dave lackey
Veteran
Took some miscellaneous items to the local camera store for a consignment sale, hoping to get enough for a decent scanner for slides and negatives. But that leaves me with a choice about which scanner?
I need a good one. Really.
I need a relatively inexpensive one for sure.
It needs to work on my PC, I don't have a Mac. At least not this year or in the forseeable future.
I need a good one, did I say that? My friend's lab is not very good at scanning and I have thousands of negatives and slides in the closet that I need to work on while organizing all of them.
Any ideas would be welcome. :angel:
I need a good one. Really.
I need a relatively inexpensive one for sure.
It needs to work on my PC, I don't have a Mac. At least not this year or in the forseeable future.
I need a good one, did I say that?
My friend's lab is not very good at scanning and I have thousands of negatives and slides in the closet that I need to work on while organizing all of them.Any ideas would be welcome. :angel:
gnuyork
Well-known
Dave, I have the Epson 2450 and the Epson v750.
It depends on what you need the scanner for. A lot of people play down the flat beds, but I use them and they make fine scans - especially for web. In fact I just sent out some of my first scans to a lab to make large prints (that I can't do at home on my printer) just to see what I can get away with.
I may be getting a drum scanner one of these days, I have saved up for one, but I am curious to see how well my v750 has done with larger prints.
The prints should be arriving any day.
Since I got the v750, the 2450 has not been used for photo, but I still use it for scanning documents.
It depends on what you need the scanner for. A lot of people play down the flat beds, but I use them and they make fine scans - especially for web. In fact I just sent out some of my first scans to a lab to make large prints (that I can't do at home on my printer) just to see what I can get away with.
I may be getting a drum scanner one of these days, I have saved up for one, but I am curious to see how well my v750 has done with larger prints.
The prints should be arriving any day.
Since I got the v750, the 2450 has not been used for photo, but I still use it for scanning documents.
Last edited:
thegman
Veteran
Just for 35mm? I'd be looking at Canon FS400, Minoltas, and perhaps Nikons if you want to spend the money. I think my Epson V700 is great for 120, but 35mm, not so much.
gnuyork
Well-known
Yeah, I primarily bought the v750 for 4x5, but I have been scanning 35mm with it.
Some recent examples - Kodachrome: (of course these are low res for web and converted to B&W in CS5) About to receive some prints from the lab at 16x20 to see how well the scanner fares. I also ordered some larger prints from 4x5 scans as well.
Some recent examples - Kodachrome: (of course these are low res for web and converted to B&W in CS5) About to receive some prints from the lab at 16x20 to see how well the scanner fares. I also ordered some larger prints from 4x5 scans as well.
SciAggie
Well-known
I am very interested in this thread. I did my own developing and printing years ago. Now, I would love to again shoot B&W and develop myself but I no longer have as much interest in printing. I would like an affordable scanner for low-med resolution that I can use on the web or for 8X10 or smaller prints. If I need a high resolution scan, I could get someone to do that for me on a frame by frame basis.
Or is this a reasonable expectation?
Or is this a reasonable expectation?
v3cron
Well-known
There is no such thing as a good scanner that is not expensive. Even a $30k Imacon has it's limitations (it uses a CCD). The question becomes, which one is good enough. I can't see screwing around on a flatbed, but then again I've only tried it on my V500 that I use for preview scans only. I'm sure the 750 is much better, but people seem to not like it as much for 35mm. I'll leave that to people who actually use it.
I've owned a Nikon 9000, and have been using a rental Imacon for the last few years since the Nikon broke. This week I picked up a Plustek 7600i SE, and it is decent if used a certain way. I'm still putting it through its paces, but so far it is not 'great', but probably close to the Nikon - which I feel is one of the most overrated and overvalued photo accessories out there. If you are doing 35mm only, the Plustek works so long as you process as multiexposre HDR files. You do not need special HDR software to process the files, as many people think - Photoshop opens them fine.
But no matter what you do, do NOT throw down thousands for a Nikon scanner. They are noisy as hell, slow, and just flat-out not that good. The Plustek is on par with it, and only costs $350.
If you have a local school or collective space that rents time on an Imacon, I recommend you try it. I live in NY, so I can use one for $50-60/hr at Print Space if I need to (for good stuff) and get about 30 frames scanned at 8000dpi. Much better value than buying another mediocre Nikon, but still not drum scan quality. I'm sure there is something like that in Atlanta.
I've owned a Nikon 9000, and have been using a rental Imacon for the last few years since the Nikon broke. This week I picked up a Plustek 7600i SE, and it is decent if used a certain way. I'm still putting it through its paces, but so far it is not 'great', but probably close to the Nikon - which I feel is one of the most overrated and overvalued photo accessories out there. If you are doing 35mm only, the Plustek works so long as you process as multiexposre HDR files. You do not need special HDR software to process the files, as many people think - Photoshop opens them fine.
But no matter what you do, do NOT throw down thousands for a Nikon scanner. They are noisy as hell, slow, and just flat-out not that good. The Plustek is on par with it, and only costs $350.
If you have a local school or collective space that rents time on an Imacon, I recommend you try it. I live in NY, so I can use one for $50-60/hr at Print Space if I need to (for good stuff) and get about 30 frames scanned at 8000dpi. Much better value than buying another mediocre Nikon, but still not drum scan quality. I'm sure there is something like that in Atlanta.
venchka
Veteran
It depends.
35mm only?
How large do you want to print?
How picky are you?
I printed some scans from Kodachrome slides last night. First time ever for: Scanning Kodachrome. Printing from Kodachrome scans. Print size: 6"x9". Results: Grinning from ear to ear.
