which was a very good scanner in general, but ICE on it was not even close to being as effective as ICE is on the 5400. I don't know why there's such a difference.

Gene

 

[nwcanonman]

I have been using the Minolta DS III and have been very pleased with the quality of the scans. The Minolta software stinks though, I use Vuescan (avaliable on-line).

 

[don sorsa]

Gene - Thanks much for the tip about prints causing scratched negatives. I've had that problem recently and now I know why it occurs. The dust on the MF example above is my fault but I think (hope, pray) I'm better at scanning now than then.

Don

 

[michael]

I find the Minolta Scan Dual IV the bee's knees. It is easy to use and the software is the equal of the Vuescan software, which I have also tried with it. It interfaces easily with Picture Window Pro (just thought i'd get that plug in) and you can save the money to spend on....

 

[Gordon Coale]

Don't forget scanner software. I use an early Epson 2450 (I will get the new Epson 4870 someday) because I also have 120 and 4x5 negatives/transparencies to scan. It came with the light version of SilverFast. It was excellent until I tried the full version of SilverFast. It pulled in shadow and highlight detail that was amazing. It was like having a new scanner. Comparing SilverFast AI (it goes for around $120) to other scanning software is like comparing Microsoft Paint to Photoshop.

SilverFast doesn't support all scanners. I would suggest getting a scanner on their list. I suspect the choice of scanner software will make a bigger difference than the choice of scanner hardware

SilverFast

 

[GeneW]

I find the Minolta Scan Dual IV the bee's knees. It is easy to use and the software is the equal of the Vuescan software, which I have also tried with it. It interfaces easily with Picture Window Pro (just thought i'd get that plug in) and you can save the money to spend on....

Another vote for Vuescan. I've used it on all my scanners, including my Epson 2450 flatbed, and it pulls out detail better than the native scanner software.

Can't say I like Picture Window Pro very much. I bought it a couple years ago and tried and tried to like it, but once I got used to working in layers in Photoshop, PWP was just too primitive for my tastes.

YMMV, of course...

Gene