Another Film Scanner Question- What to get?

Which Film Scanner to get?

 

Primary use to show photos (from b&w negs, color slides and negs) on

the net.

 

Possible secondary future use for making prints.

 

Between the Nikon Coolscan 2900 dpi scanner and the Nikon Super

Coolscan 4000 dpi model for example..... Will image quality

differences show up on net (computer screen)? Or will an even less

expensive model do just as well for this?

 

I've been blown away by the b&w tonal rendition of some images I see

people posting here. I feel I'm handicapped in this by scanning my

silver prints on my $200 Canoscan flatbed. I also need a film scanner

to get my color slides and negs to the web. Making inkjet prints is a

possible future but not immediate requirement.

 

Absolute max budget $1300-1500. (of course would like to spend less).

 

Thanks all......

Possible website to check out:

 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN1.HTM

Ray, in all honesty to make perfectly beautiful scans the Minolta

Dual Scan 35mm dedicated scanner does a great job at under

$500. I started with that scanner, and gave it to my assistant

when I got the Polaroid Medium Format/35mm scanner. He is

still using it.

Hi

 

i highly recommend the Nikon Coolscan IV with 2900 dpi for your needs.

i dun think u're going to see a world of difference between 2900 dpi and 4000 dpi, though i agree the Coolscan 4000 with 4000 dpi will scan stuff faster using Firewire (that's assuming u have a free firewire port)

 

it's perfect for the web and more than adequate for making large prints. and the price is just right.

Ray, I use an Epson 1650 photo for $200USD for web scans. I think its more than adequate.

 

For future printing, either the 2900 or 4000dpi models should be sufficient depending on budget.

If 35MM film is your film of choice, take a look at either the Canon 4000(around $800.00) or the HP20 for a bit less than $500.00. The Canon will give you files in excess of 60Megs per scan. The HP will yield scans up to 30+ Megs. Your choice will depend on the size of your final prints. the Canon will allow you prints of 20X30 and beyond that will be great.

I have the Canon FS4000 and find it all I dreamed for. It is not a high-production machine, but I doubt that any sub-$1000 machine will be. It works faster with a SCSI interface, but performed very well - just slower - with the USB interface. Scans are so good I can easily see the grain structure from the film. Focus and sharpness is great from corner to corner.

Ray,

 

I was in the same sitiuation last year. I had the opportunity to use the Epson 2450 (which I own), the Canon FS4000, both Nikon Coolscans, and the Minolta Dimage Dual Scan III (which is the one I bought).

 

The Epson did pretty well (particularly for the web), but not as well as a dedicated film scanner for printing. The FS4000 was a great scanner, but slow when using USB connection. The Nikons were clear winners in terms of quality, but required lots of tweaking to get good scans. Both the Canon and Nikon's did very well on surpressing dust on color films (and BW chromogenic). In the end I tested and bought the Minolta. It is a fast scanner, and scans came out right with little tweaking.

 

I went with the Minolta becuase of cost, and that most of my work is in BW. Since any dust issues have to be done post processing on BW, the FARE and ICE3 were not much of an issue for me.

 

About resolution. Since I like smaller prints the 2900 dpi was an issue for me at this time. If you want to have full cropping capabilities then 4000 dpi is the better way to go.

 

Hope this helps...

 

 

Samples of scanning from the Epson 2200 at:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=239048

 

Samples of scanning from the Nikon CS4000 at:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=242869

Shot on 400CN, scanned with ICE3

 

Sample of scannning with the Minolta Dual Scann III at:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=275693

These slides were over exposed and required tweaking in PS 7.0

Hi Ray,

 

At my workplace, I use a Nikon 4000 dpi which gives AWSOME results in defintion, color and contrast performances.

 

It is certainly the best thing available around for 35 mm films.

 

If your needs are only for web use, then the price may be overkill, but if you want to get A3 size enlargements from a photo optimized printer it is the best game in town.

 

2900 dpi models will limit you to A4 size and are generally less good at contrast restitution.

 

Flatbed Like my personal Epson 1640 (1600 dpi) are really not in the same league, even the brand new 3200 dpi I use at work which theoretically permits an A4 print will lead to less optimal results than the models devoted to films as far as 35 mm filmm is concerned, probably mainly because of the less perfect guidance of the scanner lens movements on such a small surface. Besides, there is no dust remover software. Though the Epson 3200 is able to give you the capability to print top notch from medium format to 4"x5" in A3 and more. But they are sufficient for the web.

 

I hope it helps

 

François P. WEILL

I just went thru this, I am planning on buying the FS4000U. First speed issues it's quick, buy a cheap adaptec SCSI card for it. Second its has ICE or Cannon's version of it. Third you can pick one up for under $900. NormanKoren site has a great discussion on scanners BTW.

