ymc226
Well-known
I've only done wet darkroom work. B&W print film only, 80% 35mm, 20% 120mm. I enlarge prints of my family/children to 8x10 or 11x14 and frame them only for display in my house and for relatives. Totally non-professional.
I think that I have to give in and start scanning my negatives so I can post and share more, especially with the family.
Currently, my whole network at home is Mac based. What do I need besides the scanner? I've read the various scanner threads and various mentions of processing software that may or may not come with the scanner.
Rather than getting a dedicated film scanner such as the Nikon 9000 which is expensive and unavailable, I've heard good opinions about the Epson Perfection V700. There is also the V750-M Pro which is several hundred more. Is this a good scanner to start with, especially on a Mac system with the Leopard OS?
According to the B&H website the Epson includes:
What are the differences between the V700 and V750-M Pro?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...ection_V700_Photo_Flatbed.html#specifications
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...ection_V750_M_Pro_Flatbed.html#specifications
I think that I have to give in and start scanning my negatives so I can post and share more, especially with the family.
Currently, my whole network at home is Mac based. What do I need besides the scanner? I've read the various scanner threads and various mentions of processing software that may or may not come with the scanner.
Rather than getting a dedicated film scanner such as the Nikon 9000 which is expensive and unavailable, I've heard good opinions about the Epson Perfection V700. There is also the V750-M Pro which is several hundred more. Is this a good scanner to start with, especially on a Mac system with the Leopard OS?
According to the B&H website the Epson includes:
- Epson Scan Software CD-ROM (includes productivity applications)
- Adobe Photoshop Elements Software CD-ROM
- LaserSoft Imaging SilverFast SE6 CD-ROM
What are the differences between the V700 and V750-M Pro?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...ection_V700_Photo_Flatbed.html#specifications
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...ection_V750_M_Pro_Flatbed.html#specifications
jarski
Veteran
cant comment about Epson, but not all dedicated film scanners are expensive. mine is Nikon Coolscan V-ED, quite affordable and works fine on my occasional hobbyist use.
for scanning software, Vuescan is recommenced by many forum users here, me included.
this scanner and software combo works fine in Mac.
for scanning software, Vuescan is recommenced by many forum users here, me included.
this scanner and software combo works fine in Mac.
Tuolumne
Veteran
I've never had a problem with the Epson software on my windows XP system. After trying Vuescan and Silverfast, I keep returning to it.
/T
/T
philipp.leser
Established
The V700 is good as a flatbed scanner gets (dedicated film scanners are *much* better for scanning small negative sizes!), so if you don't want a dedicated film scanner, I would recommend it.
The scanner comes with Epson's own Epson Scan software, which I find pretty useful for scanning documents or making the occasional copy (although the Image Capture application in Leopard is really good, as well!).
For film scanning, Vuescan oder Silverfast are better as they have more options and are more flexible. Note though that all scanning applications have one thing in common: an atrocious user interface. All of them take some time to master and none conforms to OS X (or Windows) interface guidelines.
Regards,
Philipp
The scanner comes with Epson's own Epson Scan software, which I find pretty useful for scanning documents or making the occasional copy (although the Image Capture application in Leopard is really good, as well!).
For film scanning, Vuescan oder Silverfast are better as they have more options and are more flexible. Note though that all scanning applications have one thing in common: an atrocious user interface. All of them take some time to master and none conforms to OS X (or Windows) interface guidelines.
Regards,
Philipp
amateriat
We're all light!
If 35mm is your main beat for scanning, I'd try and source a used Nikon 9000 (or, heck, maybe an 8000). The Epson v700 is pretty good with MF and larger formats, but just fair-to-middling with 35mm compared to a dedicated scanner.
Of course, if you're not doing any critical scanning for large-ish prints (though I think it's getting close with 11 x 14"), you might get by with the V700. If it were me, I'd get a dedicated 35mm film scanner (last time I looked, there was a Nikon 5000 in the Classified section here), and maybe go a rung or two down inthe Epson V series for MF scanning. But that's just me.
