E__WOK
Well-known
I am currently shooting 35mm slides and negatives and have future interest in medium format but don't have any MF gear at this time.
On average, I shoot 1 roll every 2 weeks and would like to post my pictures online. Less than 1/3rd of my rolls have been scanned at low resolution which I currently send out at a cost of around $15 for scanning and developing.
My inventory is 17 rolls of developed film.
A Nikon 5000 sells for about 2K but parts availability and repair may be an issue. This will only scan 35mm.
The to be released Plustek 120 will sell for 2K which can scan both 35mm and MF AND have a warranty.
The Epson 750 will scan 35mm and MF and cost 1/3rd of the two other scanners which is the cost of shooting film for 2 years straight.
Would the higher end scanners be a waste of money compared to what I want/need to do?
It would be nice to have the capability of printing high res, but then again I can send the work out to a professional developer.
On average, I shoot 1 roll every 2 weeks and would like to post my pictures online. Less than 1/3rd of my rolls have been scanned at low resolution which I currently send out at a cost of around $15 for scanning and developing.
My inventory is 17 rolls of developed film.
A Nikon 5000 sells for about 2K but parts availability and repair may be an issue. This will only scan 35mm.
The to be released Plustek 120 will sell for 2K which can scan both 35mm and MF AND have a warranty.
The Epson 750 will scan 35mm and MF and cost 1/3rd of the two other scanners which is the cost of shooting film for 2 years straight.
Would the higher end scanners be a waste of money compared to what I want/need to do?
It would be nice to have the capability of printing high res, but then again I can send the work out to a professional developer.
Matus
Well-known
Well, you did the math, so you obviously do not need a help there. But do count one thing - your time. I had a Microtek F1 for about 2 years and while it worked OK (when it worked) it was SO MUCH time ...
Wait until some reviews of how the Plustek 120 actually works (I read somewhere that it is on the slow side) and reconsider how much time do you want to spend on scanning yourself.
EDIT: If you want to print high-res (large) - just have a scan made by an Imacon X5 (16 Bit FFF files). Try to find a lab that offers 'raw' (i.e. not post-processed) scans. I get mine for about 7 Euro in Germany (digitalcopy24.de).
Wait until some reviews of how the Plustek 120 actually works (I read somewhere that it is on the slow side) and reconsider how much time do you want to spend on scanning yourself.
EDIT: If you want to print high-res (large) - just have a scan made by an Imacon X5 (16 Bit FFF files). Try to find a lab that offers 'raw' (i.e. not post-processed) scans. I get mine for about 7 Euro in Germany (digitalcopy24.de).
Adanac
Well-known
This is a dangerous path to tread. I walked it once upon a time, looking to upgrade my scanner - did all the math and looked at how much time I was putting into scanning and... ended up switching to digital.
John Bragg
Well-known
I have a Plustek 7400 and I can't praise it enough. It has surpassed my expectations and although I miss my darkroom, it has rejuvinated my photography in a way I never thought possible. Best of all possible worlds. I get to enjoy the cameras that I love and the files produced are easy to share and upload. Learning curve for me but I relished the challenge and I am proud of my results.
gb hill
Veteran
For uploading photos to the www I would get a nice flatbed scanner that scans both 35mm & 120. I have a Epson V500 but it isn't hooked up yet. I have a cheap film converter I use that I paid $40.00 for. I does b&w pretty well.
dimension2
Member
I've gone through some of this dilemma myself. Being a student, I thankfully have access to university resources, which include an Nikon LS 5000 scanner. I had an inventory of 7 rolls of C-41 films when I started out, and briefly used one of the low-end scanners (an Epson, not sure of the model - one of the earlier ones without ICE) before transitioning to the Nikon 5000. Only been a few weeks my end, my experience/comments would be myopic in that sense.
Scanning time was a big factor. The Nikon LS 5000 didn't need me to worry about setting up the film flat and such, so preparation/mounting times were minimal. VueScan, for software, has a batch scan option and I could get a whole roll done fairly quickly (one strip of 4-5 frames at a time). The outputs are very good, and the dust/scratch removal process works really well, thus eliminating the need for manual spot treatment processes, which can be fairly time intensive. The scans came out clean and crisp. The downside to this is that it limits you to 35mm only. Worked for me, but that's a factor to consider.
