Saving $$ on a new scanner

[aad]

This is something of a philosophical post- I've been agonizing over whether to get a scanner that would better resolve my slides compared to my Epson 4490, and I've done way too much research-for perhaps, another thread.

But then I realised I was approaching the issue from the wrong angle. I shoot slides to view on a light table, or for projection-and maybe print one or two now and then. Viewing them on a screen defeats the purpose. I can use other film or (shudder) a digicam for screen use. If I print them, I'd likely either make 4x6 or 8x10. For larger stuff I would likely have a professional scan made.

So-I scanned a few slides, burned them to disc along with a few digicam and negative pix, and took them to what may be the nastiest CVS processing center on the planet for a comparison. Very interesting...

Below is a scan, not of an old Agfachrome slide, but of the cheap print of that slide. I picked it for the detail and for all the cat lovers out there. You can see the pattern from the coarse-pitch resolution they used, but otherwise, what do you think?

The digicam pictures didn't fare so well. Not worth posting.

I guess I just hadd to stepback and think. Now what do I spend my money on?

 

[kaiyen]

You are absolutely correct - if you are in the game of digitizing your slides because you want to work with them in a digital manner on your own, then you'll need a scanner. But if you project the majority of them and can live with getting a professional scan now and then, then there is no need to get a scanner. There has been a lot of talk about scanners and printers on RFF lately, but don't get swept away by it. In fact, I am moving away from doing my own color printing at home, actually, as I have found some labs do it better and for less money than it costs me to maintain my printer. Nothing wrong with that.

However, the scan of the print you have attached is pretty darn terrible. If that's the quality you're getting than I would still invest in a scanner.

However..what perhaps would make the most sense would be to get a professional scan, on at least a dedicated scanner, and preferably a drum scanner. If I only scanned say, 2% of my slides, I would probably drum scan those.

allan

 

[aad]

I think I should clarify-that is 3 generations down the line, scanned, printed badly, then the bad print was scanned. And it's being displayed on a computer screen, so it's way down the chain.
The shot ain't Ansel Adams, either! But the print is enough to show as a snapshot, and if it were going on a wall, a drum scan I think is the only way to go.

 

[peter_n]

Cute kitten aad! 🙂 You can easily get swept away by all the gear talk. I just shoot B&W negs and I have a comparatively cheap KM SD IV scanner which does a perfectly good job for viewing on the web. Last week I was ruminating about "upgrading" it to a Nikon but I finally resisted the GAS (but spent on a new lens 🙁 ). What I did do was get a copy of Vuescan to see if that would improve detail that I'm getting from my negs. We'll see, but I think you're right that it only makes sense to spend a lot of money on a scanner if you want seriously good output from it.

 

[aad]

Poor old kitty has been long gone-that picture is from 1983.
Yep, for B&W my Epson is great! But the $1000 for a Coolscan 5000 buys a lot of film and drum scans for any slides that need printing-and maybe a Nokton?

 

[peter_n]

Yeah well that's what I did - bought a fancy new 90mm that I've convinced myself I really need.

 

[Buttons]

My favourite slides I have printed, or I have them scanned at top quality at a local scan-shop. Now one of these scans at 5400dpi, tiff etc. cost me 0,22€ and are done really well, investing in a high quality scanner is just not worth it. I have an epson flatbed for my index prints and occasionally some 120 scans, even for slides it's quite ok, but not top like a Nikon 9000 or whatever it's called.

A 9000 would cost me 1400€ the slide feeders, silverfast etc would be an additional 800€ totaling 2200€ for which I can conveniantly have roughly 8000 scans done for me at top quality....

 

[Nikon Bob]

My favourite slides I have printed, or I have them scanned at top quality at a local scan-shop. Now one of these scans at 5400dpi, tiff etc. cost me 0,22€ and are done really well, investing in a high quality scanner is just not worth it. I have an epson flatbed for my index prints and occasionally some 120 scans, even for slides it's quite ok, but not top like a Nikon 9000 or whatever it's called.

A 9000 would cost me 1400€ the slide feeders, silverfast etc would be an additional 800€ totaling 2200€ for which I can conveniantly have roughly 8000 scans done for me at top quality....

It is interesting that you say the the scans are 5400 dpi Tiffs. Could it be that the shop is using a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 consumer scanner? Sounds a lot like the files that I get from my Minolta 5400.

Bob

 

[aad]

I can make massive files on my scanner, but they are unwieldy and are no improvement in apparent image quality. For slides, there seems to be some light scattering in the film that degrades edge definition/acutance when using flatbed scanners-so all I get with big files is high definition fuzz that makes no difference for 4x6 prints.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I can make massive files on my scanner, but they are unwieldy and are no improvement in apparent image quality. For slides, there seems to be some light scattering in the film that degrades edge definition/acutance when using flatbed scanners-so all I get with big files is high definition fuzz that makes no difference for 4x6 prints.

Yeah, there is a big difference between massive ( 100/200mb) files which is enough for a 16X24 inch print from a dedicated 35mm film scanner and a flat bed used to scan negs/slides. They are two different beasts with differing capabilities for 35mm work. For showing on the web a scan of a print on a flat bed is likely good enough and you will save money to boot.

Bob