lotech
Member
Hi there,
I am thinking of getting a film scanner, it is fast and easy to use than photographing the film with macro lens. I see that flatbed scanner can produce quite nice result at affordable cost, but what about ordinary photo copier that we used everyday in the office, how good or bad it is on scanning film ?
I am thinking of getting a film scanner, it is fast and easy to use than photographing the film with macro lens. I see that flatbed scanner can produce quite nice result at affordable cost, but what about ordinary photo copier that we used everyday in the office, how good or bad it is on scanning film ?
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
My suggestions - only suggestions. As needs differ and needs must.
You did not specify which film, 35mm or 120 roll.
For 35 I use an old Plustek 7600i. It's sharp and it doesn't play havoc with film contrast, especially slides - but the learning curve can be steep. The manual is detailed, originally written in German, which tells you what you are getting into. Good backup and advice if you need it from Lasersoft but I've not had to contact them for help for a few years, so I'm unsure if they are still as good with help as they were. Few manufacturers are nowadays.
For roll film (120 for me) I use an Epson V600. Results are okay but nothing special. Sharpness is an issue but this can usually be fixed in post processing. 35mm doesn't come out so good on my Epson, but scans from other Epsons may differ, I've been told with this brand it's the luck of the draw.
If I had to buy scanners again I would go with a new Plustek for 35mm. For 120, I doubt I would get Epson again, which leaves open the question, what tobuy? Still unsure, but my V600 goes on and on working, so for now it isn't a worry.
Standard office photocopiers, forget them. Good for copying workplace and executive verbiage and some graphics, but that's it.
You did not specify which film, 35mm or 120 roll.
For 35 I use an old Plustek 7600i. It's sharp and it doesn't play havoc with film contrast, especially slides - but the learning curve can be steep. The manual is detailed, originally written in German, which tells you what you are getting into. Good backup and advice if you need it from Lasersoft but I've not had to contact them for help for a few years, so I'm unsure if they are still as good with help as they were. Few manufacturers are nowadays.
For roll film (120 for me) I use an Epson V600. Results are okay but nothing special. Sharpness is an issue but this can usually be fixed in post processing. 35mm doesn't come out so good on my Epson, but scans from other Epsons may differ, I've been told with this brand it's the luck of the draw.
If I had to buy scanners again I would go with a new Plustek for 35mm. For 120, I doubt I would get Epson again, which leaves open the question, what tobuy? Still unsure, but my V600 goes on and on working, so for now it isn't a worry.
Standard office photocopiers, forget them. Good for copying workplace and executive verbiage and some graphics, but that's it.
Last edited:
lotech
Member
Right, got it !
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
There are many threads here dedicated to films scanning tips and techniques. I guess like @DownUnder expressed, it depends on film size and what results you are looking for.
Going by your handle @lotech, I'll show you some of my lo-tech techniques:
>> This one is from an old 118 size negative using an old iPad and iPhone11: <<
rangefinderforum.com
For something down and dirty, this is my poor man's scanning workflow for now:
Lay negative on old iPad 4 as light table (Pages app set to blank white page) -> iPhone 11 scan/snapshot -> upload to iMac Retina 5K and use Photos app to invert/adjust
Kodak 118 negative (3 1/4" x 4 1/4") my Dad took of my sister and cousin's later 50's - Kodak No. 3 Folding Hawk-eye Model 9 w/Bausch & Lomb Rapid Rectilinear Lens:
>> And this one is from using a small light table (Huion LED Light Box) and iPhone then convert/process in macOS Photos app <<
rangefinderforum.com
Going by your handle @lotech, I'll show you some of my lo-tech techniques:
>> This one is from an old 118 size negative using an old iPad and iPhone11: <<
Digital Camera For Film Scanning
I'd like to set up something for film scanning but I don't currently own a digital camera that would be well suited for it. Anyone have a recommendation for an inexpensive, likely used, digital camera and lens that will spend most of it's life scanning film? Recommendations for the rest of the...
rangefinderforum.com
Lay negative on old iPad 4 as light table (Pages app set to blank white page) -> iPhone 11 scan/snapshot -> upload to iMac Retina 5K and use Photos app to invert/adjust
Kodak 118 negative (3 1/4" x 4 1/4") my Dad took of my sister and cousin's later 50's - Kodak No. 3 Folding Hawk-eye Model 9 w/Bausch & Lomb Rapid Rectilinear Lens:
>> And this one is from using a small light table (Huion LED Light Box) and iPhone then convert/process in macOS Photos app <<
What have you just BOUGHT?
