Time for me to buy a scanner

[Avotius]

As a few of you might have seen in another thread I got a new photo project starting up and I am getting some equipment for it.

Now I got a new problem, the only lab in the city that scans film has quadrupled their prices over night. So while I used to get 6 MB BMP's of all my photos as a kind of digital contact sheet, now with the new price increase which comes out to about 19 dollars a roll, I cannot afford to scan all of my film in such a manner anymore.

So, easy, buy my own scanner and do my own digital contact sheets. I am looking for something that scan multiple formats like 35, medium format, longer formats like 6x17 and large format a plus if possible. End results will probably just be used to judge if the images are sharp or not, small little online photos, and the sort of non serious work. When it comes to actually printing the images I will probably go get the full scans at the lab so absolute image quality not necessary.

Oh for 35mm, something that can scan more than one negative at a time essential, I dont want to spend the rest of time scanning.

I was thinking something Epson, like maybe the V600 or V700, but the 700 is a bit on the expensive side for me now. So with that in mind what you you suggest?


ps. Epson scanners have quite a premium here compared to the states, for instance the 4490 is $423 here and $129 in the states (no you didnt read that wrong). Similar story with the V700, $923 here, $600 in the states. Also turns out the V600 is not sold here which is typical since that one caught my eye.

 

[alien8]

I have the v700 and I'm quite happy with it so far. I bought it because as far as i know it's the cheapest on the market that go scan large format. I would guess that the v600 would give decent results but i believe you are limited to medium format? And consequently batch scanning would probably max out at 12 frames of 35mm. I believe the v700 gets you up to 20/24 frames (depending how you cut your negs). Same would hold true of medium format. So I guess in your case the main benefits of the v700 would be possibility of large format scanning and better batch scanning (less tedium is something i would pay for if i shot a lot of film).

 

[thomasw_]

Since I scan just to post on the web, I bought a V700. I love the ability to do scan 24 negs at a time in 135. As I wet print, a more expensive scanner would be superfluous for me, but if you plan to print from your scanned files, I would urge you to save and buy a more expensive, dedicated film scanner. I shoot a little bit of 6x6 in 120 film with my Rolleiflex, and I must say the V700 is super in 120. Again, if I were scanning to print, I would save for a NIkon 9000. Happily, though, I do have an enlarger or 2 for printing negs ;P

Best, Thomas

 

[Avotius]

Like I said absolute quality not necessary as I will be scanning the print files at a lab. They have a Creo scanner so im not so worried about that. The V700 is interesting but just so expensive, 900 dollars is a lot of cash!

 

[alien8]

Yeah, I don't think the issue is quality, since v700 isn't up to dedicated film scanner or drum scanner quality. It's more about saving time and ease of workflow compared to less expensive scanners that have a smaller area for transparency scans. And the large format thing is a bonus. I think it all really depends on how much film you will be shooting and whether you want to scan entire rolls (as you seemed to indicate when you mentioned digital contact prints) or just select frames. If it's the latter, then you could easily go for the cheaper scanner and not look back.

 

[Al Kaplan]

I wet print and scan the prints. Lately I've gotten too lazy to print up old negatives for my blog postings. I've been scanning frames from the contact sheets. I really should be making some nice prints from these nearly half a century old images. If I make a glass carrier for the Omega B-22 I can get the same effect of including the perforations, dust, and scratches in the prints. The only thing that will be missng is the stains.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com

 

[Michael Markey]

Just got a V500 and very happy with it. The advice that I was given was that scanners are a mature technology and there is little diff between say a £200 model and a £500 model apart from the inc of better software in the package.The same advice held that dedicated film scanners were however superior to flatbeds. I looked at some comparisons and yes, that was true but I was not prepared to pay the extra premium and I have found the V500 to be a good cost effective solution for me.

 

[Trius]

Given your purposes and not needing to produce high res scans, I don't see why the V600 wouldn't work. MF is up to 6 x 22, and IIRC it will do LF negs as well, though there is no transparency holder for larger than MF.

 

[cplkao]

Hello, I got a cheap epson 4490 on ebay 6 months ago (£120GBP), and the result was satisfactory enough, the 6x6 scanned at 1200 print well at 8x8, and the 35mm scanned at 2400 print well at 7x5 to my untrained eye. The first two attached files are from 6x6 slide, and the last one from 35mm (XA+TriX).

