Do I really need a 35mm Scanner??

Here is my situation. I am about to buy a film set-up. A Nikon N80, Nikkor 28 f/

2.8, Nikkor 85 f/1.8, and a Nikon CoolScan V ED.

 

BUT

 

I am considering not getting the scanner, and pushing my budget a little

further and get a Nikkor 180mm f/2.8. I would like to have this prime lens,

because I shoot a-lot of swim meets, and school plays; the light is very bad.

 

 

I have been taking my film to the photo store, and have had them put the scans

on a CD for years; and have been very happy with the scans. An example:

 

http://homepage.mac.com/cameralogic/Jaclyn/

 

I blame the poor-quality of my current

lens' for the lack of quality & sharpness. (Minolta Kit lens)

 

 

Is it wise to skip on the scanner? Would the images be "that" much better to

sacrifice a good telephoto prime? The obvious problem I could see, is working

with a compressed file from the photo store, as compared to the .tiff file

provided by the scanner. Being in college, this is a pretty big investment for

me, and would like some input before I commit.

 

 

 

Much Thanks,

 

[nathan.thomas]

Get an older scanner. I have been very pleased with the scans my Nikon IV has been putting out. Only you, though, can know if the scans you are getting are up to your standards etc. You may also want to consider a flatbed scanner, they are pretty cheap and supposidly put out great results. The only downside to my scanner is that it isnt very fast, especially compared to the new one. So if you have a tight deadline or many rolls to scan at one time, you'd better clear a little while to sit down and do it.

At this point in time, maybe you could consider DSLR, used maybe. There are no shortage of used DSLR at affordable prices. Then maybe pickup some used 20/2.8, 50/1.8 & 135/2.8.

Store scans really are rather poor quality: standard scans are typically only around 2MP, and even the rather more expensive scans are usually 6MP. That leaves aside any issues with limited capture of dynamic range, etc. You can do much better with your own scanner, although scanning at home is a time consuming process. If you consider a flatbed, aim at least for an Epson 4990. As Dan suggests, you can also get some good results from an older second hand Nikon or perhaps Minolta, although it is probably worth having a scanner that offers ICE dust reduction to save you time dealing with dust spots in post processing.

Plan on getting both a film scanner and your 180mm lens - eventually. I'd get the lens first, though, so that you can capture swim meets. Add the scanner when your budget allows - you can always go back and rescan your older negs.

 

Skip flatbed scanners for 35mm film.

The others are right -- store scans are c**p. To get the most out of your images, you need

to scan your own. I've tried flatbeds, and they just do not deliver the goods in 35mm. Much

better to go for a dedicated 35mm scanner, on the used market if your budget won't handle

a new one. ICE is overrated, and it doesn't work on ordinary b&w negatives that have silver in

them. You end up having to re-repair many ICE "repairs" by hand anyway. Try to keep your

negatives/slides as dust free as possible before the scan. Then hand repair in PS any

residual dust spots on the really important images.

Your store scans looks really good, so you wouldn`t see much(if any at all) difference for web use if you bought your own.

 

Don`t even consider a flatbed scanner, you will get much wore results than your store scans.

I agree with Amund.Dedicated film scanners are overkill for web posting. If you plan on making large prints that's a different matter.

 

I have both the lens (AF version) and the scanner. The lens is very sharp and very hand-holdable. Good luck with whatever you decide.

If you can use a scanner for other things (like 8 1/2 x 11) text scans then buy a flatbed that also has photo capabilities. Some come bundled with photoshop. Unless you want large prints it should do a good job.

It seems to me that you would really need the 180mm f/2.8 for swim meets/plays. You can get that lens and continue to have the lab scan the shots made with the 180mm.

 

or

 

You can get your own scanner but not have any good shots from a 180mm to scan.

Dedicated film scanners, such as those from Nikon or Minolta, are superior to consumer flatbeds with respect to resolution and dynamic range. For 35mm, the difference is likely to be quite noticeable, especially if you plan on making larger prints. For the subjects you shoot I recommend you seriously consider a DSLR. Well-scanned film is highly competitive with digital for subjects with a lot of detail (e.g., landscapes), but for swim meets and school plays that extra bit of detail may not be necessary. Personally, I would not be willing to put up with the time and expense of film, processing, and scanning for those subjects when I could dispense with all these factors via a DSLR. For close to the price of a dedicated 35mm scanner you can buy a nice Nikon DSLR and take as many pictures as you want without having to worry about scanning.

I bought a Cool Scan V and it's great.

 

Only thing is, the whole preview, scan, straighten + crop, adjust procedure is really dull. So dull I put it off for weeks.

 

In many cases not having to scan may keep you shooting and printing, scanning however may be no problem to you at all. Some people love the sit down and fiddle side of photography.

Someone asks about scanners, and several people chime in about DSLR's.

 

It is surely a joke.

 

I wonder if there is a shop in my area that would make scans of that quality?

 

Get the lens!

Get the lens. It will make a difference in your pictures that you will actually see. Having your own scanner vs. getting scanned at the lab won't change what's in your pictures at all. And of course you can get a good scan from a lab. If you're not getting good scans you'r ejust going to the wrong lab.