- Barrett
Of course, if you're not doing any critical scanning for large-ish prints (though I think it's getting close with 11 x 14"), you might get by with the V700. If it were me, I'd get a dedicated 35mm film scanner (last time I looked, there was a Nikon 5000 in the Classified section here), and maybe go a rung or two down inthe Epson V series for MF scanning. But that's just me.
- Barrett
mfogiel
Veteran
Just get the Nikon CS 9000, even second hand, even on installments, with the glass holder for MF scans, and be done with it. Epson V700 with Doug Fischer's holder will cost you a half of that, will take 4 times longer to scan anything, and in the end it will only be good for enlarging up to 4-6 times max. Use Vuescan for everything, get an Epson 3800 and some Ilford Gallery Fiber Silk Gold paper, and forget the darkroom forever.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
True enough - my one regret with my Nikon 5000 and SA-30 is that I didn't stump up the necessary for a 9000 whilst I was at it. It's haunting my wallet.
Also, can't recommend Ilford Gold Fibre Silk enough (though my alternative is Hahnemuhle Photorag Baryta which is also really nice, but costs about double)
Mike
felix5616
Established
Get a nikon coolscan 9000. You will not regret it.
remegius
Well-known
Yes, the 9000 is expensive, and will probably now be going up in price now that it's discontinued. $2K is a lot of money. One could probably get a lot of drum scans for that. I'd consider a good flatbed, or possibly the Plustek Opticon 7500I Ai if you only do 35mm. Check out this thread: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78670
Cheers...
Rem
venchka
Veteran
Don't pass up a nice clean low mileage Epson 4990 cheap. $200-$250 should do it.
Buy a bigger camera to make the Epson look good!
Buy a bigger camera to make the Epson look good!
ymc226
Well-known
Thanks for all of the advice. I just put myself in line to get a Nikon 9000 ED scanner + Epson 3800 printer.
(1) how do B&W prints look compared to wet darkroom prints? I usually print matte, Ilford Multigrade fiber based and like the tones I get from Neopan 400. For B&W, is there any special digital printer paper I should use to optimize my results?
(2) is Photoshop the only post-processing program I need? Again, using a Mac.
(1) how do B&W prints look compared to wet darkroom prints? I usually print matte, Ilford Multigrade fiber based and like the tones I get from Neopan 400. For B&W, is there any special digital printer paper I should use to optimize my results?
(2) is Photoshop the only post-processing program I need? Again, using a Mac.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
I'm close to being in the same situation. I have a Microtek i700 flatbed scanner so haven't looked at the Epson but people speak well of it.
I use Silverfast SE scanning software with it as the Microtek software was a bit basic.
Having said that, if I have a heap of negatives to process I get the local camera shop to do a high-res scan whilst they are processing the films and put the scans on a CD so I can work on them and select what I want printed. They usually do JPEGs which I immediately convert to either PSD or TIFF, but they will scan as TIFF images if I insist (but they charge extra). Although I develop my own B&W I also on occasion get the shop to do scans for me on the uncut film. (I have a deal with them that I develop any regular B&W films their customers bring in for $10 per film, and they offset that against scans or other services - not goods - that I might want from time to time). Keeps me in chemicals!
I use Photoshop Elements 6 on my Mac and it works fine. I use Adobe Bridge (which comes as part of the PSE pack) for preview and sorting - looked at Aperture but it's overkill for an amateur, just as CS3 is overkill for the post editing.
I'm in the process of deciding on a new printer to replace my old Epson Stylus Photo 830U. I can't fit the 3800 in my study so it might be the 2880. I'm actually considering a 1440 specially set up for B&W only. The printer is cheaper, the quality superb, but I'd still need something for colour work even though my "thing" is B&W.
So, in short, a good lab could do scans for you (if you can find one) or you can get your own scanner.
Silverfast SE is excellent scanning software (but the Epson might be good - I don't know).
Photoshop Elements for Mac with Adobe Bridge is all you'll need for post-production.
I use Silverfast SE scanning software with it as the Microtek software was a bit basic.