Could I get comments on this camera? https://shopgoodwill.com/item/185707563 It looks like it's been well cared for, but that could also mean sitting neglected on a shelf for decades. Probably factor in a CLA for both lens and body. I'm always suspicious when a simple mechanical camera is...
rangefinderforum.com
lotech
Member
That's really not bad as a low budget scanning option !
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
I have an old canon canonscan 9000f and I use an old laptop with Windows 7 to scan images. No current drivers for it. It is good enough for what I need it and scans slides, 35mm and medium format. Setting it to 38000 dpi is pushing its limits a bit but I only post pics online so I am happy. The scangear software that came with it is very fiddly and sometimes gets the contrast completely wrong. I edit the images on GIMP.
I am using it for almost 15 years now so I got used to it but if it breaks I will get a similar specs Epson.
I am using it for almost 15 years now so I got used to it but if it breaks I will get a similar specs Epson.
kiemchacsu
Well-known
I used to use a Nikon Coolsca 400 ED to scan my films;
but nowadays, just using DSLR with a DIY holder, link below:
much faster ans super results
but nowadays, just using DSLR with a DIY holder, link below:
much faster ans super results
shawn
Veteran
I had a Coolscan 8000. It was *dramatically* slower than scanning with a camera. I don’t have exact times but for 6x9 in highest quality was provably 45 or 60 minutes a frame. It was also more difficult in setting the start point of the scan. The coolscan was limited to 6x9 scan size so you couldn’t really scan longer and crop down.
I shoot 6x12, 6x17 and 6x24 now. Trying to scan one frame of that in the Nikon would have taken forever to do the multiple scans and stitching. I can handle the entire roll with my camera scanning rig in a couple of minutes.
Last edited:
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I owned and used a Canoscan for a long, long time. Started on the 8800f, then picked up a 9000f.
I honestly wouldn't recommend anyone buy one today. For 35mm, the Plustek blows it out of the water. For 120, go straight to camera scanning.
I dug it out two years ago to scan some 6x6 negs because I hadn't got a camera scanning rig sorted yet. The quality was laughable; I was getting more detail out of a 35mm scan with a Plustek than I was out of a 120 scan with the Canoscan. I eventually set up the most basic camera scanning setup possible and saw immediate improvement.
Here's the full frames, Canoscan first:
And here's some tighter crops of the skater, just in case it's not obvious - again, Canoscan first:
It's not a great shot for testing sharpness (a bit too much movement), and I'm not using the most fancy camera scanning setup - no 3D printed shrouds/mounts, not extra strong copy stands. All I'm using is a Leitz BOOWU, a coated 50mm f/3.5 Elmar, and a cheap light box from Amazon. This comparison was done with an X-Pro 2, but I've since found an M240 gives better results edge-to-edge with the exact same lens and setup, for some reason. But the BOOWU cost me £29, the lightbox cost me £40 (and I can use it for other things), and I already owned the rest of the kit. Assuming you already own an LTM 50mm and a digital body of some form, you'd struggle to get a working Canoscan for less.
I honestly wouldn't recommend anyone buy one today. For 35mm, the Plustek blows it out of the water. For 120, go straight to camera scanning.
I dug it out two years ago to scan some 6x6 negs because I hadn't got a camera scanning rig sorted yet. The quality was laughable; I was getting more detail out of a 35mm scan with a Plustek than I was out of a 120 scan with the Canoscan. I eventually set up the most basic camera scanning setup possible and saw immediate improvement.
Here's the full frames, Canoscan first:
And here's some tighter crops of the skater, just in case it's not obvious - again, Canoscan first:
It's not a great shot for testing sharpness (a bit too much movement), and I'm not using the most fancy camera scanning setup - no 3D printed shrouds/mounts, not extra strong copy stands. All I'm using is a Leitz BOOWU, a coated 50mm f/3.5 Elmar, and a cheap light box from Amazon. This comparison was done with an X-Pro 2, but I've since found an M240 gives better results edge-to-edge with the exact same lens and setup, for some reason. But the BOOWU cost me £29, the lightbox cost me £40 (and I can use it for other things), and I already owned the rest of the kit. Assuming you already own an LTM 50mm and a digital body of some form, you'd struggle to get a working Canoscan for less.
