cwatgo1970
Member
In the past I've always managed to get bye with scanning prints (rather than actual negatives) with my (now ancient relic) Epson RX500. This worked well for me while I had a funtional darkroom, but after moving a year ago, I have yet been able to set up a new darkroom and now need a better scanner.
I sort of get chills at the thought of asking about a scanner because it seems (on what I've read in other post on photo.net) they often become a pissing match between high end and low end models, when the OP had made it clear he was limited budgetwise. I'm not asking for what are the BEST scanners on the market, otherwise I would definately OPT for a Nikon Coolscan, (models V and up). Unfortunately, I have to steer clear of them for now as they are currently not within my capital range due to some current and lengthy home improvement :bang: projects I've entailed. Please when making any suggestions, take note of the following.
1.) I can spend comfortably $300 but no more than a stretched $400.00.
2.) I do not seek to make prints from my scanned negs. I mainly want to scan them for viewing/editing on the computer and posting on the web.
3.) I have plenty of photo editing software, PS 6.0, Silver Efex Pro, and Lightroom. Should any of these tools make a difference with weaknesses of various low end scanner models.
4.) I often shoot 1600 ISO 135 films for the grain and would prefer a scanner that can effectively KEEP the grains without polishing them automatically, as seems to be reported of Plustek scanners?.
5.) I mainly wish to scan 135, B&W, E-6, and K-14 films.
7.) I'm can tolerate slow scanner speeds if they will give a good scan.
8.) CurrentlyContemplating the following scanners: Most Plustek Models, (vintage) Konica Minolta Models, Epson V500, V700, and the Pacific Image 3650.
I almost posted a winning bid towards a new in box Konica Minolta Scan Dual IV, until I read this review posted only 4 days ago on flickr:
The above is proof why it pays to ask. I do appreciate those of you who have taken the time to read this and would even more appreciate your suggestions and input. Perhaps you can help break this maddening spin-cycle of indecisivness.
Kind regards,
Charles
I sort of get chills at the thought of asking about a scanner because it seems (on what I've read in other post on photo.net) they often become a pissing match between high end and low end models, when the OP had made it clear he was limited budgetwise. I'm not asking for what are the BEST scanners on the market, otherwise I would definately OPT for a Nikon Coolscan, (models V and up). Unfortunately, I have to steer clear of them for now as they are currently not within my capital range due to some current and lengthy home improvement :bang: projects I've entailed. Please when making any suggestions, take note of the following.
1.) I can spend comfortably $300 but no more than a stretched $400.00.
2.) I do not seek to make prints from my scanned negs. I mainly want to scan them for viewing/editing on the computer and posting on the web.
3.) I have plenty of photo editing software, PS 6.0, Silver Efex Pro, and Lightroom. Should any of these tools make a difference with weaknesses of various low end scanner models.
4.) I often shoot 1600 ISO 135 films for the grain and would prefer a scanner that can effectively KEEP the grains without polishing them automatically, as seems to be reported of Plustek scanners?.
5.) I mainly wish to scan 135, B&W, E-6, and K-14 films.
7.) I'm can tolerate slow scanner speeds if they will give a good scan.
8.) CurrentlyContemplating the following scanners: Most Plustek Models, (vintage) Konica Minolta Models, Epson V500, V700, and the Pacific Image 3650.
I almost posted a winning bid towards a new in box Konica Minolta Scan Dual IV, until I read this review posted only 4 days ago on flickr:
The above is proof why it pays to ask. I do appreciate those of you who have taken the time to read this and would even more appreciate your suggestions and input. Perhaps you can help break this maddening spin-cycle of indecisivness.
Kind regards,
Charles
Last edited:
jwhitley
Established
A gently used Epson 4990 should meet your needs admirably in terms of price, performance, and quality. These are well regarded film flatbed scanners; this model is a well-regarded predecessor to the current V700/V750 models. A quick completed search on ebay shows that the 4990's are selling neatly within your budget.
Last edited:
spiderfrank
just a dreamer
I'm happy with my Epson V500: led technology, a great definition, very effective anti-dust system ( called ICE ), and "respect" for the film grain
Franco
Franco
maddoc
... likes film again.
For sure you will get many - and very different - answers to your question but if you are on a budget (and don't plan to print) I would suggest buying one of the Epson flat-bed scanner(s). From my experience, the Epson V700 delivers sufficient quality for this purpose. The only problem with this scanner (and maybe the V500, too) is that the genuine film-holder for 135 don't work well with bent film... Getting glass inserts seems to be a must otherwise the results might get very disappointing.
mh2000
Well-known
I would get one of the older Minolta Scandual models (II or III)... as they are usually much under $100 used and will kill the flatbeds in sharpness and overall quality. There is no way I would use my Epson 4990 for 35mm negatives... even for 6x9 MF I wish it was better... though, for my budget it works ok enough for this and LF so I keep it (yeah, my Coolscan V smokes it, but honestly, my old Minolta Scandual II was close enough to the Coolscan that I have not bothered going back to rescan my old work with the newer scanner... prints look great from either).
A Scan Dual II gives me prints that meet or beat my old wet lab prints... my 4990 could never deliver that from a 35mm negative.
A Scan Dual II gives me prints that meet or beat my old wet lab prints... my 4990 could never deliver that from a 35mm negative.
