froyd
Veteran
Precision Camera and NCPS scan my 120 and do a great job. I shoot low volume of MF, so the expense and the wait do not trouble me.
However, for 35mm, I rely on Costco's Frontier machine and that sweet $4.99 price tag for development and scans.
Until recently, this set up worked well. Costco is litterally behind my office, and the lab manager is the treasurer of our local photo club, and a fan of film, so the results were always as good as I had a right to expect for the price, let alone of having 36 frames scanned in one hour of THEIR time, not mine.
Unfortunately, something has changed, and the results from Costco have become disappointing. They claim no changes were made to the scan settings, but my files are now way over sharpened and exposure is iffier than what it seems it should be looking at the negs.
...so, I'm coming to a fork in the road and I'm trying to stick to the film camp a little longer, as opposed to ditching my cameras and going to digital.
I require 35mm scans that can be printed occasionally up to 11x14 (27.9 x 35.6cm) and more regularly up to 8x10 on an Epson R3000 inkjet. For this reason I've ruled out most of the flatbeds.
My thinking is that if I discover I like scanning --is such a thing even possible?-- I can easily pick up a cheap v500 for exclusive MF use and quick 35mm proofs.
Here are my questions:
1) What are the recommended negative scanners below $300? I am assuming the Plustek or Pacific Image will top the recommendation list, but should I look at anything else?
2) How long can I expect to spend scanning a 24 exposure roll on a manual-feed scanner if I'm trying to obtain images 3000px wide?
3) Is it reasonable to expect an improvement in my files vs Costco not because the equipment is better but because the operator --me-- will take greater care to ensure the settings are tailored to each specific image as needed? For instance will I be able to recover shadow detail on a thin negative if I put extra care in the effort?
Thanks in advance for the guidance.
However, for 35mm, I rely on Costco's Frontier machine and that sweet $4.99 price tag for development and scans.
Until recently, this set up worked well. Costco is litterally behind my office, and the lab manager is the treasurer of our local photo club, and a fan of film, so the results were always as good as I had a right to expect for the price, let alone of having 36 frames scanned in one hour of THEIR time, not mine.
Unfortunately, something has changed, and the results from Costco have become disappointing. They claim no changes were made to the scan settings, but my files are now way over sharpened and exposure is iffier than what it seems it should be looking at the negs.
...so, I'm coming to a fork in the road and I'm trying to stick to the film camp a little longer, as opposed to ditching my cameras and going to digital.
I require 35mm scans that can be printed occasionally up to 11x14 (27.9 x 35.6cm) and more regularly up to 8x10 on an Epson R3000 inkjet. For this reason I've ruled out most of the flatbeds.
My thinking is that if I discover I like scanning --is such a thing even possible?-- I can easily pick up a cheap v500 for exclusive MF use and quick 35mm proofs.
Here are my questions:
1) What are the recommended negative scanners below $300? I am assuming the Plustek or Pacific Image will top the recommendation list, but should I look at anything else?
2) How long can I expect to spend scanning a 24 exposure roll on a manual-feed scanner if I'm trying to obtain images 3000px wide?
3) Is it reasonable to expect an improvement in my files vs Costco not because the equipment is better but because the operator --me-- will take greater care to ensure the settings are tailored to each specific image as needed? For instance will I be able to recover shadow detail on a thin negative if I put extra care in the effort?
Thanks in advance for the guidance.
Michalm
Well-known
If my coolscan broke i would go for http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/636054-REG/Pacific_Image_PF7250U_PF7250U_35mm_Film.html or http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...7250PRO3_PrimeFilm_7250Pro3_Film_Scanner.html
you can purchase silverfast se plus 8 to be able use multiexposure for more shadow details and better colour control.
Here is good website with detailed reviews http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaRPS7200.html
Conclusion is that first scanner has better density range and second better resolution . I would give up plusteks due to huge files they generate while effective resolution is no better than pf7250u and density range is lower + there is no ICE build in.
Look here for good samples http://www.flickr.com/photos/9898809@N08/sets/72157624296957728/ Scans here look quite similar to my coolscan v , very nice to my eye.
you can purchase silverfast se plus 8 to be able use multiexposure for more shadow details and better colour control.
Here is good website with detailed reviews http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaRPS7200.html
Conclusion is that first scanner has better density range and second better resolution . I would give up plusteks due to huge files they generate while effective resolution is no better than pf7250u and density range is lower + there is no ICE build in.
Look here for good samples http://www.flickr.com/photos/9898809@N08/sets/72157624296957728/ Scans here look quite similar to my coolscan v , very nice to my eye.
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
I wouldn't rule out an Epson, specifically a v700 (the newer v750 might be too pricy for you, I'm not sure).
I'm always pleased with the quality, sharpness and ease of use. I have Silverfast but never use it because, for me, the built in Epson software works well -- I make a scan that I then tweak in Photoshop.
Works very well for me and a great price, too. My 2 cents...
