right, ok, now which scanner for film?

[hammerman]

epson, nikon, canon, hass, ??? i've had a look. at $A1000 that'd be the tolerance, i reckon. 35 mm seems the average machine but i also have an RB67 which i use less. i can send the 120s out. Nikon make one for about $1K, Epson seem to have only flatbed unless there is another source for them. ironically the Hass is for 35mm! others go on up to $4-5K which is out of the question. any experience with the Nikon Coolscan V ED (LS-50 ED)?

 

[steamer]

I don't think you can beat the epson V700 for the price (I paid less than US 400 in Japan) here is a link to a review:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V700/page_18.htm

 

[wray]

Yes, here's a new scan from the Nikon V ED. It's a great little machine for the money. I wouldn't discount the newer flatbeds - Epson V700 or Microtek i900. If I were buying today I'd get one of them.

 

[amateriat]

Wray: scanning matters aside, that's a fantastic photo.

hammerman: You'd be best off doing a search on on scanning-related threads here. I, among many others here, have likely written far more than my 2¢ worth on the subject, and there are more than a few issues to consider before putting your money down for a scanner (particularly since you're aiming to support more than one format with it). I think the extra footwork involved is well worth it.


- Barrett

 

[hammerman]

good advice. i'll do my homework. the microtek looks good. thanks.

dj

 

[markinlondon]

Another + for the v700.

 

[P C Headland]

Another vote for the V700.

It does very well for medium format,. With tests I have done with a friend, it runs neck and neck with the Nikon 8000 for prints up to 16x20" from a 6x7 colour slide and B+W film. Note that we compared the final printed outputs, not the on screen raw scan.

I get very respectable 8x10" prints from 35mm.

And of course, 4x5" scans are really nice

Get the V700, and the RB may get a lot more use!!

 

[lubitel]

I was thinking of getting the Nikon V ED, but read somewhere that its not great for B&W film. But looking at the scan from wray, that looks fantastic! Which film did you use?

 

[Tim Gray]

If you are scanning 35mm, I think you're doing yourself a disservice getting anything other than a Nikon scanner. Go for the V. If you can afford it, go for the 5000. If you are completely loaded and do medium format too, get the 9000.

I got the V and its great for B&W. Can't use ICE, but it's still a great scanner...

 

[einolu]

the epson 4990 can be had for pretty cheap, how does it compare to the v700?

 

[wray]

I was thinking of getting the Nikon V ED, but read somewhere that its not great for B&W film. But looking at the scan from wray, that looks fantastic! Which film did you use?

The shot was done with Fuji Superia 400 and converted to b&w but here's a scan of a 25 year old HP5 negative:

I think it handles regular black and white film well, no? Apologies for the ka-ka on the image!

 

[David Noble]

I voted for the Epson v700 because I wanted to do primarly 120 and some 135 and the only dedicated slide scanner available that does both is the Nikon 9000 which was way more than I was willing to spend.

I am quite happy with the results from the Epson, though the film carriers are pretty crappy, as other people have noted. Hard to keep the film flat. I think it probably does better with MF film, but the couple of rolls of 35mm I have put through it did not do too badly either.

The attached file is a scan from 35mm (Neopan 400). There are a number of MF scans in my RFF gallery, the monochromes from Neopan, color from Provia.

 

[icebear]

Go for Nikon

Go for Nikon

Hi hammerman,
another vote for Nikon. I have the V ED with VueScan Software, the Nikon stuff drove me nuts... If you don't mind spending some time with your scanner & PC and dive into the learning curve you will beat any "high res" scan you might get from a photo store (other than real pro scans for pro prices on Imcon drum scanner). You will be able to suck every piece of information from the negative that is in there. No one will match that, similar to self printing in a wet darkroom. If you really use 120 go for the 9000 series to scan also the medium format, you'll regret buying only the 35mm version once you got the hack of that. Another useful read :Wayne Fulton, Scanning tips (not free, you'll have to order a printed copy, but well worth to make the most of the scanner !!) Happy shooting & happy scanning.