JeffS7444
Well-known
The office copiers that I've used were designed to scan paper, not transparent media like film.
I've tried camera scanning, and it works fine, but if you've got a lot of scanning to do, it can be labor-intensive.
I do most of my scanning with an Epson V700 Photo, which can batch-scan while I do other things.
I've tried camera scanning, and it works fine, but if you've got a lot of scanning to do, it can be labor-intensive.
I do most of my scanning with an Epson V700 Photo, which can batch-scan while I do other things.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I have been scanning film since 1994 using everything from flatbed scanners with transparency scanning capability to dedicated film scanners, to camera copy set ups. And using film sizes from Minox submini (8x11mm) to 6x9cm. All can work well, and each type of scanning methodology has its advantages and disadvantages.
I still have an Epson 2450 flatbed scanner and a Nikon CoolScan V. Both work well, but both are quite slow to scan at high resolution. I drive them with VueScan software ... much more capable (and compatible with current computer systems) than any of the supplied apps from Epson and Nikon albeit a bit more complex to learn and get the most out of.
Most of my scanning nowadays is 35mm full-frame and 120 format in 6x4.5 and 6x6 formats. I use a Novoflex copy stand to hold the camera apparatus and an Essential Film Holder to properly hold and guide the film over a small LED light box. The camera I use varies between a Leica M10-R, a Leica M10 Monochrom, and a Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c. With the Leicas, I use either of a Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm f/2.8 (with and without Macro-Adapter tube and/or 2x teleconverter) and a Leitz Focusing Bellows-R with either Macro-Elmar 100/4, Macro-Elmarit-R 60/2.8, or Summicron-R 50mm f/2 lenses depending upon what exactly I am trying to capture. With the Hasselblad, I use a set of extension tubes and a Makro-Planar 120mm f/4 ... again, depending upon what exactly I am trying to capture.
The M10-M has the best dynamic range and detailing for capturing B&W negatives. The Hasselblad and the M10-R compete on dynamic range and detailing ... the Hassy sensor has more dynamic range, the M10-R sensor nets slightly more detailing. All three out-perform both of my film scanners and are far faster to work with. The real difference in working productivity is how much time and care you put into doing the configuration setup with the camera copy techniques, and how many negatives you are copying in a session: the film scanners are faster to setup and the software you drive them with nets positives more quickly in low volume sessions, while the camera copy setups take time to set up correctly but can then capture far more negatives per hour of working time ... with the proviso that you then need to invert and tonal/color balance everything which takes additional time.
It can all work brilliantly, or it can all produce mediocre results, depending on how much effort you put in to learn how to get what you want and how consistently/rigorously you practice with and proof the setup. Scanning film is not a trivial exercise if you're looking for best quality.
Good luck with your efforts!
G
If you want to see examples of my work, I have a body of photos spanning almost 20 years and over 7000 items on my flickr site:
Godfrey DiGiorgi’s albums | Flickr
There are a couple of albums which focus on scanning, but I usually don't segregate out scanned photos from digital capture photos, but I do try to list "tech info" with most photos so you can see what made them.
I still have an Epson 2450 flatbed scanner and a Nikon CoolScan V. Both work well, but both are quite slow to scan at high resolution. I drive them with VueScan software ... much more capable (and compatible with current computer systems) than any of the supplied apps from Epson and Nikon albeit a bit more complex to learn and get the most out of.
Most of my scanning nowadays is 35mm full-frame and 120 format in 6x4.5 and 6x6 formats. I use a Novoflex copy stand to hold the camera apparatus and an Essential Film Holder to properly hold and guide the film over a small LED light box. The camera I use varies between a Leica M10-R, a Leica M10 Monochrom, and a Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c. With the Leicas, I use either of a Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm f/2.8 (with and without Macro-Adapter tube and/or 2x teleconverter) and a Leitz Focusing Bellows-R with either Macro-Elmar 100/4, Macro-Elmarit-R 60/2.8, or Summicron-R 50mm f/2 lenses depending upon what exactly I am trying to capture. With the Hasselblad, I use a set of extension tubes and a Makro-Planar 120mm f/4 ... again, depending upon what exactly I am trying to capture.