Scanner: Early 2001 vintage Epson 1680. Every Epson since is probably better.
If I want larger prints I either use larger format film or I can have the originals scanned for the purpose.
YMMV.
35mm only?
How large do you want to print?
How picky are you?
I printed some scans from Kodachrome slides last night. First time ever for: Scanning Kodachrome. Printing from Kodachrome scans. Print size: 6"x9". Results: Grinning from ear to ear.
Scanner: Early 2001 vintage Epson 1680. Every Epson since is probably better.
If I want larger prints I either use larger format film or I can have the originals scanned for the purpose.
YMMV.
gnuyork
Well-known
Chromira prints received tonight.
Here's my findings...
I am shocked at how good my 16x20 prints look from scanned 4x5 Velvia tiffs. I also got a 24x30 of the same print done and resolution looks good as well, however with that file I had problems getting the tiff into the ROES software (not due to internet) - so I had to convert it to jpg.
Now the 24x30 print did not look as good as the 16x20 of the same print and it could be one of two things or both: I had to convert it to jpg or it could have been that I forgot to choose the color correction option by mistake - but that's a good thing because I wanted to see the difference in the color that the added service of color correction provides. The difference was enough that I will probably choose that option always. It's only $1 per file. Wether the quality issue with it was the fact that I didn't have the files color corrected, or the fact that I had to upload as a jpg, I won't truly know what made the difference until I test an identical file in the future - one color corrected and one non color corrected - and then do the same with an identical image uploaded as a tiff and the then the same converted to a jpg.
I am also shocked at how bad my scanned 35mm Kodachrome prints looked. I didn't expect them to be at 4x5 quality but I guess that proves that the v750 is really not great for making large prints from 35mm. Those prints (from the above posted images) were scanned from Kodachrome and printed at 16x24. From a distance they would be acceptable - maybe. But I am not satisfied with the quality from those scans at that size.
In conclusion, I think the Epson v750 is good, or excellent even, for scanned 4x5 film (Velvia anyway) printed up to 16x20 and even 24x30, but not quite up to snuff for larger prints scanned from 35mm.
Now I have never had drum scans of my 4x5s, so I don't know what I am missing, but if I had to live with the v750 and scanned 4x5 making 24x30 prints I don't think I would complain.
However, I bet a drum scanner could pull out better shadow detail and have an overall superior dynamic range, as well as increased resolution, though at the size I am printing from the v750 scans, resolution is not a problem. On both the 16x20 and 24x30 prints you could not see the grain at all, even with my nose right on the prints - a pleasant surprise!
Here's my findings...
I am shocked at how good my 16x20 prints look from scanned 4x5 Velvia tiffs. I also got a 24x30 of the same print done and resolution looks good as well, however with that file I had problems getting the tiff into the ROES software (not due to internet) - so I had to convert it to jpg.
Now the 24x30 print did not look as good as the 16x20 of the same print and it could be one of two things or both: I had to convert it to jpg or it could have been that I forgot to choose the color correction option by mistake - but that's a good thing because I wanted to see the difference in the color that the added service of color correction provides. The difference was enough that I will probably choose that option always. It's only $1 per file. Wether the quality issue with it was the fact that I didn't have the files color corrected, or the fact that I had to upload as a jpg, I won't truly know what made the difference until I test an identical file in the future - one color corrected and one non color corrected - and then do the same with an identical image uploaded as a tiff and the then the same converted to a jpg.
I am also shocked at how bad my scanned 35mm Kodachrome prints looked. I didn't expect them to be at 4x5 quality but I guess that proves that the v750 is really not great for making large prints from 35mm. Those prints (from the above posted images) were scanned from Kodachrome and printed at 16x24. From a distance they would be acceptable - maybe. But I am not satisfied with the quality from those scans at that size.
In conclusion, I think the Epson v750 is good, or excellent even, for scanned 4x5 film (Velvia anyway) printed up to 16x20 and even 24x30, but not quite up to snuff for larger prints scanned from 35mm.
Now I have never had drum scans of my 4x5s, so I don't know what I am missing, but if I had to live with the v750 and scanned 4x5 making 24x30 prints I don't think I would complain.
However, I bet a drum scanner could pull out better shadow detail and have an overall superior dynamic range, as well as increased resolution, though at the size I am printing from the v750 scans, resolution is not a problem. On both the 16x20 and 24x30 prints you could not see the grain at all, even with my nose right on the prints - a pleasant surprise!
Last edited:
Dwayneb9584
Well-known
I'd say go for a dedicated scanner if you want to start making prints. I use a Plustek 7600I and scan 35mm film with it. I recently starting printing off of it and the prints look amazing. I wouldn't switch to any other scanner. If you want a fast work flow for just organizing and web and not worried about making prints at the moment then go with a Epson V700 or 750. But I use my Plustek scanner for my photo blog as well which you can view samples HERE. Those were all scanned at 72dpi and took time but I'm a pretty patient guy.
StefanJozef
Well-known
I've got a Canonscan 8400F which has scanned everything I have on here. However i'm thinking of buying a Plustek scanner, mainly for space and I find I very rarely scan prints so the Plustek might be the solution.
divewizard
perspicaz
I have a Canon 8800 which does well with 6x9 negatives, but struggles with e-6. I have not been happy with it for 35mm.
I usually send everything I take to be developed and scanned by Precision Camera or North Coast Photo. It is far easier and usually better than when I do it myself.
I usually send everything I take to be developed and scanned by Precision Camera or North Coast Photo. It is far easier and usually better than when I do it myself.