Scanner for B&W?

[Bobbo]

What's a good scanner for black and white film from my rangefinder? I have around $200 to spend. I don't shoot color film ever, so I'm not worried about color-specific problems. I want to make prints up to 11x14 at 300dpi. I have heard a bit about the Minolta Dual Scan IV, and that seems like a good idea. Are there any others?

Thank you,
Bob Clark

 

[Fred]

I'm with you on this exact question given that local supplies of B&W checmistry and paper are getting harder to get from the high street photo shops.

 

[kaiyen]

300 dpi for 11x14? You'll need 3300 dpi to get that. Fortunately, the Minolta DSIV gets you 3200...

That's probably you're best bet for B&W only. In fact, it might be your only bet close to your price range, though it's actually a bit higher. As always, I highly recommend getting Vuescan, but then that's another $80.

allan

 

[ChrisN]

Kaiyen - you're right, he needs a bit over 3000 scan resoultion (with a 35mm negative), but he was talking about 300 dpi printer resolution.

Printer resolution = 300 dpi

300 x 300 = 90,000 pixels required per inch on the print

90,000 x 11 inches x 14 inches = 13,860,000 pixels of info needed.


To get that from a 35mm negative:

35mm negative is pretty close to 1.5 square inches

3200 dpi scan resolution gives 3200 x 3200 x 1.5 = 15,360,000 pixels of information = OK!

 

[Bryan Lee]

The biggest issues I ran into on choosing a scanner for black and white is that new dedicated scanners use a different light source that is oriented towards color film and not ideal for black and white, also the software packages for ICE is a exspensive factor in the price and is not useful in black and white scanning. I got a HP 4890 because it is capeable of scanning large format but Im also looking to get a dedicated scanner for black and white small format.

 

[kaiyen]

Well, all of the dedicated scanners use a fairly collimated and intense light source other than the Minolta 5400. Even then, the difference has been relatively minimal in terms of increased grain. Personally, I think the topic of increased grain from the more focused light in scanners such as my Nikon IV is overstated. I mean, yes, grain is increased, but I don't have any problems with it. The impact of additions such as the Scanhancer doesn't seem worth the trouble to me.

allan

 

[Jordan W.]

At $200, unfortunately, there isn't a huge selection. A Minolta Scan Dual IV would seem to fit the bill, new or used. You could also get a used Scan Dual III and use the leftover money to buy Vuescan (which I prefer to the Minolta scanning software). Don't worry too much about the light sources. Soft-working developers that don't emphasize grain will give you good B&W neg scans.

I've been using a Minolta Scan Dual II for a number of years now, and am really pleased with it. I paid about $150 for it in 2002... by now they probably cost pennies 😛

 

[bmattock]

With respect, I agree that the SD IV is a good choice, as long as no one has a problem with that, in which case, I apologize. I would say that I like Vuescan for B&W too, but I'd be afraid that such a forceful opinion would offend someone.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[meyman]

Jordan, are the scans on your site from the sdii? Maciek

 

[sooner]

Bill,

I'm offended that you don't have stronger feelings about the matter! Ha.....John.

 

[JohnL]

With respect, I agree that the SD IV is a good choice, as long as no one has a problem with that, in which case, I apologize. I would say that I like Vuescan for B&W too, but I'd be afraid that such a forceful opinion would offend someone.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Trust you are feeling well, Bill, you seem kind of out of your usual self 🙂

 

[paulfitz]

I used a Minolta Scan Dual IV for black and white film, but I didn't like the images so well. I was used to the Nikon Coolscan. So I got a used Coolscan III off the 'bay. I think that Nikon Coolscans give the look of working with a condensor enlarger as compared to the diffusion enlargers. Only problem I had with this scanner was a lot of built up dirt. Took it all apart and cleaned it up and it's back to great performance. It's a little short on the resolution that you want. Check the attachments for the effects of cleaning. But that's not for the faint of heart!

First is the final scan, all clean. Second is 100% crop of dirty scanner, third is 100% crop of clean scanner.

 

[bmattock]

Trust you are feeling well, Bill, you seem kind of out of your usual self 🙂

Oh, I'm fine, thanks.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks