Film scanners advice

[Yoricko]

Hello guys,

I need some scanner recommendations from you guys on dedicated film scanners.

I've been recently shooting a lot recently (too much for me to handle). Thus, I am looking for a film scanner that can scan entire rolls of 35mm film. I shoot only B&W and I plan to scan for web-use only.

I would like to know your experience/knowledge/etc with any scanners capable of scanning rolls of 35mm (speed is not an issue, as long as I don't have to attend to it mid-way) with decent quality for web-viewing and picture management. I do have a budget so I would stray away from the Nikon Coolscan ED LS-9000 and such.

Don't suggest any flat-beds for me (except the Epson V700). Because I shoot an average of 4-5 rolls a day and I don't want to waste most of my indoors time scanning my film. Additionally, I've also got an Epson V500 and it's a real hassle to load them into the holders and scan them two-strips by two.

An exception for scanning 35mm roll films is if the scanner is able to scan a strip of 5/6 at blazing speed! (1200dpi, less than 10 seconds).

I did some research on the web but I could only find 3 (or 4)

Nikon Coolscan ED LS-4000 (Discontinued) (With (SA-30?) roll adapter, or DIY hack)
Nikon coolscan ED LS-5000
Imagemart Pakon F235C
Pacific Image PrimeFilm 3610AFL
Pacific Image PF 3600

Thanks for taking the time to read my desperate call for help!

Regards,

 

[katgut@earthlink.net]

You're asking a lot, but you probably know that. What is your budget? I'm not sure you can find that kind of speed for 4-5 rolls a day if you do it yourself. I've never seen anything that fast. Even if you can find a Nikon 5000, they're up to $3000 or more now. Is this for professional use or hobby? Have you investigated the use of a service like the one that KR uses?

 

[LKeithR]

Sometimes there are no simple solutions. You either have to put up with a machine that's a bit slower or spend a bit more money. I have a V750 and it does a decent job of scanning film although I think you'll find that everyone will pretty much agree that the IQ of the Nikons is better. I've never used a Nikon so I can't comment on the speed but the V750 allows me to scan 24 frames at a time. When I scan film--I don't do that much--I scan everything at 600 dpi to create a digital contact sheet and only scan the "keepers" at higher resolution. I don't see the point of scanning everything at high res when I know I won't use all of the shots. I'm just an amateur and not shooting professionally so you may have different needs...

 

[imush]

For web use only, as you say, an Epson V700/750 will be more than sufficient. Nobody will know the difference if your negatives are more or less correctly exposed.

I also have the Coolscan 5000ED with the roll adapter, but if I would be shopping for a scanner today I would not buy it now. Yes, it is noticeably better if you need scans from 35mm for serious digital printing. But:

(1) Good scans require attention; I cannot just feed the roll into the scanner and go have tea. There are quirks, it may shift the frames a bit by the time it gets to the end, and I do not normally need all frames scanned at the same resolution.
(2) I think it is still easier to preview each frame and decide whether it is worth scanning. You are going to do this anyway later with your imaging software, less time is wasted if you start doing it while the next negative is scanning. For me, perhaps 80% of the frames do not make the cut. [Even so, I must admit the Coolscan roll adapter is a great convenience].
(3) Today's prices are insane for a discontinued product. 5000ED is a great scanner, but including the roll adapter, the price is more than 5 times that of V700. And with a flatbed you get an excellent scanner for prints.
(4) Should you ever want to shoot medium format film (a desire hard to resist once you see the difference), a 35mm scanner would not help.

For an occasional good shot that wants an enlargement, you are better off paying for a professional scan, or perhaps have it enlarged the traditional way and scan the print.

Consider this: the Nikon 35mm scanner today costs more than the flagship Epson V750 plus a full setup of darkroom equipment with top notch enlarging lenses.

Or this: a Summilux!

 

[Yoricko]

Thanks for your insights all three of you, but I have little choice here but to find the best scanner I can make out with.

I'm getting this neither for professional or hobbyist use. I Just need quick scans of average quality for web-size.

I repeat, I don't need high or even good image quality from the scanners. I just need the speed and ease of operating to digitize my film. If I felt like I wanted to print a piece or something, I would go to a darkroom armed with 8x10 or 11x14 paper instead.

The purpose of scanning my film is mainly to send all my pictures to Ben Lifson to review them (that's why I need everything scanned at ~1200DPI). Other reasons include that I might occasionally send small size pictures to friends to ask for their comments on specific pictures I am unsure about. In the future, I also plan to upload my pictures to Flickr or some sort of online portfolio. But, the moment I have too many pictures and too little time to proof. So if I were to continue using my Epson V500, I would have even less time to proof my pictures!

It would be very unlikely (never say never) for me to move into medium or large format photography due to the very nature of my subjects -- people, mainly moving people.