The M10-M has the best dynamic range and detailing for capturing B&W negatives. The Hasselblad and the M10-R compete on dynamic range and detailing ... the Hassy sensor has more dynamic range, the M10-R sensor nets slightly more detailing. All three out-perform both of my film scanners and are far faster to work with. The real difference in working productivity is how much time and care you put into doing the configuration setup with the camera copy techniques, and how many negatives you are copying in a session: the film scanners are faster to setup and the software you drive them with nets positives more quickly in low volume sessions, while the camera copy setups take time to set up correctly but can then capture far more negatives per hour of working time ... with the proviso that you then need to invert and tonal/color balance everything which takes additional time.
It can all work brilliantly, or it can all produce mediocre results, depending on how much effort you put in to learn how to get what you want and how consistently/rigorously you practice with and proof the setup. Scanning film is not a trivial exercise if you're looking for best quality.
Good luck with your efforts!
G
If you want to see examples of my work, I have a body of photos spanning almost 20 years and over 7000 items on my flickr site:
Godfrey DiGiorgi’s albums | Flickr
There are a couple of albums which focus on scanning, but I usually don't segregate out scanned photos from digital capture photos, but I do try to list "tech info" with most photos so you can see what made them.
Horatio
Masked photographer
I’m using a V600 and it’s ok for 35mm and good for 120. I must have lucked into a good one! I want to try DSLR sometime this year. This was from a 35mm scan.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
I've come to the conclusion that if you want quality results from film you should develop and print your own. I've tried the methods mentioned above with a few different scanners, plustex, nikon, epson as well as having the lab do their "premium" scans and none satisfied me. I don't have the facilities to do my own so I am pretty much going to have to abandon film as a way to make pictures. I have several film cameras that I would like to use but the results with my Lab developed and home scanned just don't satisfy me.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Color ... I don't get into it with film anymore at all. Digital capture does that better for me.
B&W ... I've *always* processed my own film, gave up on darkroom processing for scanning almost 30 years ago. I find it much more flexible and get better quality. Processing the film: a little box with a tank, some graduates, and a bit of chemistry is all that's needed. The key to it is to develop a methodology and practice, practice, practice....
G
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
I even had the lab make prints for me and their results equaled my efforts. I've tried different labs as recommended by folks and the results are the same. Oddly one of the more satisfying films to shoot and self scan seems to be the 100 and 400 Kentmire films. It's always nice to have an inexpensive item be more satisfying than the high dollar spread.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
OK, lab scans, I was thinking The Darkroom in San Clemente. Any experience with them? I just want to send it in and get negatives and scans back.
Alpsman
Well-known
I think I'm scanning film since around 1995 - or so - who knows?
At the end, at home I've used for a long time a Microtec Artix 4000 (similar to Polaroid Sprintscan) and a Nikon 9000.
Ah yes, meanwhile there are some backdrafts. The Microtec communicate with a SCSI connection and the Nikon via a firewire. And the Scan software needs some older software, the Nikon likes it with Windows XP or Win7.
But I also use older cameras so why not . . .
The quality of both scanners is - extraordinary - and let me forget that they need some older software.
If ya ever used one of these scanners, ya'll throw the rest out of the window.
At the end, at home I've used for a long time a Microtec Artix 4000 (similar to Polaroid Sprintscan) and a Nikon 9000.
Ah yes, meanwhile there are some backdrafts. The Microtec communicate with a SCSI connection and the Nikon via a firewire. And the Scan software needs some older software, the Nikon likes it with Windows XP or Win7.
But I also use older cameras so why not . . .
The quality of both scanners is - extraordinary - and let me forget that they need some older software.
If ya ever used one of these scanners, ya'll throw the rest out of the window.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
This looks like a good and affordable solution. I just have to see if this fellow will ship to the US.
kiemchacsu
Well-known
I design and promote it. however only selling the Rig locally (Vietnam). Sorry!
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
What I have seen here and on Instagram this seems like a clever and practical solution to film scanning. I am pretty sure that there are folks on the board who would be interested in buying your device and even more folks in the US in general. What would it take to encourage you to export this?? I can tell you I sure would buy one.
And if you sell some here you will have a base of satisfied customers in the US. This can help you build your business. Give it some thought. Sip a Ca Phe Sua Da and then say "yes." ;o)