Need a good scanner

[Johnmcd]

Hi,

Just processed my first two rolls of film. The first was HP5 pushed to 1600 and used at a concert. Disaster! Fogged the film down one side during processing. Don't ask how. Let's just say it been a while 🙂 The images were still there to test sharpness but that's about all. Hard to use the camera with all the people slam dancing around me!

The second film was FP4 rated at 125 and this time processed correctly. The main problem is now getting a good scan. My flatbed Canon 9900F (at 3200dpi) is proving to be a disappointment. Some are okay, others are terrible.

Looks like I need a Nikon V ED or Minolta. Will I see enough difference to justify the expense?

I have included one pic. Took some work in PS just to make it adequate resampled down.

Cheers,

John

 

[kully]

Do a search for the great scanner test that was done here a month or so ago. I included some sampled from my Nikon V ED.

You will see a difference between your 9900F and the Nikon (I chose the Nikon over the 9950F). But it depends on how much detail you want to see.

Here are some samples from the V ED

EDIT: Here is the link to the scanner comparison.

 

[rxmd]

Hi,

I just got myself an used Minolta Scan Dual off eBay for 40 EUR which is just right for scanning a negative every now and then, and the quality is acceptable. So you don't have to invest all that much and it will still be better than a flatbed.

Philipp

 

[sebastel]

though i can really not recommend the minolta dimage scan dual ... i have one i'd give away, let's say for a bottle of decent wine. unfortunately it's located in germany...

🙁

cheers, sebastian

 

[AOI Photo]

The second film was FP4 rated at 125 and this time processed correctly. The main problem is now getting a good scan. My flatbed Canon 9900F (at 3200dpi) is proving to be a disappointment. Some are okay, others are terrible.

Looks like I need a Nikon V ED or Minolta. Will I see enough difference to justify the expense?

I have included one pic. Took some work in PS just to make it adequate resampled down.

Cheers,

John

I have a canon flatbed (8400 f) for medium format. It isn't good enough but it is all I can afford. For 35mm I use a MInolta Scan Dual III. I bought it for $150 on clearance when the Scan Dual IV came out. The difference is extraordinary. IF you can find one used for $100 or so it would be well worth it.

 

[anaanda]

i use the epson 4490, it can do slides 35 and medium format. I found that it gives excellent results. I print from these scans. You can pick one up for about $200

 

[amateriat]

Obviously, there are several good ways to go here. My main scanner is a Minolta DiMage Scan 5400, which I swear by most every day. No longer made, alas, but well worth seeking out. The Nikon scanners are also good. (Get in touch with Sebastel...that Minolts Dual Scan scanner is worth the shipping cost!)


- Barrett

 

[Johnmcd]

Looks like the 5400 II

Looks like the 5400 II

Thanks for all the good advice! I have a bid in on a brand new Minolta 5400 II and it seems to be the best value for money. If that falls through, I keep an eye out for that or a Nikon V.

Cheers and thanks again.

John

 

[dseelig]

scanner

scanner

The nikon 8000 and 9000 do a much better job with B& w negs then the 5000 or 4000 The bigger scanners show much less neg defects. This has come up constanly in my work. I have heard minolta scanners at least the 5400 were alos good for B&W but I have not used one myself David

 

[Bryce]

John-
Firstly, I'd say the Scan Dual is NOT worth the shipping cost. I own one and have been dissatisfied with it. For slides, it seems to be incapable of detecting shadow detail. For negatives, especially B+W, noise is so strong it's useless. On the occasion I use color negative film, I prefer to have a local lab scan it.
If I were after a scanner, I'd save for a Nikon 4000/ 5000 series. Actually having used them in school, they are night and day better than the inexpensive Minolta units.
Other possibilities (for B+W anyway) are a dslr and slide copier if you already own them or have another use anyway. Copying slides with this arrangement doesn't work well since slides have a much wider gamut than the camera's sensor can record.
Also, if you have a wet darkroom, scanning a B+W print on a flatbed works very, very well as long as the print doesn't contain pure blacks. This method actually gives comparable results to very expensive negative scanners, i.e. Imacon.

 

[aad]

I second the idea of checking thee "big scan test" that Shutterflower put on.

 

[Ronald M]

The clear winnet is the Howtec 4500.

My Minolto/kon 5400 original does very well with Delta 100 and trix. I t worked right from the box. What really had me worried was never had even seen a scanner.

For pics for the net, my Epson 4870 does as well. This was purchased for 4x5 negs mostly.

 

[Pherdinand]

Sebastian, what is wrong with that minolta dual?
Is it first generation? (dual scan 1 so to speak)
Were you serious about giving it away cheaply?
Where exactly in Germany?

I'm also interested in a scanner but not decided yet to put the big bucks down for something top.

 

[Johnmcd]

John-
Firstly, I'd say the Scan Dual is NOT worth the shipping cost. I own one and have been dissatisfied with it. For slides, it seems to be incapable of detecting shadow detail. For negatives, especially B+W, noise is so strong it's useless. On the occasion I use color negative film, I prefer to have a local lab scan it.
If I were after a scanner, I'd save for a Nikon 4000/ 5000 series. Actually having used them in school, they are night and day better than the inexpensive Minolta units.
Other possibilities (for B+W anyway) are a dslr and slide copier if you already own them or have another use anyway. Copying slides with this arrangement doesn't work well since slides have a much wider gamut than the camera's sensor can record.
Also, if you have a wet darkroom, scanning a B+W print on a flatbed works very, very well as long as the print doesn't contain pure blacks. This method actually gives comparable results to very expensive negative scanners, i.e. Imacon.

Bryce,

Thanks for the reply. I do have a DSLR (20D) and was wondering what results I could expect with B/W films and a slide copier. What type of resolution could I expect from this set up?

Also have you used a Nikon V ED at all? I'm wondering how it might stack up against the 4000/5000 series?

Cheers,

John

 

[sebastel]

@pherdinand:

yes, it is the first version "dimage scan dual".

these were my issues:
bad software - prescanning does not give reliable results for determining the actually necessary scan parameters.

still, the automatic will deliver kind of acceptable results (depending on your expectations). well, i found myself repeating the scan again and again.

the overall scan proces with my workflow was sooooo sloooow ... usually 20-30 minutes (typical 3 iterations)

i never found an update of the minolta driver SW. actually, this non-existant after sales support made me absolutely avoid the minolta brand ever since.


my issues with it currently are:

- i have no SCSI bus in my PC any longer
- i no longer use film

i need to mention, there is already interested in it, so probably it has already disappeared from the market.

regards,
sebastian

 

[Pherdinand]

thanks sebastian.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

i use the epson 4490, it can do slides 35 and medium format. I found that it gives excellent results. I print from these scans. You can pick one up for about $200

I have one too, but it's been dethroned by my Coolscan 9000. I'm not sure whether I should keep it or not, you know, "just in case" I ever have to scan panoramic film? I barely used it (a shame, really).

My gf is beating the drums, and I must decide soon what I should do with my "redundant" Dual Scan IV and Epson 4490.

 

[Pherdinand]

heh, what a wealth of scanners. 🙁

 

[robertdfeinman]

I have a few tips on scanning on my website which may be helpful.

In general the dedicated film scanners (2700 dpi or better) are adequate for 35mm, while the flatbeds (including the lastest Epsons) are not. The Minota 5400 was a real winner, but unless you are going to do 15x enlargements you won't see the difference. The scanning software also makes a difference. I suggest trying the shareware Vuescan available from hamrick.com and see if you like it better than the bundled offering.

My tips are on my web site, just follow the tips link on the home page:
http://robertdfeinman.com