I wasn't aware of the Plustek 120, but from what I look up, seems very similar to the LS5000 with improved dynamic range and the flexibility to take in MF films. Has a motorized feed and the IR dust/scratch removal option. Comes with very capable software too, from what I hear.
The Epson's cheaper, and with some effort, you might be able to get fairly good results too, but if cost permits, I would recommend a dedicated scanner.
Scanning time was a big factor. The Nikon LS 5000 didn't need me to worry about setting up the film flat and such, so preparation/mounting times were minimal. VueScan, for software, has a batch scan option and I could get a whole roll done fairly quickly (one strip of 4-5 frames at a time). The outputs are very good, and the dust/scratch removal process works really well, thus eliminating the need for manual spot treatment processes, which can be fairly time intensive. The scans came out clean and crisp. The downside to this is that it limits you to 35mm only. Worked for me, but that's a factor to consider.
I wasn't aware of the Plustek 120, but from what I look up, seems very similar to the LS5000 with improved dynamic range and the flexibility to take in MF films. Has a motorized feed and the IR dust/scratch removal option. Comes with very capable software too, from what I hear.
The Epson's cheaper, and with some effort, you might be able to get fairly good results too, but if cost permits, I would recommend a dedicated scanner.
crispy12
Well-known
A dedicate scanner will bring much better quality hi res scans than any flatbed scanner. I have a plustek 7600 and also canon 9000f and the difference for 35mm is significant, mainly increased sharpness. The downside is the large amount of time spent scanning with the 7600, but this has increased greatly after optimising my workflow.
I use the canon for mainly MF and LF. I would recommend the v700 if this is your need.
Be prepared to do some PP using software, otherwise the effort of producing good scans will be largely wasted.
I use the canon for mainly MF and LF. I would recommend the v700 if this is your need.
Be prepared to do some PP using software, otherwise the effort of producing good scans will be largely wasted.
Rom
Established
If it is not for print you can find an epson 4490 for few bucks.... just throw away the film holder and go in a material workshop to buy a ''without reflect'' glass for 4 dollars. You will be large enough for www sharing.
Otherwises, if y ou want to print from scans, follow the previous advises.
Otherwises, if y ou want to print from scans, follow the previous advises.
John Bragg
Well-known
Straight scan of Tri-X negative. No post processing. Get the developing nailed and tweaking is minimised.
louisbrown08
Member
id say go for a flatbed scanner, with mine (v500) you can scan 12 frames at a time. sure quality isnt as good as it can be but the price is a big factor for me, as is time.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/louisbrown08/
All my recent film work is scanned with the v500 from epson and can be seen in my flickr above.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/louisbrown08/
All my recent film work is scanned with the v500 from epson and can be seen in my flickr above.
NeeZee
Well-known
For posting online a flatbed is more than enough. I've bought an Epson V700 some years ago and it can do all formats and it's even ok for prints. For web only a cheaper one would be fine as well, though. I don't find scanning that time consuming - I always post process the photos while the scanner is still running.
Michael Markey
Veteran
I have a V500 which is fine for my needs .
However I must say that John makes a good case for the 7400.
However I must say that John makes a good case for the 7400.
MartinP
Veteran
I'd suggest a slightly different option. Buy your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/self a cheap secondhand digital camera (an older 4/3 or APS-C body for example) with liveview and an old manual-focus macro lens, put it on a tripod and use that to re-photograph the negatives or transparencies.
If you don't have a carrier from an enlarger, you can make up a neg holder out of mounting-board or foamcore. Use some sort of daylight led lamp, shining on a white card (not too close else you will have a hotspot), as a consistent background. I do this and it gives more than enough quality for web use and small prints, is cheap and adaptable (10x8" pinhole neg? no problem), and gives you an alternative for re-photographing paper prints etc. as well. Thanks to magnified liveview, the alignment can be done pretty quickly once you work out a repeatable arrangement with the neg carrier, a shade over the neg and the light.