I'm always pleased with the quality, sharpness and ease of use. I have Silverfast but never use it because, for me, the built in Epson software works well -- I make a scan that I then tweak in Photoshop.
Works very well for me and a great price, too. My 2 cents...
kuzano
Veteran
Interestingly and for a flatbed doing only 35mm
Interestingly and for a flatbed doing only 35mm
I have had some excellent results with an old Epson 2450. Now that may sound a bit crazy, but I have purchased new, over time, Epson V500. In both cases I sold them because they could not deliver better scans than the old 2450 running the Epson Scan OEM software.
I know another person who also has had a similar experience and is using an older flatbed that will only do 35mm. I think his was an Epson 1680??
Interestingly and for a flatbed doing only 35mm
I have had some excellent results with an old Epson 2450. Now that may sound a bit crazy, but I have purchased new, over time, Epson V500. In both cases I sold them because they could not deliver better scans than the old 2450 running the Epson Scan OEM software.
I know another person who also has had a similar experience and is using an older flatbed that will only do 35mm. I think his was an Epson 1680??
mfogiel
Veteran
You have not specified if you shoot B&W or colour. For colour scans, a dedicated high quality scanner would be better, for B&W the Dmax and colour fidelity are not such a critical element.
I think, you simply have to decide if you like film enough. A good quality scanner for both 35mm and MF, with reasonable speed of operation will cost you at least 2000 USD, which is 400 rolls that you do not pay for. The advantage is, that once you learn how to do it, you will get much better quality than what you do now. If I were you, I would simply take a decision one way or another: either a good scanner and possibility to enjoy all the great and cheap film cameras you can buy for peanuts nowadays, or going digital.
For me, the deal breaker is B&W, as long as I like the look of B&W film output better than digital, I will stick to film.
I think, you simply have to decide if you like film enough. A good quality scanner for both 35mm and MF, with reasonable speed of operation will cost you at least 2000 USD, which is 400 rolls that you do not pay for. The advantage is, that once you learn how to do it, you will get much better quality than what you do now. If I were you, I would simply take a decision one way or another: either a good scanner and possibility to enjoy all the great and cheap film cameras you can buy for peanuts nowadays, or going digital.
For me, the deal breaker is B&W, as long as I like the look of B&W film output better than digital, I will stick to film.
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
Those scanners look pretty capable, but the scan times are shockingly slow.
Michalm
Well-known
Well i have just started wet mounting B&W 135 negatives on my coolscan v and i can tell you that really takes time and patience , but quality improvement is worth it . If you need fast workflow you better buy digi cam or outsource your scanning job.
sanmich
Veteran
I'm asking two very different types of jobs from a scanner:
1- give me quickly and as trouble free scans of all images in a large batch of films
2- give me very good scans a few selected negs
right now, with #1 obtained by feeding a full roll into it, my coolscan does both.
if it wasn't for it, I would go the V700 route because it can scan 24 frames per batch, and because I would go nuts to scan 10 or 15 films one frame at a time or even 6 at a time like the CS IV/V.
1- give me quickly and as trouble free scans of all images in a large batch of films
2- give me very good scans a few selected negs
right now, with #1 obtained by feeding a full roll into it, my coolscan does both.
if it wasn't for it, I would go the V700 route because it can scan 24 frames per batch, and because I would go nuts to scan 10 or 15 films one frame at a time or even 6 at a time like the CS IV/V.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
1-
$300 is pretty low for a good negative scanner.
I've been scanning film since the middle 1990s. I had a Polaroid SprintScan 35E/S for a long time, then a Minolta Scan Dual II. I happened upon a nice condition Nikon Coolscan IV while I still had the Minolta, it did a much better job. Then the Minolta broke terminally, and I happened upon a Coolscan V at almost the same time, so I sold the IV to a friend and bought the V. The IV was $325 from KEH when I bought it, the V was $650 from someone on another forum. (Didn't really need the V, the results aren't that different from the IV.)
I had a business relationship with one of the folks bringing in the PrimeFilm scanners once upon a time. They worked, but were pretty awful.
I have an ancient Epson 2450 flat bed scanner, and I had for a while an Epson V700. The V700 is *almost* up to the quality of the Coolscan IV, the 2450 is far behind (but adequate for 6x6 work). I haven't tried a V500 yet.
I'm enthused about and waiting for the release of the Plustek OpticFilm 120 scanner. This could be the solution to both 35mm and 120 film formats for me. It's not cheap.
Look for a good condition Nikon Coolscan IV for 35mm film scanning. Drive it with VueScan. It's a dynamite combination.
2-
3000px wide on the long edge of a 35mm frame is scanning at 2000 pixels per inch (ppi). That's a little low for best quality, but it will do. How long scanning 24 frames will take depends on what scanner you've got and what software you use.
