Is it worth it to get a scanner?

[heatherselkie]

Hi, I am clueless so shall ask the question that has probably been asked before-like last week or last month. I have just started shooting with film again this summer. Results have been so so as rangefinder cameras are a new thing. Developing is not as cheap as I'd like. I have not gone for the scanning onto disc yet because I didn't think any of the photos warranted it. But my husband keeps harping about getting the images onto disc so I can look at them on the computer and send them to everyone. "Look at my blurry cat!" It costs $10 to put a 24 roll onto disc on top of the cost of developing the film. Is this ridiculous or totally worth it?
As for scanners my evil exboyfriend had one-wish I had secretly kept it as he had gone digital anyway. I don't like the idea of piles of discs with bad photos that might not be rewritable, so would prefer pick and choose what I scan. I have no interest in setting up a darkroom. I've experienced the darkroom.
So, what scanner would be really good? Expensive, moderate or cheap price range options would be grand.
Thanks!

 

[hteasley]

I have an Epson V700, and really like it. The problem with getting discs with your negatives is that the photos will be JPG, so not really very editable, if you want to do some post-processing. You can do a little, but not like you can with a good scanner, scanning into a higher bit-depth TIFF. But the v700 is on the expensive end for scanners: it's not a Nikon Coolscan, but it's also not thousands of dollars. A refurb v700 is $415, according to Google.

 

[photogdave]

It's worth it. With the Epson you can also scan prints, documents and film formats other than 35mm if you get into that.
My high end Minolta film scanner finally died and I'm going to replace it with the Epson V700 or V750. I've done enough research to conclude that these models will be pretty much just as good as my older film scanner was.
Make sure you buy in Canada to get the warranty. I've heard Epson Canada will be announcing scanner rebates this fall. I'm going to wait and see how much the rebates are before I choose the model.

 

[ironhorse]

I have a Canon 8800f and it does a pretty nice job. I intend to start processing my own black and white film but for now it goes to the local lab. Processing is only $4.00.

 

[bwcolor]

Film is headed towards a home cottage industry. If you just want to take snapshots then digital is probably the way to go. If you really like film, but haven't much time, nor a critical eye, then most urban areas have labs that will do the work.

If, like many here, you enjoy film and enjoy the process and have time.... the scanner is an important link. I would certainly buy a good scanner before buying more photo equipment...if you like film. An Epson V-700 or V-750 is a really nice start and gives you the control. If you have more money, then the Nikon scanners.. if you can find one. In time, developing and scanning at home will pay for itself, but you will need to devote some time to this process.

 

[Brian Legge]

I'm another 8800f user. I've love something better but it is cheap. Bulk loading and home processing black and white film (35mm and 120) is rather inexpensive in the end. I've shot about 60 rolls this year costing probably $200. Having those all done professionally would have been significantly more expensive and would have varied more in quality.

 

[mfogiel]

I would say, if you really like B&W photography, then get the black film changing bag, tanks, and a decent scanner, else go digital.
A decent scanner, and one that will not drive you crazy with height adjustment and dust problems, is not a flatbed. Forget all the Epson flatbed story, and go directly to a dedicated film scanner, possibly Nikon CS 5000, however if you do not plan to print big, the cheaper versions will do all the same. I have the Epson V750 and Nikon CS9000, so I know exactly the diference. Look for a used scanner from a rff user or a refurbished one.

 

[Cron]

I fully agree with mfogiel!
You need a filmscanner eg. like a Nikon V or better or like Konica Minolta 5400 .
For myself I own a KM 5400II which produces very good results in 35mm and a Canon 8800F for medium format films. Comparing results from my KM and the 8800F in 35mm shows very big differences in quality.

 

[flip]

If you shoot film and not digital and do so in some quantity, it is a no brainer. I don't shoot a huge amount, but now that I buy bulk and dev the B&W at home, the cost of film photography is basically the cost of the scanner. Get a good one before they are gone.

I recommend patience, however. Last year, the cheapest I saw were right after Christmas - those next 2 weeks when people dumped after getting a new toy. I missed the chance to get a Nikon 5000 for like US$600, but later found one for around $800. The deals are out there if you are patient.

 

[shyoon]

I recently bought another scanner after a brief flirtation with only making silver-gelatin prints. Nothing can really replace a printed copy of a photograph, but the convenience of having a scanner, even just to quickly proof photos, is very handy.

 

[thegman]

If you want scans you can print up big, then it's worth it. If you're shooting 35mm, then I'd get a dedicated scanner. I've got a Canon FS4000 for 35mm, it's very good and cost me less than my V700.

Flatbeds for 35mm are bit hit and miss, I scan 120 film on the V700 and it's very good, but scanning 35mm on it I think would leave me a touch disappointed.

 

[TheHub]

When I switched over to film I bought a scanner, and it has turned into an essential tool. I'm actually on my second one now; I guess I killed the old one with too many scans 🙄

B&W I develop myself and then scan. Photos I really like get printed in the darkroom.
Color neg I ask for development only, then scan at home. It's a little cheaper and prints have always been crap, no matter who the lab is 🙁
Slides too, I ask for development only then scan at home. Prints from slides are very expensive, and not worth it.