Save expenditure on hardware now for future commercial scans to make those few large prints you might want, or print them wet of course
If you don't have a carrier from an enlarger, you can make up a neg holder out of mounting-board or foamcore. Use some sort of daylight led lamp, shining on a white card (not too close else you will have a hotspot), as a consistent background. I do this and it gives more than enough quality for web use and small prints, is cheap and adaptable (10x8" pinhole neg? no problem), and gives you an alternative for re-photographing paper prints etc. as well. Thanks to magnified liveview, the alignment can be done pretty quickly once you work out a repeatable arrangement with the neg carrier, a shade over the neg and the light.
Save expenditure on hardware now for future commercial scans to make those few large prints you might want, or print them wet of course
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
I have the Nikon Coolscan V (close to the 5000 specs) and an Epson V500.
The V500 is a useful scanner. With it, I can make sharp prints 6x the linear dimension of the film. This makes it pretty useful for 120 film, limited in the print size I can happily do from 35mm. Fine for 35mm to screen, but so is the scan from a typical minilab.
The Nikon 5000 really does scan at close to 4000 ppi and can make sharp 12x18 prints from 35mm, maybe larger.
Scanning takes time. Consider the alternative of sending your film to Precision, our sponsor here, for high resolution jpgs for very reasonable money.
The V500 is a useful scanner. With it, I can make sharp prints 6x the linear dimension of the film. This makes it pretty useful for 120 film, limited in the print size I can happily do from 35mm. Fine for 35mm to screen, but so is the scan from a typical minilab.
The Nikon 5000 really does scan at close to 4000 ppi and can make sharp 12x18 prints from 35mm, maybe larger.
Scanning takes time. Consider the alternative of sending your film to Precision, our sponsor here, for high resolution jpgs for very reasonable money.
zauhar
Veteran
Here's something I don't understand about the new Plustek 120 - it is motorized, but what is the transport mechanism? Looking at the preview info, I don't see any hint that you can process a whole roll, I see the usual kinds of film holders, and with very limited capacity.
Also, the holders seem to have plastic dividers for isolating frames - what if you have different cameras with different frame spacing, or spacing that is bit variable? With the Epson-style holder, you can select the frame position yourself in software.
This is not quibbling when you are looking at a $2,000 scanner.
Randy
Also, the holders seem to have plastic dividers for isolating frames - what if you have different cameras with different frame spacing, or spacing that is bit variable? With the Epson-style holder, you can select the frame position yourself in software.
This is not quibbling when you are looking at a $2,000 scanner.
Randy
gavinlg
Veteran
The feed will work the same as my old minolta dual scan IV - it's just automated so you advance each frame with the software. Scans 6 35mm negs at a time. The cheaper 35mm plusteks are manual feed and it's very fidgety and time consuming getting their placement perfect.
The plastic holders dividers are there to keep the film flat. The epson doesn't need the film to be perfectly flat because it has crap optics that have a huge depth of field. The plustek 120 has a more specific depth of field, so it needs that individual frame flatness.
E__WOK
Well-known
Oops, I forgot to mention that I want to spend minimal time post processing.
Auto correct is preferred or just using the picture as is.
Buying a camera to take pictures of the film... I would prefer to use that money towards a scanner.
What is wet printing?
Auto correct is preferred or just using the picture as is.
Buying a camera to take pictures of the film... I would prefer to use that money towards a scanner.
What is wet printing?
E__WOK
Well-known
I have some cut and uncut strips of film if that matters any.
MartinP
Veteran
Scanners which you can afford will not be much better than a cheaper, and more adaptable, camera. No scanner (or camera in my suggestion above) will give you great results without manual work. By wet printing I mean making a real enlargement, as the film was meant to be used, in place of scanning it.
zauhar
Veteran
So are Nikons the only scanners available that will scan an entire roll?
My Canon has a holder to do 12 frames at a time, I see the Epson 750 will handle 24. At least you can set things up and let the scanner work in batch mode. In contrast, if the scanning speed of the Plustek is comparable to a flatbed scanner, one could spend a a lot of time just waiting to reload it.
Regarding those plastic holders, I still have the question - how can you deal with variable frame spacing?
Scanning poses many dilemmas, maybe the OP is better off not to get started. ;-(
Randy