Seems like the Epson V700 (V750 is not available in my region) is the best option available for me.

Anyone used the Reflecta RPS 7200 before?
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaRPS7200.html

Seems to suit me well, although on the other hand it received many mediocre reviews on the net.

Regards,

 

[lewis44]

Nikon LS-5000 w/Roll Film Adapter.
Had one and it worked Great. Went mostly Digital and now only do a little film, so I went to a 4000 in it's place.
The scans were a little better with the 5000, and it seemed the 5000 was faster.

 

[imush]

I think V700 is the same scanner as V750, except for a different [quite useless] software package and a fluid mounting adapter (which you may want if you ever need higher quality scans). All of this can be had separately or from a third party (betterscanning.com).

 

[katgut@earthlink.net]

"I'm getting this neither for professional or hobbyist use."

How could it be neither?

 

[gliderbee]

It must be fast, not too expensive, good quality and a lot each day ?

Why don't you just shoot digital ?

Maybe I risk getting flamed for this, but I like 35mm for it's slow, considerate approach. For quick work, I'll take my DSLR every time.

Maybe not for MF and larger formats, but for 35mm, I think the digital DSLR can give the same quality, and certainly so if you're only going for scanning and web use.

One might think otherwise if you would still be wet printing, but that's not your intention as I understand it.

edit: come to think of it, if you're talking about scanning pictures that already exist, my comment does not help of course. I would have everything scanned commercially, e.g. by these people: http://www.precision-camera.com/landing/orderform.html

Stefan.

 

[aldobonnard]

Nikon LS4000/5000 + film roll adapter : great, very very fast (the fastest scanner, for sure), but very expensive... and limited to 35mm.

my personal choice and gear: Canon 9950F for scanning up to 24 frames in one go (plus formats friendly), then Minolta Dimage 5400 (v1) for the best quality. If you cannot find the Canon 9950F, the equivalent is the V750 Epson, which has the brilliant Silverfast as a bundle.

I have at home at the moment a LS5000 and a Minolta 5400. I could conduct comparisons between the two. I will definitely keep the Minolta, not the LS5000. Many reasons for that, despite it's slower. It's much sharper, easier to use, and its ICE works well on Kodachromes. Sadly the Nikon LS5000's ICE is crap with kodachromes, and also the Nikon generates more noise in the shadows, and its contrast range is not as good as the Minolta.
I would not have believe this at all, in the first place, but my tests on all sorts of films have proved it.

 

[katgut@earthlink.net]

It must be fast, not too expensive, good quality and a lot each day ?

Why don't you just shoot digital ?

Maybe I risk getting flamed for this, but I like 35mm for it's slow, considerate approach. For quick work, I'll take my DSLR every time.

Maybe not for MF and larger formats, but for 35mm, I think the digital DSLR can give the same quality, and certainly so if you're only going for scanning and web use.

One might think otherwise if you would still be wet printing, but that's not your intention as I understand it.

edit: come to think of it, if you're talking about scanning pictures that already exist, my comment does not help of course. I would have everything scanned commercially, e.g. by these people: http://www.precision-camera.com/landing/orderform.html

Stefan.

That was my first thought. At this point, I'd think someone would use 35mm for it's grain effects and particular look and not for high-volume shooting.

 

[Yoricko]

"I'm getting this neither for professional or hobbyist use."

How could it be neither?

I'm not earning any cash from it, or should I say, I can't. Also, it's not just another hobby someone would just pick up

I am obliged to shoot. I must shoot.

It must be fast, not too expensive, good quality and a lot each day ?

Why don't you just shoot digital ?

Maybe I risk getting flamed for this, but I like 35mm for it's slow, considerate approach. For quick work, I'll take my DSLR every time.

Maybe not for MF and larger formats, but for 35mm, I think the digital DSLR can give the same quality, and certainly so if you're only going for scanning and web use.

One might think otherwise if you would still be wet printing, but that's not your intention as I understand it.

edit: come to think of it, if you're talking about scanning pictures that already exist, my comment does not help of course. I would have everything scanned commercially, e.g. by these people: http://www.precision-camera.com/landing/orderform.html

Stefan.

Thanks for your thoughts Stefan,

I've pondered about using digital. But, there's a few reasons why I'm not inclined to.

The two main reason I'm shooting film is because: (1) film is physical, (2) film has character.

For point (1), may be just a little 'silly', but, I just want physical contact with my materials. I might be a little technophobic, but I don't trust those magnetic disks or flash memory. Reliability-wise, I know that digital files are very reliable if you have a considerable amount of backups, and nothing can save your negatives from a fire except duping film archives beforehand.

Point (2), film is a wonderful medium full of 'character'. You can experiment and play so much with whatever combination you can think of! The possibilities are endless (well, almost)! Caffeinated developer with HP5+? HC-110 1:100 with TMax 3200? Can you do something like that with digital files? Photoshop – naw?