I scan with the Nikon Coolscan V using VueScan and the automated 35mm strip feeder, which can handle strips up to 6 frames long. I scan at 4000 ppi. To scan a strip of six, you need to first preview-scan the strip, then step through the frames and make parameter adjustments for each, then tell VueScan to scan them at the target resolution. Figure about 30 minutes per strip, if you do this efficiently. So a full set of 24 exposures will take you about an hour and a half, end to end.
3-
Scanning, like image processing, is a bit of technology and a bit of art. There's no question that a dedicated person can produce better scans then most volume scanning outfits once you learn how to get what you want out of the scanning process, but that's going to take some time and effort.
G
froyd
Veteran
Unless you tell me otherwise, I'm not convinced the v700 could provide scans from 35mm that can be printed at 11x14 and retain a high enough quality. What I know for sure, is that the v700 is quite a bit more than my $300 budget, even used.
I shoot both, but my BW (in 35mm) is c-41 because Costco could only process c-41. If a scanner proved to be a good alternative, I will happily go back to developing silver BW.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Quick check on ebay showed a few Nikon Coolscan IV units for sale at auction right now, and completed listings showed prices in the $230 to $400 range for recent transactions.
That's the best 35mm film scanner you can get for that money. 2900 ppi scanning on a full frame 35mm neg prints to a 10x15 inch image area at 300 ppi output without interpolation or scaling.
That's the best 35mm film scanner you can get for that money. 2900 ppi scanning on a full frame 35mm neg prints to a 10x15 inch image area at 300 ppi output without interpolation or scaling.
lam
Well-known
I'd search locally on craigslist, I somehow snatched a V700 for $250 locally one morning.. Don't ask me how!
froyd
Veteran
Thanks1 I'll look into it. It certainly was not on my radar screen. Hope it's an USB interface.
Any concerns with longevity of these units?
benlees
Well-known
One great thing about flat beds is you can do digital contact sheets. This may not be important to everyone, but they are pretty handy. Something to keep in mind.
ajvin
Member
I have been using an Epson V500 for about 2 years now and have been very pleased with the results. I have been scanning mostly 35mm but have done some medium format as well. I have seen them selling in Canada for about $170.
T
tedwhite
Guest
I've had very good luck with my Pluatek OpticFilm 7200. Has a negative tray for b/w or color print and a second tray for slides. Mine is several years old and so there are newer (and presumably better?) models available.
froyd
Veteran
Well that's certainly good to hear...thought the scanner is still beyond my price range. Do you use any advanced techniques/equipment, or just the regular Epson holders and software? Do you have any images online that are 3000px wide?
froyd
Veteran
I will probably look at the v500 or v600 if/when I decide scan my 120 negatives, but for 35mm I think I'd be better off with one of the stand-alone 35mm scanners referenced in earlier posts.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Yes, they use USB interfaces. Given proper respect in handling and use, a quality scanner like the Nikon Coolscan IV will last for many years of use. Given excellent third party software to drive them (VueScan and others), they outlast Nikon's interest in revising their software too.
BTW: a negative scanner driven with VueScan (and other software) can easily produce a "digital contact sheet", as can using image processing software (like Lightroom) too. There's no need for a flatbed scanner to produce that kind of thing.
I used my Nikon Coolscan IV for five years, after buying it used, and the guy who bought it from me two years ago is using it today. (I bought my Epson 2450 new when they first came out, probably about 2002 or maybe before; it's still chugging along too.)
JohnTF
Veteran
I thought only the last generation of Coolscans used USB? I have the 4000 which uses Firewire, which is fine with me. It had a card in the box to put Firewire ports on my old computer. When I look at computers, I look for a Firewire port, they do not seem to be that uncommon. Some brands are more in to Firewire than others? Other than convenience, I have not heard that USB offers any great advantage, and it may well be the other way round?
I do not keep up with the technology and the software on these, but from friends who do, they seem to like most of the coolscans, with various software. My more expert friend says if you run Linux you can operate almost any scanner made. Even the early Coolscans gave very good files, much larger than Costco. My tech savy friend has done multiple passes on dense slides or negatives and brought out some very good detail and overall results. I would not know where to start.
I agree that Costco sometimes gives very good results, but it has always been when I could catch a Tech who knew a bit about photography, otherwise I had to get my files in a form that they could easily deal with.
Also, if the OP goes back to traditional B&W films, the scanning is different, No ICE to start with.
Some of the Nikon strip feeders were very easily modified to feed entire rolls, details are on the web, so if you have an uncut roll, you can head off to lunch while the scanner does its thing and saves to the file you set up.
Basically, you are "fooling" the strip feeder to not cut off at six exposures.
The older Coolscans are very good, give excellent results, and if you can get them set up (i.e. you are smarter than I, not a stretch for most) -- personally if I were scanning more film, I would dedicate a desktop with good memory and speed, and find the software to run it. I might even switch it to Linux, as I fear the newer versions of Windows may not recognize much of the older kit out there.
Sorry for the long post-- hope there are some kernels of help in it.
Regards, John