Sorry for the newbie question but...

[RMPoole]

Hello, I'm sorry if this has been asked a million times (i've had a look through the archives but the threads get so long it can get confusing!) I've recently bought an Olympus 35SP and a couple of rolls of Tri-x. My plan is now to get a developing tank, chemicals, changing bag, thermometer and measuring cylinders and develop the negs myself. This means I need to either print (no darkroom though) or scan. As most of my images are viewed online I think this will be a better option. My hope is that someone can recommend a good entry level scanner that will provide image quality good enough to be viewed online, probably Flickr. I can't really afford to splash out at the moment so less than £100 would be ideal.

Sorry again if this has been asked before,

Rob

 

[Joosep]

Howdy there!

You are most likely gonna get as many different suggestions as replies.
Its a tough one basicly.

If I were you? Use somekinda mailservice (there are a many in the States), send your negatives in to get scanned and just start saving up for a better scanner.

Now on the scanner side of things. The price is actually not that much dependant on quality (it is, but not as much as you might think, when you get to a certain point, the quality does not magically jump anymore). The price comes down to comfort basicly. The more you pay, the less hair loss you will suffer. Saying that, I myself would not buy a a flatbed or any other desktop scanner that would not autofeed a whole roll. Sitting behind a desk a full day (my day job) and then sitting behind a desk at home scanning negatives doesnt simply flow with me. I rather just let the scanning happen when I do other things around home. But thats just me. Someone will surely recommend you a flatbed, and they are great too!

On the quality side of things, just jump into filmscanner.info. Theres alot of great tests and "realworld" stuff.

 

[RMPoole]

I can't imagine that I will be scanning loads so sitting at the desk isn't that much of a problem. My RF is a toy (at the moment) but the plan is to buy a Leica (lifelong dream, I don't really know why). So I want a system in place to develop and scan. Another option is I could buy an M6 and one lens (used) rather than a couple of lenses then spend more on a scanner. I'll have a look at the website linked thanks.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

If you have a digital camera, get a macro lens (true macro, not a close-focusing lens) and scan your film using the camera. You'll get better quality images this way instead of using an entry level scanner.
Find a negative carrier for an enlarger then add some adapters to stick the carrier on the end of a macro lens like a filter. Make sure you have the distance and focus set right before using epoxy/jbweld to set the whole thing together.
Put a diffuse light source behind the neg (bright light reflected off a white wall even works) then you're off to the races.
If you're in the USA, I can send you a negative carrier for 35mm from an Omega enlarger. Just pay the postage.
Look up this "scanner" option online, there are a bunch of how-tos out there and results can be very good.

Phil Forrest

 

[RMPoole]

If you have a digital camera, get a macro lens (true macro, not a close-focusing lens) and scan your film using the camera. You'll get better quality images this way instead of using an entry level scanner.
Find a negative carrier for an enlarger then add some adapters to stick the carrier on the end of a macro lens like a filter. Make sure you have the distance and focus set right before using epoxy/jbweld to set the whole thing together.
Put a diffuse light source behind the neg (bright light reflected off a white wall even works) then you're off to the races.
If you're in the USA, I can send you a negative carrier for 35mm from an Omega enlarger. Just pay the postage.
Look up this "scanner" option online, there are a bunch of how-tos out there and results can be very good.

Phil Forrest

Thanks Phil, I have a fuji x-e1 digital camera, but no macro lens. I suppose I could buy a cheap M42 fit macro lens and adapt it or splash out on the 60mm fuji macro (though it isn't 1:1).

I have heard of doing this before but I thought you had to take multiple shots of each negative and stitch them together like a pano, is this not the case?

Thank you for the kind offer, I would have definitely taken you up on it but I am in the UK unfortunately.

Rob

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Get a 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor for cheap and an adapter.
You don't have to stitch as long as you set the height of your adapter correctly for the whole negative to fill your frame.

Phil Forrest

 

[struene]

The "cheapest" scanners worth buying are

- one of the cheap flatbeds as Canon 9000 or Epson 550 for scanning comfort and automation or
- Plustek Opticfilm 8100 for optimal quality but manual one-by-one scanning

they sell new for around 200€.

Cheaper scanners are not really worth it, better to "scan" with your digicam then... Lookout for the "colorperfect" plugin for PS as it can tread/transorm digicam-"scans" as well.

schöne Grüße,

Johann

 

[KismetSky]

I'm also a newbie. I just processed my first roll of Tri-X at home the other night and scanned it on my Epson v550. All of my recent scans of store-processed negs are also on the v550. You can see some samples on my Flickr.
www.flickr.com/kismetsky

 

[Bill Clark]

You guys have nice stuff on Flickr.

My suggestion, remember you'll still have the negatives, keeping them can always be a backup or scanned again if you feel the need at a later date.

Welcome to Rangefinder forum where we enjoy helping each other.

