Moving from analog to digital, film scanner or a DSLR body?

<p>Hi, it is my first time to post in this area. <br />I am a film user for many years. But right now I would like to change and learn the digital darkroom for some self studies. But right now I am having a problem of making decision. <br /><br />Since I am a freutent film user, I have some negatives and sildes are kept in the basement. I don't want to waste any chances of learning (and extra time in photo taking), so I wish to have a film scanner. I would like to learn the way of analog coversion and editing. However, becase the film ranged from 135 to 120 in different formats, so I belive I must have a prof-film scanner which accept different formats. I have checked and they are expensive.<br>

On the other hand, I have some old lens are kept. These lens ranged in different mounts and focal length. They are excellent performers. I am statisfied with them and wishing to try them on a DLSR. I know if I put them on DLSR, I can cut down my expense on film. But at the same time, a new DSLR is not my cup of tea. I would go for a used one. <br>

Because the price of used DLSR is same as a new film scanner, I just can get one only. I don't know which I should buy. Can you give me any ideas for that?</p>

<p>From my perspective: having made the transition from film slr to dslr, and having scanned a lot of my past decades of film, but <em>still</em> having a lot of film to scan, I'd say go straight to dslr. The only reason I see for scanning film is because it's already been shot, I would not add to the chore.</p>

<p>That Epson V700 isn't as good as a Coolscan for 35mm, but it's good enough for prints up to 8x10 at least. It can hold 12 slides or 4 strips of cut negatives or 2 strips of MF film at a time so you can go through your collection pretty quick, and the software doesn't suck (though Vuescan is better for some tasks).</p>

<p>I don't know the excat amount of MF, but I am sure that it is a little less than 135. I have more than 200 roll film have been shooted and they are ranged from colour negative, slide, and B/W. The size of MF are mainly 645 or 66, some are 67 but it is rather in small proportion.<br>

Nikon Nikon Coolscan 5000 is too expansive for me. Epson is fine but I think the size would be the problem to my computer desk. Would that be nicer if I begin with a cheaper film scanner?</p>

<p>By "cheaper film scanner" do you mean one of those plasticky things you see at consumer electronics stores and on Ebay? <a href="http://www.scanace.com/en/index.php">Like these for example</a>? I wouldn't. The quality is crap and they're too slow - there's no auto feeder so you need to set up each frame by hand.</p>

<p>I would recommend as a minimum an Epson v500 or 4490, and since you have so much film to get through, two glass inserts from betterscanning.com - because they make the loading go much faster. The v700 is better because it does larger batches and at a higher quality. Maybe there's someplace you can put it when you're not using it?</p>

<p>Oh no Andrew, not that plastic stuff. I won't go for it. The coolscan series are nice but they are really expensive to me. I will go for it but it won't at this monent. <br /></p>

<p>Have you tried getting some scans at an outside lab and see if you like working with those scans? Scanning yourself also requires a learning curve and can be quite frustrating.<br>

Which aspect of digital darkroom are you interested in? You say you don't want to waste time shooting new photos but learning to scan and then correcting the scans can be time consuming also.</p>

<p>Letting us know your experience with traditional darkroom and the maximum traditional print size you make will help us provide better answers.<br>

With many years of film and traditional darkroom experience, I made my digital transition in two steps. Several years ago I felt that the dslrs were still too expensive and the development had a long way to go, but the scanners and printers were sufficiently cost effective and producing reasonable outputs. I dived in with film scanners and learned the tail end of the workflow, i.e. scanning, PS editing and printing. I got my first dslr recently, and only need to learn the front end of the workflow, i.e. camera operation, ingestion, archiving, etc.<br>

If you have any traditional darkroom experience, you probably can still recall the learning curve. Each step mentioned above (and not all are mentioned) for a digital workflow can take an equivalent amount of (if not more) time and effort. Cost aside, you should take the learning curve into consideration.</p>

<p>Check the make and model of your old lenses as some will not work on new dlsrs.</p>

The most pleasant thing I discovered after switching to a DSLR is how much money you can save on film and developing, particularly color

transparency film, with a DSLR. I've paid for my DSLR camera(s) several times over with the film/developing savings once I stopped

shooting 35mm film. I also use a Nikon CS V for the thousands of 35mm negatives/transparencies I still have. It's yields excellent results,

much better than any flatbed I've used in the same price range.

<p>Here's what I'd do:</p>

<ol>

<li>Look into one of the micro-4/3 format interchangeable lens digital cameras, e.g., The Olympus EP series or the Panasonic G series. This camera mount and the cameras themselves are the most easily adaptable to old lenses, both mechanically and in actual use. </li>

<li>Get a refurbished 4490 or V500 flatbed scanner directly from Epson. They're essentially the same scanner and can be had for about $100. You'll be able to scan both 135 and 120 roll film using the included film holder. Don't bother spending money on third party film holders for these models. The sensor depth of field is deep enough that film height essentially won't matter. Expect high quality prints from these up to about a 5X enlargement of the negative (vs. about 10X for the Nikon scanners.) </li>

<li>Send out the select negatives worthy of truly high quality scans. Search through the archives here on P.N and see what other enthusiasts have to say about the various vendors.</li>

</ol>

<p>I shoot a majority of time with B&W film and digitize the negatives with a pair of Nikons. However, I do so not because of some advantage of the old medium. It is simply that I enjoy using the old cameras and old lenses - the stuff I could never have afforded in my youth. A high quality film scanner also makes sense if you've a large collection of film to archive. </p>

<p>If this isn't you, you'll probably end up much, much happier with almost DSLR class digital camera.</p>

<p>Oh, one last thing. Whether you decide to go the scan route or go for pure digital capture, buy a copy of Adobe Photoshop. The learning curve is steep, but mastery of the darkroom is just as worthwhile as it has always been.</p>

<p>In early 2008, I obtained 2 D3 Nikon bodies for about $5000 each. In the subsequent 1.5 years, I have shot over 12,000 shots which, if I had done them on 35mm slide film(as I did in the pre-digital years) would have cost me way over $5000 to buy film and develop(with no prints at all.) In another 1.5 years, both of the D3s will have effectively been paid for. And, I can shoot more than ever, as much as I want....no film budget! </p>