Getting your Negatives in Digital Format

[ShawnRead]

Hey Everyone,

I'm a new Canonet owner, and so far I love the camer - I've shot four rolls this week. The expense and difficulty of developing and getting my shots into the computer are a bit depressing so far, however. Developing is expensive here ( I live in Japan) and photo CDs from the camera store seem to be relatively low-rez and have pretty poor color compared to the prints. Any advice? Do you scan your own negatives? If you do, is there a decent CHEAP film scanner you could recommend? Thanks!

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Minilab type stores can do HIRES scans but you have to ask specially and make sure they understand. Mine come back about 3,000 x 2,000px which is fine for printing up to about A4.

 

[rogue_designer]

"Cheap" is not as useful as an idea of budget. Is $500 cheap? To me, when comparing with $1k or higher for a scanner of equivalent quality, it is... but may still be considered expensive to your budget.

That said - the Nikon film scanners perform very well indeed for their price. And if you are not planning on scanning every single shot, are reasonably fast as well.

 

[iñaki]

I do my own scans (maybe most people here) Some use dedicated film scanners (better but more expensive) and others (like me) use flatbed scanners to scan the negs. I use the Epson 4490 and I like it. If you are planning to print the results from the scan, a dedicated negative scanner might be better for you.

Edit: agree with Rogue_designer about "Budget"

 

[sooner]

I picked up a new but relatively older Minolta Scan Elite II dedicated film scanner this summer for $360, which was slightly pricey but worth it to me for other reasons not important here. I paid $60 more than the Dual Scan IV but got ICE3 with it. My recommendation is to get ICE, it works miraculously and saves you lots of time trying to get rid of specks and dirt using PS. And of course I'm very happy with the scans.

 

[Letien]

I do my own scans (maybe most people here) Some use dedicated film scanners (better but more expensive) and others (like me) use flatbed scanners to scan the negs. I use the Epson 4490 and I like it. If you are planning to print the results from the scan, a dedicated negative scanner might be better for you.

Edit: agree with Rogue_designer about "Budget"

I also has a Epson 4490 but I have been disappointed. I see your gallery is mostly B&W and it look so good. Do you scan color with this? Can you give me some tips on the setting? I have been using professional scan mode.
Thanks

 

[rogue_designer]

...I paid $60 more than the Dual Scan IV but got ICE3 with it. My recommendation is to get ICE, it works miraculously and saves you lots of time trying to get rid of specks and dirt using PS. ...

I was under the impression that ICE didn't work very well with black and white film at all... have you had any issues to speak of?

 

[iñaki]

Hello Letien and welcome to RFF

First, I´m just a begginer and if you make a search in PS-darkroom forum here in RFF you will find better advise, I did it and made my own way (not better).

I use the 4490 mostly with b&w and with the included software. Vuescan and silverfast are said to be better, but I haven´t try them yet.

I scan them with the proffesional mode at 3200 ppp, monocrome neg, 16 bit grey and without any masc, and import the images to PS. In PS I select View/adjust test/RGB monitor, to see the imported image the same way I will see it in the web or in my own screen. Then I adjust levels (image/adjust/levels), clone defects (ICE doesnt work with I6 b&w) and save in TIFF (my digital archive). For the web and my screen I resize them in PS (800X500 pixel for RFF 1280 pixel wide for my screen), and aply unsharp mask (85 to 100/0,5/1 levels aprox) and finally save for the web (PS).

Colour is more difficult for me and maybe I should try another software. My colour images in the gallery are scaned with the 4490 too. I do it the same way (with 48 bit color). You can correct the color when adjusting the levels, try it.

I hope you understand me, I can understand english but writting is harder :bang:

 

[Letien]

Iñaki,

Thank you for the valuable tips. Specially the unsharp mask setting. That the most confused thing to me.
Letien

 

[ShawnRead]

Budget

Budget

Hey Guys, thanks for the input. I guess I should have specified my budget. I'm interested in the cheapest possible scanner that would still deliver decent results - something at $300 or less is what I'm hoping for.

 

[mjflory]

Shawn, I had a similar need and budget, and I picked up a Nikon Coolscan LS-2000 on eBay for about $200 with good results. Two things to watch out for, though: first, the earlier Coolscans are SCSI units, so you need a SCSI card for your computer (I use an Adaptec 2940U, a common card). Second, the Nikons have a tendency to accumulate dust and grime on a somewhat exposed internal mirror. I didn't need to clean the LS-2000, but I have cleaned a similarly constructed LS-4000 using instructions posted here and there on the web. The procedure took a couple of hours and was less awful than I expected, but I'm comfortable disassembling things... you may not want to. (I don't have the links at hand, sorry, but I should be able to find them if you need them.)
Good luck, Michael

 

[ShawnRead]

Flatbeds, anyone?

Flatbeds, anyone?

Michael, thanks for the advice on the nikon coolscan, I'll keep my eyes open for one. I live in Japan, and auctions are a bit more of a hassle than they would be if my Japanese were better, but I may see one. Does anyone use a flatbed, it seems that there are quite a few canons in the $200 range that have adaptors that allow for decent negative scanning. Are most people here of the opinion that dedicated negative scanners are still much better than flatbeds? It seems that in my price range I don't have much choice unless I find a decent used film scanner. Thanks!