The 4490 model was made prior to V500, and can be found very cheap. It only take 12x35mm or 2 6x6 at the same time, slow compare to V6/700.

Scanning is a new technique needed to be learned like the wet darkroom skills, can be very time consuming, especially with B/W as you can't use ICE to remove the dust, ending up spending more time in Photoshop/Lightroom to clone/heal the scratch, dust. And the result from colour negative may need to be adjusted to match the color of prints. Slides are easier in term of color rendition.

Let me know if you want real size examples.

 

[dagabel]

A couple of years ago I picked up new an HP Scanjet 4890 (current model looks like it's the G4050?) because it has a negative adapter which can handle 4x5, 120 and 35mm. My intent was to use it for largely the same purposes you've stated. I don't think the scan quality is equal to the Epson line of flatbeds, but the price was (and still is) right - $200 US.

I've also heard the Epson 4990 can handle 4x5, so that might be an alternative if you can find a good used one.

Duane

 

[hanskerensky]

One of the cheapest film flatbed scanners going all the way till 6x9 frames would be the Canon8800F. Works good enough for Internet publications. Not good enough for large format prints.

 

[ChrisN]

I have an Epson 4490 and while it is not designed to scan large format, I scan 4x5 in two strips, on a mask/holder I made myself from card, and stitch the two scans together. It took a while to develop the scanning technique (getting the overlap and alignment right, and learning to lock the scan exposure values with the Epson software), but the results are now quite good.

(And yes I know about Vuescan - I hate it.)

Here's a sample of 4x5 scanned on the 4490 and stitched with Panorama Factory.

 

[Avotius]

The 4490 seems like a compelling choice for image quality and price. Also the V500. I am thinking between the two. Basically since I wont be doing any serious printing from the scans besides maybe at the max some layout proofs and sticking photos online I think one of these two would be a good choice indeed, thanks!

 

[mich8261]

I would also suggest the Epson 4990. It will 35mm to 8x10. Found mine on Craigslist for $145.

 

[emraphoto]

I went through a painstaking search a few months back. I looked hard at the v750 pro... In the end I bought a microtek m1 pro. I of course had a budget and it came up with the beat final results with much tweaking. It's a bear to use but for the money (I paid 500cnd used) it was the most featured and competent. It is also a dedicated AND a flatbead in the rare chance I need to scan a print.

 

[emraphoto]

It also produces big files with enough information for the AP and CP folks.

 

[Avotius]

Lots of good advice here. Another question though.

What do you guys think of the Nikon LS 2000 dedicated 35mm film scanner, I know it wont do any of the other formats but I hear that flatbeds are good for larger formats but are pretty hit and miss with 35mm (the large majority of my negatives are 35mm) and that a dedicated 35mm scanner will always do better. A friend of mine has one for 300 dollars OBO and I am wondering if its worth it?

 

[dfoo]

As you probably know I have a 5000 ED and a v700. The 5000 ED beats the pants off the v700 (except for med format for obvious reasons) 🙂 The 2000 is probably much much better than a v700 too for 35mm, and I thought about when I was in Shanghai since I found one very cheap. However, ultimately I decided against it since its SCSI only...

If you are only doing black and white did you think about doing some contacts instead? The photo paper and chemicals are very cheap in China, and you don't need a dedicated darkroom for contacts.

 

[Avotius]

As you probably know I have a 5000 ED and a v700. The 5000 ED beats the pants off the v700 (except for med format for obvious reasons) 🙂 The 2000 is probably much much better than a v700 too for 35mm, and I thought about when I was in Shanghai since I found one very cheap. However, ultimately I decided against it since its SCSI only...

If you are only doing black and white did you think about doing some contacts instead? The photo paper and chemicals are very cheap in China, and you don't need a dedicated darkroom for contacts.

Most of the reason for doing the scanner way is because of the need for online stuff like emailing the pictures around and sticking on webpages. Contact prints is too much trouble for something like this plus I don't have time to mess with chemicals and stuff now.

 

[Avotius]

Well in the meantime since I dont have a scanner, I turned my Olympus EP1 into a film scanner, worked quite well for black and white, so so for color. Not too bad for not buying anything else beyond what I had sitting around.