 

[RMPoole]

Thanks for the advice, the Epsom looks promising, reasonable price and the scans by KismetSky look great (I've followed you on Flickr, how do you like the M6?).

Thanks for looking at my Flickr Bill, pretty much all Fuji stuff on there. My X100 is what made me fall in love with photography again. I'm enjoying RFF so far, I'm still getting used to the user interface which I find quite confusing! Everyone so far has been very helpful!

Phil, I'll look into the Nikkor, I do want a macro so it would kill two birds.

Rob

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Well, the cheapest scanner is your smart phone. Next step up is a manual focus macro lens and adapter for your Fuji.

 

[lukitas]

Cheapest I could find for a decent (better than flatbed) scan : A second hand Nikon 3100 with a 40 mm macro lens, which I mounted on the column of my enlarger, aligned to the negative holder.
Once you've got everything in its place and set up, it's faster than most flatbeds. Click, move to next negative, repeat until done.
Do a few tests to see what exposure compensation you need to dial in for best dynamic range. And invert in photoshop before editing them in Lightroom.
You can invert the curve in Lightroom, but then all the sliders are inverted too: blacks become whites, highlights become blacks. Confusing and unpleasant. Best to do it in photoshop first - you can write a script for this, do it in batches-, save as 16 bit TIFF's, and then import in Lightroom.

 

[colyn]

The max amount you want to spend is less than $200 USD. I don't know if you can get one where you are at but the Epson V550 Photo fits your budget and it does scan 35mm and 120 film.

 

[Joosep]

I can't imagine that I will be scanning loads so sitting at the desk isn't that much of a problem.

I develop in batches. So about 12-14 rolls at once. I try to do perfect scans on all my frames from the get go, I dont like prescans. I have my own custom profiles, so I would spend the least amount of time trying to "correct" the images. Throw film in, number the folder, cut film up and archive. My scanner does about 3 minutes per frame. So its almost 2 hours for one roll. That would take a full 24hours for the whole 12-14 rolls. Thank god it autofeeds.

 

[RMPoole]

The max amount you want to spend is less than $200 USD. I don't know if you can get one where you are at but the Epson V550 Photo fits your budget and it does scan 35mm and 120 film.

They seem to be about £140 online which seems OK, I'll have to persuade my wife it's a good idea.

Rob

 

[KismetSky]

Thanks for the advice, the Epsom looks promising, reasonable price and the scans by KismetSky look great (I've followed you on Flickr, how do you like the M6?).

At first it slowed me down quite a bit (which isn't a bad thing). Now that I'm accustomed to the controls and the focusing, I've begun to pick up speed again. I've been through a 'few' cameras and ranted about it here: http://journal-42.blogspot.com/2015/01/update.html.

 

[tomken]

I'm also a newbie. I just processed my first roll of Tri-X at home the other night and scanned it on my Epson v550. All of my recent scans of store-processed negs are also on the v550. You can see some samples on my Flickr.
www.flickr.com/kismetsky

Very nice scans! I'm tempted to buy one myself.

 

[RMPoole]

At first it slowed me down quite a bit (which isn't a bad thing). Now that I'm accustomed to the controls and the focusing, I've begun to pick up speed again. I've been through a 'few' cameras and ranted about it here: http://journal-42.blogspot.com/2015/01/update.html.

I enjoyed giving it a read. You've gone along a similar parth to me x100, xe1 Leica lust...

 

[Matus]

Thanks Phil, I have a fuji x-e1 digital camera, but no macro lens. I suppose I could buy a cheap M42 fit macro lens and adapt it or splash out on the 60mm fuji macro (though it isn't 1:1).
Rob

If you would expose the whole 35mm frame you would already get very high quality capture - no need for stitching. Also - with that setting you do not need 1:1 lens as 35mm films frame is about 1.4x the size of an APS-C sensor. Should the lens no be able to focus close enough, than you can surely get macro ring to get even closer (Fuji MCEX-11 or MCEX-16). If you would plan to get non-fuji lens then just get something decent - Nikkor 55/2.8 has a very good reputation. But I personally would get the Fuji macro lens - more practical for normal macro photography and excellent quality too.

 

[RMPoole]

If you would expose the whole 35mm frame you would already get very high quality capture - no need for stitching. Also - with that setting you do not need 1:1 lens as 35mm films frame is about 1.4x the size of an APS-C sensor. Should the lens no be able to focus close enough, than you can surely get macro ring to get even closer (Fuji MCEX-11 or MCEX-16). If you would plan to get non-fuji lens then just get something decent - Nikkor 55/2.8 has a very good reputation. But I personally would get the Fuji macro lens - more practical for normal macro photography and excellent quality too.

I've just bought a couple of the macro adapters (after market not Fuji) so I'll try them out. I have an old Industar 50mm and an M42 adapter so I'll see if that works. If not, I might have to see if I can convice my wife that I need to spend a couple of hundred on a used Fuji 60mm macro lens.