Scanning Help

[dazedgonebye]

I'm involved in a little internal argument as to my choice of film format and I could use a little help resolving the issue.

I scan on an Epson 4990 and I know my methods are not the best. One of the reasons I like larger film is it gives me more room for error. What I'm wondering is, if I just did a bang up job of scanning 35mm film, would it not be adequate for my modest needs?

So, I'm one again asking for a favor.

Could someone out there with a dedicated 35mm film scanner scan a negative strip for me, so I can compare it to my flat bed scanning efforts?

 

[ferider]

I'll put it through my 5000 ED if you like.

Roland.

 

[WDPictures]

I think given all variables are perfect the major difference will be ease of use not quality. Imagine not dealing with Epson negative carriers on a flatbed...

 

[dazedgonebye]

I'll put it through my 5000 ED if you like.

Roland.

I'll send you a PM Roland...thanks.

 

[dazedgonebye]

I think given all variables are perfect the major difference will be ease of use not quality. Imagine not dealing with Epson negative carriers on a flatbed...

Well, the expense of a dedicated scanner is pretty serious. I'll have to get something very much better than my flat bed to make it worthwhile.

 

[venchka]

Rate my experience on Bang for Buck scale:

Epson 1680 scanner and shipping from Los Angeles, CA to Houston, TX: $225

Formats: 35mm mounted & unmounted, MF up to 9 6x6 frames, 4 4x5 frames

Nikon 9000: $2,000+

Is the Nikon really 10 times better? I would still need the Epson for 4x5.

I do plan to add the Betterscanning holders.

 

[dazedgonebye]

Rate my experience on Bang for Buck scale:

Epson 1680 scanner and shipping from Los Angeles, CA to Houston, TX: $225

Formats: 35mm mounted & unmounted, MF up to 9 6x6 frames, 4 4x5 frames

Nikon 9000: $2,000+

Is the Nikon really 10 times better? I would still need the Epson for 4x5.

I do plan to add the Betterscanning holders.

I'm thinking of better scanning holders as well.

Basically, I'm trying to decide if I really need medium format gear. I love the larger negative, but 35mm is so much cheaper and easier in so many ways. If I can get enough quality out of 35mm, logically, I should dump medium format.
Of course, I'm often not logical on these matters and I'll likely do a bunch of analysis and then keep shooting MF.

 

[rogue_designer]

I use an epson flatbed for 120 and 4x5 (with the betterscanning holders (they're very good).

35mm i batch scan small files for web use and evaluation, on the epson, but I have them rescanned on a dedicated scanner for printing, my epson (older model 3200) doesn't really hold up with the 35's

I would love to get a very good dedicated film scanner for all formats, but 120 and 4x5 on the epson is good enough for my needs. THe few images that need gallery prints, I have drum scanned at a lab anyway. $500 for a dedicated 35mm (to compensate for the epson's weakness) isn't quite as serious an investment as the Nikon 9000 (or an Imacon - drool )

 

[ferider]

Replied to your PM.

I went through something similar. The 5000ED does keep me away from medium format, mostly because it's so easy to use compared to my (older) Canon flatbed.

Cheers,

Roland.