Having said that, if I have a heap of negatives to process I get the local camera shop to do a high-res scan whilst they are processing the films and put the scans on a CD so I can work on them and select what I want printed. They usually do JPEGs which I immediately convert to either PSD or TIFF, but they will scan as TIFF images if I insist (but they charge extra). Although I develop my own B&W I also on occasion get the shop to do scans for me on the uncut film. (I have a deal with them that I develop any regular B&W films their customers bring in for $10 per film, and they offset that against scans or other services - not goods - that I might want from time to time). Keeps me in chemicals!
I use Photoshop Elements 6 on my Mac and it works fine. I use Adobe Bridge (which comes as part of the PSE pack) for preview and sorting - looked at Aperture but it's overkill for an amateur, just as CS3 is overkill for the post editing.
I'm in the process of deciding on a new printer to replace my old Epson Stylus Photo 830U. I can't fit the 3800 in my study so it might be the 2880. I'm actually considering a 1440 specially set up for B&W only. The printer is cheaper, the quality superb, but I'd still need something for colour work even though my "thing" is B&W.
So, in short, a good lab could do scans for you (if you can find one) or you can get your own scanner.
Silverfast SE is excellent scanning software (but the Epson might be good - I don't know).
Photoshop Elements for Mac with Adobe Bridge is all you'll need for post-production.
Jamie123
Veteran
btw, if you get a Nikon 9000 I suggest passing on the glass holder. Just get two pieces of glass here (http://preview.tinyurl.com/kt7bl3) and use the standard holder.
fixbones
.......sometimes i thinks
How would the scan results from a regular 1 hour camera store be compared to a Nikon coolscan 5000/9000?
Better, worse or the same?
I have my sights on a Coolscan as well and if the result is not any better the my local camera store, then i might as well let them scan the lot....
Better, worse or the same?
I have my sights on a Coolscan as well and if the result is not any better the my local camera store, then i might as well let them scan the lot....
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
One thing to think about when deciding on a Nikon 9000: can it take an adapter (or accept some other modification) to scan whole rolls of 35mm? (I have no idea; I'm just raising the question.) I decided to go with a Nikon 5000 and adapter simply because of this (and because I do very little medium-format).
I've found that the workflow benefits of being able to scan a roll at a time, no messing about, while I'm off doing something else are very important to me - and probably make all the difference in me seeing film as a viable alternative to digital for a lot of work. Before setting up with the scanner/adapter and nailing down a workflow - still a work in progress - I'd be rather inclined to take a dSLR for some things where I'd have preferred film/RF simply because I couldn't bring myself to think about all the dead time involved with scanning.
This has changed now. Not completely (scanning will always require some degree of pain) but enough to make a genuine qualitative difference. I use much more film (esp. self-developed B&W).
...Mike
I've found that the workflow benefits of being able to scan a roll at a time, no messing about, while I'm off doing something else are very important to me - and probably make all the difference in me seeing film as a viable alternative to digital for a lot of work. Before setting up with the scanner/adapter and nailing down a workflow - still a work in progress - I'd be rather inclined to take a dSLR for some things where I'd have preferred film/RF simply because I couldn't bring myself to think about all the dead time involved with scanning.
This has changed now. Not completely (scanning will always require some degree of pain) but enough to make a genuine qualitative difference. I use much more film (esp. self-developed B&W).
...Mike
trix
Established
Get a 100$ flatbed and scan your 8x10 prints. Thats what i do and i own a Coolscan 9000 (but hardley ever use it).
Michael Markey
Veteran
I am on the point of getting a scanner. Currently get my stuff scanned by Ilford . But at £10 a time it soon adds up. I have no doubt that the Nikons represent the pinicle of quality but for my needs I require a more cost effective solution. As such I will forgo the ultimate quality. I therefore found the above a useful contribution although it failed to say why the 9000 had been discarded.
nksyoon
Well-known
I don't think the Nikon 9000 has been discarded, it was unavailable in US and European markets for some time but in the last couple of weeks stock has appeared. So maybe the previous production run had sold out and there was a gap until the next batch was produced and shipped out.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Store Scan?
Store Scan?
Well, I think you need to check what sort of scanner they have and what they actually do with the scans. And decide what you want to do with the scans, too. My guy (independent but formerly in the Camera House chain has a Minolta rotary scanner that is quite separate from his Fuji process and print machine, and that's what he uses for me. It does a pretty good job.