I plan to do wet prints. I just need a darkroom (which I can hopefully get access to after a month from now). The scanner is just to show moderately small sized samples to friends and such and ask for their comments. As well as having some material to showcase online.

It is true that most people who shoots film are generally slower, conscious of their thoughts, and contemplate their actions. Because film costs, and it isn't 'free'. It doesn't even have to be a 4x5" rail camera. Just pick any film photographer on the street and most likely he would be shooting a lot slower (and less) compared to any digital photographer. But I'm different.

I've shot with a M8, SLR, and DSLR before. But, a rangefinder camera works best for me and the type of subjects I am photographing. The M8 has a crop sensor. The M9 costs a lot straight up front, and is not viable for reasons above. A compact camera is not very responsive to my actions. A M4/3 camera isn't very responsive too. A cell-phone camera does not give me much controls. A DSLR is bulky which makes it bothersome to bring it everywhere and anywhere, and it's bothersome size also daunts people. A medium format camera is too slow. I know film costs a lot more than five M9's and ten M10's. But, for reasons above, I am not really compelled to shoot with one.

Dang me.

Nikon LS4000/5000 + film roll adapter : great, very very fast (the fastest scanner, for sure), but very expensive... and limited to 35mm.

my personal choice and gear: Canon 9950F for scanning up to 24 frames in one go (plus formats friendly), then Minolta Dimage 5400 (v1) for the best quality. If you cannot find the Canon 9950F, the equivalent is the V750 Epson, which has the brilliant Silverfast as a bundle.

I have at home at the moment a LS5000 and a Minolta 5400. I could conduct comparisons between the two. I will definitely keep the Minolta, not the LS5000. Many reasons for that, despite it's slower. It's much sharper, easier to use, and its ICE works well on Kodachromes. Sadly the Nikon LS5000's ICE is crap with kodachromes, and also the Nikon generates more noise in the shadows, and its contrast range is not as good as the Minolta.
I would not have believe this at all, in the first place, but my tests on all sorts of films have proved it.

Thanks for your first-hand experience with the scanners Aldobonnard,

Thinking of either the LS-4000 used or an Epson V700 now.

That was my first thought. At this point, I'd think someone would use 35mm for it's grain effects and particular look and not for high-volume shooting.

I want film tonality, grain effects, and I shoot a lot. I am stuck with choices.

 

[Yoricko]

Thanks all for your helpful comments and opinions.

I've decided on the Epson V700. First of all, it is readily available in my country. Next, I can use it to scan 4x5" or 120 IF I were to ever shoot something other than small format. Finally, I can occasionally scan my darkroom prints for .. err ... who knows what. The software is also Mac-friendly and I do not need to use Bootcamp or buy another PC just to run some scanner software and use my Mac at the same time.

Now maybe I can keep the extra cash to buy a TLR or something.

 

[Ronald M]

My Epson flat bed 4780 does 4 strips of 6 frames. It can be "programed" to see 24 pictures using 24 marquees. Save that setting at the top of the software box where it says "current setting" with the Epson software. It will be more time consuming than a machine with a roll feed. The advantage is you can do a preview and then individually adjust each frame for density, contrast, color. It is quite sufficient for web display. Final use will be 100 ppi, so scan at that and sharpen with that in mind.

72 ppi was the standard decades ago.

 

[JohnL]

Nikon Coolscan 5000 with full-roll adapter is probably the quickest available (sort of) today, but it's not *that* fast. Scanning colour negative using Vuescan it takes about 20 min to prescan a 36-exp roll, then about 80 min to do the final scan (at 4x). Not sure about B&W or single-pass scanning, as I never did it.

 

[atlcruiser]

I currently use a v700 with great result but i have been looking for a nikon 4000 or 5000 to speed things up. My time on scanning for web use is realy spent in cutting the negs, lay out on the scaner, then sleeving the negs. The nikon would speed all of that up and decrease overall dick around time quite a bit.

If i was me......I would use my v700 then, based on the total estiamted number of rolls I would plan to shoot during my coursework, I would see if I could get a commercial place to cut me a bulk deal with quick turnaround. IE: If I estimated I would shoot 1,000 rolls for the course and I can find a place to low res scan at $4 per roll my investement would be $4,000 in scanning. Then I would compare that to the cost of the scanner with my time factored in as well.

 

[thegman]

I use a V700, mostly for 120, but I've used it for 35mm too. It can scan something like 24 frames at a time in batch mode. Quality is only so-so compared to a dedicated scanner though. If you're wanting to scan 4 rolls a day, I'd be looking at something with a roll adaptor though. For web-only use though, you don't need to worry about picture quality too much.

I've never used it, but you could check out Microtek M1/F1 scanners too.