Best negative scanner ?

I have around five thousand negatives that I would like to scan into good quality

files. Some of them are 120 B&W and color. Most are 35mm. My goal is to

produce files as good as the raw files the Pentax k10d produces. Is that realistic?

What kind of money should I be spending? I looked at the Epson V series but cant

realy tell. .... Thank you.

Epson V series are flatbeds and while they're good and reasonably fast you could look into dedicated film scanners for optimum "once in a lifetime" scan quality. I don't think you feel like scanning anything ever again after 5000 negs. ;)

 

Used Nikon 8000/9000? Handles both 35mm and 120.

Nikon V would be much cheaper but it doesn't do 120.

I have the Epson V500. It does a fairly good job on 35mm, but doesn't equal my

Pentax k100d for sharpness and color. It's fine for small enlargements, but you'll

quickly see the limits for big enlargements. Not so great for shadow detail. Also fairly

slow. I bought it mainly for medium format. Sounds like you need the Nikons described

above.

"My goal is to produce files as good as the raw files the Pentax k10d produces. Is that realistic?"

 

Hmm... this is a bit tricky to answer. Basically K10D beats 35mm but does it matter much? Your 5000 images matter and technically scanning + photoshop can give you better end product than you could ever achieve by analog process (especially for color work). It'll look good if your originals are good.

 

120 size, no problem there, except that file sizes can get huge fast. Quality will be excellent. (I'm not going to start a war by saying that it'll be better than K10D... whups.)

The Nikon 9000 ED Scanner costs $2,300 plus ...

I've been through all of this, hoping each new generation of flatbed will give me something approaching the quality of what I've gotten from my first simple film scanner. If you're looking for anything resembling high quality from 35mm, forget flatbeds--every flatbed--and buy a dedicated film scanner of some sort.

 

The usual size mentioned for the maximum from flatbeds is 4X or 5X. That's marginal for 120, but doesn't cut it for 35mm. Even the folks on the large format forums say, "wellllll, for 16x20 from 4x5, flatbeds are maybe OK, but that's it."

 

This is assuming you're concerned about quality, which from your question I assume you are. Lacking a functioning film scanner at the moment, I've set up a little copy rig with my Nikon D300 and 60mm Micro which is doing a great job--much better than any flatbed I've had, and I've had a few. I'm as happy as a clam with it, but I'm not talking about scanning 5000 pieces of film.

Flatbeds:

 

The Microtek ArtixScan M1 is at a minimum, in the same class as the Epson V-750

Pro, but since you also say that

 

"My goal is to produce files as good as the raw files the Pentax k10d produces."

 

then you want a dedicated film scanner. A Nikon Coolscan LS 9000ED and

SilverFast Ai6 software to be precise. Possibly the AZTEK fluid mount tray for

it as well. Expect to spend about 10 minutes per scan once you have mastered the

learning curve.

 

But to more rapidlygo through "thousands of a negatives and slides", I currently

use a Nikon D3 with a 100mm f/4 AI-S Micro-Nikkor

Nikon 9000 is great, and you will probably find that you get scans that supercede the

quality of your digital camera, assuming of course, proper technique. At least, that's

what I discovered after scanning some 35mm color/bw negatives from my F4.

 

Scanning MF will be ridiculously superior, even on an Epson, or even a Microtek,

assuming you get one that works.

Here's another way to do it: get a flatbed and use it as an editing tool instead of the

final scan. It's unlikely that every one of your 5000 negs will be a winner. Then, if

something really merits it, you can have it scanned for under $2.00 on a Nikon (for

35mm, that is). I always think my slide are fantastic on the light table, but find

something wrong when scanned--only a very few make the cut.

Ellis gave you the right answer. After a few weeks of experience you should be able to start producing high-quality scans at home with a $2100 scanner and probably another two grand in storage.. But it will take you well over 1,000 hours to properly scan 5,000 negatives "as good as the raw files." What is the value of your time?

Am I "reading" here that I may be better off using the Pentax K10d with the Tamron SP Di 90mm 2.8 Macro 1:1 on a tripod ???

Ellis, are you shooting those on a light table? What is your setup?

Sam

"I have around five thousand negatives that I would like to scan into good quality files."

 

Be sure you know what you're in for before you start on this project.

 

I have a Nikon CS5000. It's the fastest high quality scanner scanner available for around $1k. It basically takes about 1hr per 36 exposures. If you're doing this part time, a one year commitment isn't unrealistic.

I too have a homemade D3 + Macro lens + Nikon slide holder(PS-6 I think) rig...The rig is

horizontal operating on a table top(it has legs and feet) so for illumination a I use a color-

correct light table set on it's side with the slide holder just a few inches away from the light.

Exposures seem to be about 1/3 sec or so, ISO 200, f/8 w/lens extended to about 1:1.2.

Depends on slide.

"Am I "reading" here that I may be better off using the Pentax K10d with the Tamron SP Di 90mm 2.8 Macro 1:1 on a tripod ???"

 

Compared to a flatbed, definitely yes. My D300/60mm micro combo gives me absolutely clear grain right out to the corners from my Tri-X negs at f8-11--I don't know what more I could ask for.

 

If I weren't at a workshop right now I'd throw up a picture of my rig, which is comprised of the camera and lens mounted on a focusing rail with a block of wood screwed on to one end of the rail. The camera-facing side of the wood is squared to the camera, and I glued a magnet on that face. I have two pieces of glass hinged with tape, with tape rails for sliding the negs along between (like a glass enlarger carrier), and that's held to the block with another magnet. I take the negs, put them in the sandwich, clip them to the rig with the magnet, and shoot the copy using a light table as the light source, with the camera handheld. It takes about two minutes to set up one neg, and then later there's the post-processing.

Don't count out the flatbed scanners... I have the Epson V700 and for price vs.

performance, it's a great deal @ $549-ish. I like the idea that I can scan films

(35mm, 120, 4x5, MF, even full 8x10), as well as prints, documents, text etc. (I tend

to look for things that are not a single use only device to get the most bang for my

buck.)

 

Take a look at this review, it helped me make the decision to get mine and I'm

thrilled with it! There's a ton of image samples & comparisons in the review as well.

I also agree with Scott Cole when he said the scanner can be used as an editing

tool, and your "cream of the crop" images could be sent out for scanning pretty

inexpensively.

 

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_1.htm

 

Also, the V750 PRO (next step up - Around $800) has the capability to use a fluid-

mount accessory.

 

Good luck with your search!

Dear Antoni,

 

The idea from Scott sounds good to me. Thhe best scanner for your needs is without a question Hasselblad Flextight X5, last model scanner from Imacon (now Hasselblad). There is nothing better in the world right now. My friend has one. So if you want contact me at my email fototyll@gmail.cz and I am sure I can help you. Use cheap scanner and then for the good shots use the Flextight.<div></div>

If you realy want the best qualtiy from 35 mm, you should go for Nikon dedicated film scanners, but those are very expensive and some models doesn't support 120mms. I bought a Canon 4400f (Without FARE) and than replaced this with Canon 8800f (With FARE, equelent to Digital ICE). 8800f's film guids are realy best I ever used in flatbeds, even better than own brands 4400f, It can scan upto 12 frames of 35 mm and it supports 120 mm too. this is a cheap but high end flatbed. In flatbeds, you can scan your prints too. so now the flatbeds are good too.

One more thing... Scaned negatives with reasonabel higher resolution, would give

you far better detailed photographs compared to your K10D, even with 8800f or

4400f<div></div>

I have the Epson V700, being unable to obtain a Nikon. It is a big piece of machinery,

but very good to black and white negatives. I think that the slide scans are very good

also, but I suspect the fluid mount of the next model up would add a bit for the

scanning of slides. The Nikon would be more convenient to store, but less versatile.

Scanning thousands of negatives for any amateur is virtually prohibitive from a time

point of view, whatever the equipment.

I have an ArtixScan M1 and it is good for a non dedicated film scanner.Of course the negative has to be good too.It can't get what's not in the negative.It gets a little bit less of what's in the negative.There's always some loss.The loss part maybe in part due to skill or lack of it .I'm still new to scanning.

Michael Darnton: <i>Compared to a flatbed, definitely yes. My D300/60mm

micro combo gives me absolutely clear grain right out to the corners from my

Tri-X negs at f8-11--I don't know what more I could ask for. If I weren't at a

workshop right now I'd throw up a picture of my rig...</i><p>

 

Michael, I'd like to see it when you can.

I take pictures of negatives with a digital camera (EOS 40D) and results are really good. You just need to know how to take such picture. I was surprised how good the quality was. In your situation scanner is probably a better option but if you have a macro lens taking pictures of negatives is worth trying.

Files as good as the Pentax k10D raw files? Heavens! I have an old Canoscan

FS4000US, and I would challenge anyone to be able to match the quality of the

tiff (essentially "raw") files from that scanner using any regular-format

digicam available. In terms of quality, film still reigns by a long shot, even

scanned (with an adequately good scanner, of course), although I expect digicams

to start coming close very soon.

 

That being said, a few years ago, I found a new FS4000US (4000dpi, resulting in

scans of approximately equal to about 24MP (yes, I calculated it) with tiff -

and most of the better films still outperforms the scanner) for half the

original selling price, and it does a fantastic job with 35mm negs and slides.

It doesn't do 120, alas, and it's very slow. The newer Nikon Coolscans (5000,

etc.) and Minolta ones (there's one that can do something like 5600dpi, but I

can't remember the name) should do much better, but they would still be a little

pricier. I would skip flatbeds if you want the best quality scans from 35mm.

Okay, before someone says something, I would like to say I take it back about using flatbeds. I looked up the newest flatbeds, and looks like they can do what the film scanners can do and more! I sit corrected...