 

[chris00nj]

I bought a Epson V500 for under $200 and it's paid for itself already. It does a good job, came wtih Photoshop elements, and can also do medium format! The scans from the 1 hour lab aren't good and are expensive.

Another thing I've realized: Sometimes when you get prints back, I've thought "Oh I screwed up the shot." Then I scan in the negative and it was great! The lab actually did a poor job printing!

I develop my own b&w at home, then scan in the negatives. All I need is the tank, a couple chemicals, and a changing bag. Processing essentially costs is less than $1/roll for diy B&W.

 

[djonesii]

scanners are great, but think carefully

scanners are great, but think carefully

I have had 3 epson flatbeds.

For the best quality 35mm dedicated is better
For medium format a bit of a toss up
For 4X5, only a flat bed or drum scanner will work.

As I shoot all three film formats, my only real choice was an epson or a canon flat bed. At over 3K USD, the imacons are not really an option.

The Nikon dedicated scanners can be found in the $1500 range typically, and sometimes under 1K. My V700 refurb was about $400 as I recall. You can get dedicated 35mm film scanners in this range.

My first epson was also a refurb, and was well under $100 .... good enough to make a decision. Each time I changed formats, I had to change scanners, cost about an extra $300 to the process.

Hope that helps.

Dave

 

[bwcolor]

I would say, if you really like B&W photography, then get the black film changing bag, tanks, and a decent scanner, else go digital.
A decent scanner, and one that will not drive you crazy with height adjustment and dust problems, is not a flatbed. Forget all the Epson flatbed story, and go directly to a dedicated film scanner, possibly Nikon CS 5000, however if you do not plan to print big, the cheaper versions will do all the same. I have the Epson V750 and Nikon CS9000, so I know exactly the diference. Look for a used scanner from a rff user or a refurbished one.

I also have an Epson V750 and Nikon 9000ED. BTW.. you don't need the 9000ED unless you are going to shoot medium format. You can use the less expensive Nikons, if they are still made. I bought both for what I thought was a good reason. The days of high quality film scanners may be limited. Flatbed scanners seem to be the more viable product in the marketplace. Nikon only produces the 9000ED in batches once they get enough orders and then they shut production. B&H does not list and neither does Nikon USA, any other film Nikon film scanners. I scan using the V750 for much of what I do. My photographic talent is somewhat limited, so the V750 provides sufficient quality. When I need better quality I use the Nikon. This reduces wear and tear on a product that may simply go extinct.

Epson V-750 Pro:

http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=epson+v750&m=text

Nikon 9000ED:

http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&w=all&q=Nikon+9000ED&m=text

 

[Nikon Bob]

If you shoot colour film Shoppers Drug Mart will develop and scan to disc for around $4.00 a roll with no prints. At least they do/did around here. The scans are good enough to allow you to put them on the web and you can save them to your HD and do adjustments to them with Photo Shop or similar program. If you want to make big prints then a film scanner is a necessity.

Bob

 

[bigeye]

It sounds like you are not 'committed', so why not rent?

I'd get the "Ken Rockwell processing & scan" from North Coast Photo. They do a very good job and it's fast and effortless.

If you like that, you can figure out what scanner and how much playing you want to do in this field.

- Charlie

 

[ray*j*gun]

I hate scanning BUT I found I needed to be able to under some circumstances. I bought an Epson V500 and its a great product. A little slow but nice results and I even use the stock software.

 

[sazerac]

I'm also in that group that shoots occassionally and scans even less frequently. I bulk load my own film and process at home, but I usually let 16 or so rolls stock pile up before I develop. This coincides well with a gallon of developer & fixer. I then take the next several months to scan images from those rolls as time permits in the evenings. Generally it could take a year or more to finally realize an image, but that process helps me be a better editor of my work.

If I need instant gratification I'll get a roll of color and have it processed locally. I use a Nikon V ED and have had successes and frustrations with it. What I really need is to get lost in a dark room again...

 

[Matus]

In my opinion - until you are fine with images suitable just for web and prints up to 4x6" that you will be fine with one of the latest flat bed scanners discussed above. But if you want to get some nice prints at some point, then just get directly a Nikon Coolscan V or similar which will cost yo about the same or a bit more. It is the same work for you as using the flatbed, but the results are quite different.

I use flat bed scanner myself (Microtek F1) but rarely bother scanning 35 mm film with it. It is not worth the hassle. I send my 35 mm films to lab which scans then with Coolscan 5000 (higher model from V) for about 0.20 - 0.50 € per image ( so about 7 - 17 € per roll depending on format and resolution). The result is much better and does not cost me 1 - 2 hours of work per roll.

I scan the 6x6 and 4x5" images myself and only send to lab for better scans those which I want to print large (magnification beyond 4x).