PS : I think judging anything from lens or camera or scanner on a 300KB file posted here doens't make any sense. The files you'll genrate from scanning you negs are 30-50MB depending on the structure of the picture.

 

[hammerman]

thanks again, everyone. i have a 4990 at the office where i work part time and tried scanning some HP5 negs shot on an M3 some years ago and the blacks were pretty blocky and the highlights a bit undefined. even doing some fine adjustments in CS3 i wouldn't say the prints were clean or presentable in an exhibition. the Nikon V is still a temptation as is the Microtek i900, mainly because of the glassless scanning tray, a higher reso than the Nikon V and its (the i900) ability to handle larger formats. but a comparison chart i found on the net shows the Nikon as having a greater Dynamic Range than the i900. they are roughly the same price, A$1000 - A$1300. the Nikon 9000 is roughly A$4500 and well out of range. the v700 is still scanning with glass and the dust and flatness are issues, so i am discovering with the 4990. 120 negs are less a priority and i can send them out to melbourne. so now i'm sort of stuck between the Nikon and the Microtek. but i'll keep searching and reading. thanks... dj

this is an image i scanned today on the 4990 http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...hp?photo=67247 when the image is printed at A4 (8 x 10-ish) the blacks modulate into almost a posterised pattern and the texture of the white cloth on the ground, which shows texture in the neg, is pretty well blocked up, too. it was scanned at 4800ppi and reduced to jpeg at 300. this is the processed 300ppi image from the original scan. not what i'd call lively.

 

[wray]

thanks again, everyone. i have a 4990 at the office where i work part time and tried scanning some HP5 negs shot on an M3 some years ago and the blacks were pretty blocky and the highlights a bit undefined. even doing some fine adjustments in CS3 i wouldn't say the prints were clean or presentable in an exhibition. the Nikon V is still a temptation as is the Microtek i900, mainly because of the glassless scanning tray, a higher reso than the Nikon V and its (the i900) ability to handle larger formats. but a comparison chart i found on the net shows the Nikon as having a greater Dynamic Range than the i900. they are roughly the same price, A$1000 - A$1300. the Nikon 9000 is roughly A$4500 and well out of range. the v700 is still scanning with glass and the dust and flatness are issues, so i am discovering with the 4990. 120 negs are less a priority and i can send them out to melbourne. so now i'm sort of stuck between the Nikon and the Microtek. but i'll keep searching and reading. thanks... dj

this is an image i scanned today on the 4990 http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...hp?photo=67247 when the image is printed at A4 (8 x 10-ish) the blacks modulate into almost a posterised pattern and the texture of the white cloth on the ground, which shows texture in the neg, is pretty well blocked up, too. it was scanned at 4800ppi and reduced to jpeg at 300. this is the processed 300ppi image from the original scan. not what i'd call lively.

That's really odd. Before I got the Nikon Coolscan I was using an Epson 4490. Here are a couple from it.

An old Tri-X image.

A Kodak B&W 400 image from a few months ago.

 

[lubitel]

I've used the 4990 many times and the results are sometimes acceptable but usually more like that from Hammerman. Your scans look really good, Wray.

Here is one from 35mm and one from 6x6

 

[wkrassowski]

My humble advice for flatbed scanning: scan as positive and always apply USM (to taste).

 

[Fotch]

I use both the Nikon V and the Epson V700. While both will do 35mm, the Nikon has the better scans. The Epson of course does larger formats. If I was only was doing 35mm, I would only have the Nikon V. If needed to do more formats and only wanted to have one scanner, would be happy with the Epson. However, having both seemed the best solution. Good Luck.

 

[tominabox1]

I hate to spam but I have an Epson 3590 Photo that I've used almost exclusively for film, it does a FINE job. I'm moving to digital so its for sale (cheap), feel free to PM if interested.

 

[PATB]

The shot was done with Fuji Superia 400 and converted to b&w but here's a scan of a 25 year old HP5 negative:


I think it handles regular black and white film well, no? Apologies for the ka-ka on the image!

Great scans and pics! Do you use the Nikon Scan software or a third party? I am currently using Nikon Scan and thinking of trying out another scan software.