In the courtship phase of scanning newbies think it will be fun; quick. In the marriage phase of scanning one learns scanning takes actual time. The fun wears off when the scanning becomes a time consuming job; like washing diapers by hand. You can consider your time worth zero and thus always beat a labs prices for scanning. Its real common for folks to scan less and less after the honeymoon phase of getting a new scanner. Onc can shoot a 24 exp roll of C41 for sports; and use the local c41 process print and scan. The moderate scan ofr prrofs can be used to cull out the duds; and do high end scanning on what matters.

Maybe there is somebody near you that you can do scanning with. Its not everybodies copy of tea to be chained to a scanner. The 180mm F2.8 ED is a fine lens

It looks to me like the photo store does a fine job of scanning.

Hard to judge quality from downsampled scans like that, but color

and dynamic range are excellent. I advise you to skip the scanner.

It might save you money, at the cost of aggravation and a steep

learning curve.

 

But while you are not buying things, what's wrong with your Minolta

setup? Background blur (bokeh) and foreground sharpness look good.

I don't think you're going to vastly improve quality by switching

to Nikon.

>Someone asks about scanners, and several people chime in about DSLR's.

>It is surely a joke.

 

It's no joke, it's about reality. The OP mentioned he's a student and tight on budget. A good scanner cost money, film & processing cost money. If the OP was going to shoot swimming, DSLR will prove itself worthy in the near future because the hit rate is so low for this subject matter, paying for film and processing will soon made him broke. Not to mention it takes at least 2 hours to scan a roll of 36exp with all the cleaning and cloning. And no, ICE is not magic and won't even solve 1/2 of the dust spots and nasty scratches. Proper film storage will cost money as well. Since the OP didn't have specific reason why he must use film and basically starts from scratch, why not go digital now and look for the future? I used to shoot film and did lots of my own scanning. It was fun when I had plenty of time, but could be a burden otherwise. At this point in time, if one wants digital files, shoot digital, it's that simple.

Purchasing a film scanner or not depends on what you want from the scan. Scanning film is a time consuming task as many have already stated.

 

If you want to capture the most data from you film, you need to have a drum scanner or have scans made at a professional shop - very expensive (tens of dollars per image).

 

If you only want to make small prints or view on the web, a flatbed scanner or something like the photoshop you are using is adequate.

 

A Nikon 35mm film scanner will give you excellent scans, but not quite as good as a drum scan - but at considerably less cost. I have a Nikon 9000 and find it excellent for both 35mm and medium format. I use it to scan my old negatives and my wife's 35mm, but I now use a Nikon D200.

 

If you purchase a film scanner I recommend you get one with Digital ICE, this saves me a lot of time in fixing dust spots. Scanning takes a lot of time and I find it important to have a scanner that will allow batch scanning. I batch scan everything using Pro Photo color space, 16 bit files, and save a TIF file for editing. I do final corrections using Photoshop and save a TIF file for my master - takes a lot of disk space.

Good scanning takes skill, and time. Over a period of time (learning curve) you will get

faster and ultimately scanning will not take very long per image, but I think I can say with

some certainty, that those of us who scan a lot, do not scan every frame, just frames that

we want to reproduce. I can scan about 12 to 16 images in a long evening of scanning.

This includes corrections in photoshop. I always scan 35mm at 4000ppi (maximum

resolution for my scanner).

Probably not. I shoot slides almost entirely just because I like them and like having a hard copy. I scan most of them with a Minolta Dual Scan III that I got for $50. It does a great job at near 2900 dpi, but it's slow, 4 slides in about 6 minutes. Then I spend maybe a couple of minutes per in Elements to crop, spot the big ugly dust, levels, sharpen and save as JPEG to save room on the drive. For the type of things your doing, sports & theatre, the DSLR would be the way to go unless you are making really large prints. I've contributed scanned images from my kids sporting events for end of year banquets etc., and when projected on a 1 megapixel or so projector, all shots look about equal with everyone else's. So scanning is far from the most efficient option for this type of stuff.

If you need a particular lens for your photography, you get the lens period. A PhotoCD file around 3000x2000 (uncompressed .bmp is about 18.5mbytes) is more than sufficient for web display and small prints.

 

If you are pleased with the digitized images from the lab and they satisfy your needs, stick with that until it is no longer the case. Scanning is not a fun and troublefree procedure. Use the time instead for photography and your studies. Time will come when you'll need to make larger or more critical prints. I'd put off buying a film scanner til you really need it.

If you're happy with the quality of the store's scans then waiting on the scanner makes sense. They'll only get cheaper and better in the meantime. And you'll still have your negatives when the time comes.

 

I bought a Nikon Coolscan V (discontinued but still available new) and really love it. I also needed to scan a whole bunch of aging negatives and slides so I didn't have much choice. Scanning does take some time and effort, but you gain a tremendous about of control over the results. Not only do you get a higher quality file, you can adjust the scanning parameters as necessary to salvage occasional marginal shots.

 

Don't forget to factor in the cost of the scanning services when you make your comparison. I can get a roll of film processed develop-only for less than a dollar. I'm not sure how much they charge for a CD but I know it's more than that. That ongoing savings is not going to pay for a film scanner anytime fast, of course, but it's something.

Thank you all so much for your input!! I have decided to hold off on the scanner, for now. I

also decided to stick with Minolta, and used the extra money to buy a better 50mm. I can't

wait to get everything in the mail.

 

Thanks, you guys are a PRICELESS resource,

[nathan.thomas]