I'm not sure that every camera store would be so well equipped, but chances are there's someone in Hobart who would have something like it.
As to the quality - it's got to be better than I can get from my flatbed, but I find that quite acceptable up to 10x8. But you do lose some control by going to the store and have to accept what the machine does - in this case it defaults to a file that I find OK but you may not.
JPEGs come back to me as files of around 700-900 KB with pixel dimensions of roughly 1225 x 1820. Definition when I open them in Photoshop is set at 72 dpi by default for screen viewing. That might sound bad, but the actual print size is 25" x 17", and when I resize to 300 dpi and around 10x8 print size the quality is quite good. I don't like JPEG because every time you save a file it compresses and sheds data. Do it too often and the image quality suffers so if I have to deal with JPEG files I save them as PSD or TIFF as soon as I can. But each one can then be in the 20-30 MB range if in colour until I resize them as there's no compression! Check out how much capacity your computer and hard drive have before going too far!
Interestingly, if I get the scans done as TIFF files, they come back at 6.4 MB but with the same pixel count and print size as the JPEGs. Resized to around 10x8 and 300 dpi they are all around 7-8 MB. I retain the three colour channels but desaturate them when doing B&W. If I convert to Grayscale (not recommended for good printing) then the file sizes are a lot smaller.
It's not possible to show you the results as your computer screen will only show 72 or maybe 96 pixels per inch so in essence, maybe try to find a store in Hobart that does scans and go and talk to them. Get them to do a couple of scans of some of your negatives in JPEG and also (if they can) in TIFF formats. Take them away and have a play with them in PSE. See what you think. If you don't like what you see, get your own scanner.
I chose flatbed because I use it for general scanning as well as 12O and 35mm film negatives, and I couldn't cough up the necessary for a Nikon 9000. The 5000 only does 35mm and so didn't meet all my needs.
Store Scan?
Well, I think you need to check what sort of scanner they have and what they actually do with the scans. And decide what you want to do with the scans, too. My guy (independent but formerly in the Camera House chain has a Minolta rotary scanner that is quite separate from his Fuji process and print machine, and that's what he uses for me. It does a pretty good job.
I'm not sure that every camera store would be so well equipped, but chances are there's someone in Hobart who would have something like it.
As to the quality - it's got to be better than I can get from my flatbed, but I find that quite acceptable up to 10x8. But you do lose some control by going to the store and have to accept what the machine does - in this case it defaults to a file that I find OK but you may not.
JPEGs come back to me as files of around 700-900 KB with pixel dimensions of roughly 1225 x 1820. Definition when I open them in Photoshop is set at 72 dpi by default for screen viewing. That might sound bad, but the actual print size is 25" x 17", and when I resize to 300 dpi and around 10x8 print size the quality is quite good. I don't like JPEG because every time you save a file it compresses and sheds data. Do it too often and the image quality suffers so if I have to deal with JPEG files I save them as PSD or TIFF as soon as I can. But each one can then be in the 20-30 MB range if in colour until I resize them as there's no compression! Check out how much capacity your computer and hard drive have before going too far!
Interestingly, if I get the scans done as TIFF files, they come back at 6.4 MB but with the same pixel count and print size as the JPEGs. Resized to around 10x8 and 300 dpi they are all around 7-8 MB. I retain the three colour channels but desaturate them when doing B&W. If I convert to Grayscale (not recommended for good printing) then the file sizes are a lot smaller.
It's not possible to show you the results as your computer screen will only show 72 or maybe 96 pixels per inch so in essence, maybe try to find a store in Hobart that does scans and go and talk to them. Get them to do a couple of scans of some of your negatives in JPEG and also (if they can) in TIFF formats. Take them away and have a play with them in PSE. See what you think. If you don't like what you see, get your own scanner.
I chose flatbed because I use it for general scanning as well as 12O and 35mm film negatives, and I couldn't cough up the necessary for a Nikon 9000. The 5000 only does 35mm and so didn't meet all my needs.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
If you're just using the scanner for posting on the web then scans from 4x6 prints are more than good enough for sharing family photos, as are scans of off old B&W contact sheets.
http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com