Bassism
Well-known
I'll put in another vote for the Epson flatbeds. I use a 2450 that I picked up for about 40 bucks. I haven't tried to print from it, but it has served me well for on computer viewing. Furthermore, it is kind to grain. I imagine that the results with a newer Epson flatbed can only be better.
An older film scanner may well give you better results, but if you see yourself ever wanting to scan a print or MF, then the flatbed will be more versatile.
An older film scanner may well give you better results, but if you see yourself ever wanting to scan a print or MF, then the flatbed will be more versatile.
R
ruben
Guest
Hi Charles,
I am not surprised at all about your sharp first post, due to my opinion about our neighbour forum. But you can rest, you have arrived at friendly lands.
Now as for scanners, I think your budget may fit a used scanner I own and bought new many years ago: Epson 2450, which I do not know where it ranks in the updated chain of scanners food.
But I do know it is very versatile. It is a sort of hybrid combination between flatbed and film, with special inserts for most film sizes.
The bad news is that for 135mm film, the inserts get up to twelve frames per row, and when you go this way the scanner is stubborn at cropping too much of each frame. Not due to the plastic insert, but rather due either to the scanner or other issue in my computer.
The good news is that there is a luxurious way to overcome this problem by scanning each frame by its own, within the refered insert. It is "luxurious" in the sense that the quick preview image is of honourable size and can be cropped too for further versatility.
Of course that scanning several rolls this way, previewing frame by frame, will take its time, according to your hardware.
Fine.
Kindly let me offer you two links. The first is about scanning in general, which may be usefull to scan fast with whatever you have:
http://www.scantips.com/
The second deals with very interesting upgraded inserts, to be used with several film scanners:
http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/mainintro.html
Best.
Ruben
Prosaic
Well-known
Buy a Coolscan. Flatbeds are all worse in speed, resolution, handling.
maddoc
... likes film again.
A Coolscan superior in speed ... ?
A Coolscan V (which I used before) gives slightly better results when using in multi-scan mode (4x or better 8x) but then I can't see any advantage in speed ...Tuolumne
Veteran
Another vote for the Epson 4990. I am very happy with mine and use it for 35mm all the time. Seems experiences with flatbeds are quite varied. I don't know why. I really like mine.
/T
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
If money is tight why not get the negatives scanned at a photo lab?
Blank288
Established
Another vote for an old Minolta Scan Dual-II ((AF-2820U).
I got mine for free, so I don't complain about a few minor quirks and low scanning speed.
For 135-film it is definitely better than my (jus as outdated) Epson 3200 Photo flatbed scanner which I occasionally use for MF.
VueScan software can pull most out of the negs.
Some low-resolution results on my weblog.
I got mine for free, so I don't complain about a few minor quirks and low scanning speed.
For 135-film it is definitely better than my (jus as outdated) Epson 3200 Photo flatbed scanner which I occasionally use for MF.
VueScan software can pull most out of the negs.
Some low-resolution results on my weblog.
oftheherd
Veteran
Given that you only want to post on the web, I think any low cost scanner of any type you find will suit you. Somebody who remembers can post the max dpi for web viewing, but it is smaller than usually expected.
But given some of the figures posted above you might want to get the best you can in case you change your mind about making prints.
But given some of the figures posted above you might want to get the best you can in case you change your mind about making prints.
dfoo
Well-known
A Coolscan superior in speed ... ?
A coolscan 5000 compared with a flatbed scanner is very very fast. At any rate, given that the original poster said he cannot afford a coolscan, its a moot point.
Get a v700, or if you can't afford that a v500.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I agree, the Epsons sound perfect for your needs. They do preserve the grain. If you really get into scanning film and someday wish to actually print from scans, you can save up for the 5000ED. But the V500 does a great job!
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
I had an Epson 4990 before I got a Coolscan V. I had always tjhought it a fine scanner. But. Some negatives that had excessive curl or would not lie flat ended in portraits that reminded my of El Greco's work - long and thin, when I later compared it to the Coolscan. I would look for a used Coolscan V if I were you.
venchka
Veteran
I can cast 2 votes for the Epson 4990: Mine & the owner's vote. Until last Monday I had been using a friend's 4990. Perfectly acceptable scanner.
I'm casting a third vote the Epson 1680 with transparency unit that I got last Monday. See my "Epson 1680-First Impressions" thread on this forum.
ps: Betterscanning holders will improve ANY Epson scanner.
I'm casting a third vote the Epson 1680 with transparency unit that I got last Monday. See my "Epson 1680-First Impressions" thread on this forum.
ps: Betterscanning holders will improve ANY Epson scanner.
Last edited:
mh2000
Well-known
very different expectations. *I* personally am after fine art quality prints that will rival traditional prints. You will not get this from a flatbed IMO. I agree that you need both a flatbed (for prints etc.) anyway, so might as well get both. I bought the 2450 new (for almost $500 new!) and then immediately bought a Minolta for 35mm. My 4990 does just as good as any review site shows... If you are giving up a traditional darkroom most people want more than just being able to post to the web and view images on the computer.
Svitantti
Well-known
Scan Dual IV is a great scanner and quite fast and works great. Nothing wrong with one unless it is broken.
Also, beats any Plustek and the former Plusteks easily.
Also, beats any Plustek and the former Plusteks easily.
Last edited:
