Best negative scanner ?

Try googling creo-scitex, or kodak iq smart. I have never used one, but as I understand it, they are supposedly made for service bureaus, labs and etc. They are not consumer scanners, so they cost an arm and a leg ($10,000 for an entry level model). Image quality is supposedely very close to a drum scan and (and yes, they are flatbeds).

 

You can occasionally find older models used, for around 2 or 3 thousand. Many times they come with an older Mac, as these machines will not work with a P.C. or a newer Mac.

 

These machines might provide the high image quality you are seeking for 35mm while allowing you to scan many, many frames at once.

 

I am no expert about these scanners and I am sure there are issues with using older models, but it might be worth investigating... or not...

 

Good luck in your research.

Flatbeds are useless for 35mm. I had an Epson V500 and it make me think my lenses had all gotten out of alignment. Then I bought a Nikon Coolscan V ED. I was flabbergasted with the result. My lenses were fine. It was the V500 that sucked.

 

I'm keeping the flatbed for MF. Keeping both is cheaper than getting a Coolscan 9000, but I'm in the odd situation where my 35mm scans look as good or better than my MF ones.

 

I don't know for sure, but for MF the Epson V750 in cumbersome wet-scan mode might cut it, although I understand that it still sucks for 35mm.

 

And the 9000 does wet-scan too.

 

And if the Coolscan V looks this good, I keep wondering what the 5000 looks like...

Those of you who are claiming that flatbeds are as good as dedicated scanners -- sorry, you're just flat-out wrong, especially for someone whose goal is "to produce files as good as the raw files the Pentax k10d produces."

Edward the V700 does not suck at 35. I have a K/M scan dual 4 and the Epson. I've done comp tests with both and they are very close. Actually Epsons software give better out of the box exposures than does the K/M.<div></div>

The advice about consumer flatbeds not being nearly as good as a dedicated film scanner for 35mm is right. No consumer flatbed that I have heard of is as good as a dedicated 35mm scanner.

 

Consumer is the key word, however. If you are willing to spend money on either a used creo-scitex or if you have $12,000 to blow on a new Kodak Iq smart 2 (complete overkill), these flatbeds will exceed dedicated film scanners, including the imacon/hasselblad variety, especially if your negs are wet mounted. They can also allow you to scan many more negatives at once than a dedicated scanner.

 

Though posters are right in terms of the image quality of flatbeds v. dedicated scanners, I wanted to point out that the scanners I mentioned previously are a different beast all together (and are certainly priced accordingly). Very good labs these machines for their high rez scans on 35mm - the Slide Printer, for example, use a creo-scitex eversmart pro for their highest resolution scans - check their website. Might be worth looking into, espcially if you can find an older version that won't cost you quite as much (though still alot).

Wet scans on a $12,000 flatbed matching a $13000 Imacon? Um, I'll take your word on it. Now, how much longer will it take Antoni to scan those 5,000 negatives with wet mounting, Charles?

Great responses... thank you all !

I definately do not have $12,000 to spend on this project. With this kind of money I could pay $2.00/scan and save tons of time and $2,000.

The Nikon Coolscan V ED sells for $500-$600 which is attractive. However, I am leaning towards a light table and the K10d with the macro lens as the first step.

"Now, how much longer will it take Antoni to scan those 5,000 negatives with wet mounting, Charles?"

 

Not as long as you might think. You prep the next scan while the current scan is under way.

How long?

I have a Nikon CoolScan 5000 and it does a wonderful job with chromes. But I am not

satisfied when it comes to scanning silver (b&w). The only acceptable b&w neg scans

I have ever done were with a high end LinoHell scanner and the negs were oil mounted.

I have an enormous b&w neg library and I would love to have it digitally available. This

winter I sat down to "shoot" my b&w negs to digital with my D2X and a Nikon slide

copying setup -- until I realized my D2X doesn't fit on the rack as my F3 had. It's

always something new to buy. But, I do concur that "shooting" film makes a lot of

sense compared to scanning.

Shooting negs with a digital camera is certainly a good way of accomplishing your goal of efficiently scanning in 500 negatives. As someone suggested, you can even decide to send the best ones out for more high rez scanning if you want to enlarge. Using a cataloging software of some kind (iView, Lightroom, etc) can help you keep track of them, easily and efficiently.

 

If you are after top quality, one of the previous scanners I suggested (creo-scitex, kodak/creo iq smart) may be worth looking into but they are certainly overkill for most purposes (my own included). Scanning on them would be more efficient than on a Nikon or imacon as I believe they can scan upwards of 40 mounted 35mm chromes at one time, but I do not know how many of these full scans it can do in an hour. Good luck!

Michael I'llnottell / Michael Darnton / Keith B

 

Can you please tell me more about your setup and equipment used (Light source, etc) or post pictures of your setup...

 

Thanks again to everyone !

Les, thank you. You mentioned on your first email "perfect light source" for the negatives. Can you elaborate please...

Ellis Vener / Michael I'llnottell / Michael Darnton / Keith B / Les Sarile

I have decided to first take pictures of some of the negatives and see how it goes. I will use the k10d and the 100mm 2.8 Macro lens on a tripod.

Can you please tell me more about your setup and equipment used other than the camera/lens? (Light source, mounting, rails, etc) A pictures of your setup would be great help...

 

Thank you.

"How long?"

 

The same amount of time as dry scans, once you get really good at prepping your wet scans.

Sorry, I wanted to say 90mm 2.8 Macro lens.

I take these pictures the same way like "Les Sarile". Make sure that lightbox is far away from the negative (it shouldn't be in depth of field). First take a shot of clear frame to set the white balance after that you can take pictures. I think you'll get best results at f/11. Make sure that the negative is exactly perpendicular to the camera.

Hey Guys..can anybody suggest me a good 35mm negative scanner?? My priority is a good BnW scan

I shoot on Tri-x 400...after reading all your suggestions and reviews I am really confused.

I am not looking for a high end scanner...the Nikon coolscan the $500 one seems in my budget...is it a good one?

Do they cause any scratches on the negative surface? Thanks a Lot

 

 

Apoorva Guptay

Apoorva, If i were buying a film scanner and had a budget of around $500, I would buy the Nikon V ED. I do not believe that there is a scratch issue with these boxes. I have not used one, but I am almost certain that you use a negative strip holder before you insert it, therefore the moving mechanism never touches your negative.

My vote is for the CoolScan V ED for 35mm. What few 120's I've had scanned I've sent them off rather than buy another more expensive scanner.

 

Les, you continue to amaze me as you show all of us what a good scanner, lens and film and post processing skills can accomplish. I love film and will shoot it as long as it and I last!

<p>I just read this after the lab forgot to scan to cd some 35mm negatives that I had put through a newly

acquired Praktica FX, (1954). I have just photographed them using a Canon 40d and EFS 60mm macro lens and I'm

more than pleased with the results. Here is one picked at random.

</p><p><img src="http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/4/7/13/f_flower2m_357876b.jpg" />

Darron, can you elaborate on your process. Thank you. Th image you posted looks great.