 

I will be picking one up as soon as I sell some toys from another hobby, this is the significant others rule. No accumalation of toys. You want more stuff something else needs to go.

 

Gerry

Ray - My experience with the Nikon 4000 has been good. When everything falls into place (which at times is quite a challenge) the results when output to my color Epson 1280 or Piezography 1280 are as nice as I've seen. For web display, as previously mentioned - many lower cost units should work OK. If your output is an inkjet print the 2900 vs. 4000 dpi decision becomes more difficult. I have never worked on a difficult negative with a 2900 dpi scanner, but I often feel that I am working my 4000 to it's maximum as I try to find shadow detail, etc. in the scan. Canon has given Nikon some good competition at a lower price in the 4000 dpi arena.

i have and use the nikon IV and won a canon 4000 in a photo competition. i therefore had the chance to compare them side by side. the nikon was sharper, easier to use and faster, the higher resolution was no big advantage. so i sold the canon and am still happy with my nikon. another thing: the nikons seem to hold their prices extremely well, used prices are not much below new.

Chip, Thanks for posting those scans. Do you have any B&W images scanned with the Minolta Dual Scan III?

 

Does anyone have examples of B&W prints scanned with a flatbed that show an excellent tonal range?

I have the Canon 4000US. It was half the price of the Nikon 4000dpi, and has both USB and SCSI interfaces (I have one on each of my computers)whereas the Nikon has Firewire, which none of my computers has. The Canon would give you the future potential to make decent prints up to the maximum size of home inkjet printers, while not costing an arm and a leg like the Nikon.

I, too, use a Nikon CoolScan LS-IV -- the 2900 dpi model. I'd struggled for a while previously with a flatbed, then a cheap film scanner (Acer Scanwit), but have been absolutely pleased with the Nikon.

 

I didn't think I'd see much difference between the Scanwit and LS-IV on the monitor, but I certainly did: the Nikon was vastly superior in capturing tonal range and detail. As for the 4000dpi model, I can't say...I put the difference towards an inkjet printer (Epson 1280),

with no regrets.

Just in case you missed the most recent thread on scanning B&W, here's my 2 cents, recycled...<p>

At the risk of being flamed, 2700dpi is all it needs for b&w scans. 4000dpi is a hype to make photographers spend more than necessary on "top of the line"

gear. Unless you want to blow up Technical Pan to 16"x11" and beyond, since close to no other emulsion will offer detail that couldn't be scanned

@2700dpi. But if that is your daily business, you should rather go to a pro lab than spend hours of your precious time as a pro photographer trying to mimic

their service. 4000dpi scans will drastically slow down your computers in scanning and processing as it will inflate file sizes far beyond the visible difference in

99% of real world applications, leave alone web purposes. Scanning a Tri-X or Ilford Delta 400 neg @ 4000dpi is a laughable waste of time and resources.<p>

Firewire connectivity is no guarantee for faster handling either. It all depends on the specific combination of scanner and computer. Tests reveal that USB

may be even faster on the same machines.

<p>

As far as my personal experience reaches, Canon and Nikon scanners are straight forward and effective. I'm actually using a Nikon Coolscan IV ED (2900 dpi)

along with my 700 MHZ iBook and am happy with this fast and easy to operate combo.

<p>

A last $0.02: Knowing your craft and tweaking your scanning software is far more decisive than spending $$$ on the latest model and technology. (Which

reconducts the topic to Leica issues - where the same applies, IMHO...;o)

I have a Nikon LSIII which I have owned for many years. It scans at 2700 dpi, but there are time when I wish I had more DPI, a good example is when working with Minox negatives, or cropping 35mm.

 

Don't fall into the trap of saying "I only wnat to scan for the web", when you start doing digital darkroom work, it is easy to get hooked! Do not skimp on the DPIs. The price difference between the lower, and higher resolution scanners is not that much.

 

When I purchased the LS III It cost more than the 4000 dpi scanners cost today. It was very close to the to of the line at that time, and I never regretted the purchase.

David, scanning Minox frames doesn't occur to me that frequently, but I may be different from others... Apart from that, are Minox emulsions less grainy? Could they be had in Leica format, too, for that...? ;o)

<p>Extra cost doesn't derive solely from the price of the top of the line scanners, but from the faster computers you'll need to cope with the inflated file sizes, the storage costs, higher resolution printers, etc...

"Don't fall into the trap of saying "I only wnat to scan for the web"..."

 

My advice is the exact opposite! Don't fall into the trap of wanting your scanner to do everything. Whatever you end up buying, there is always a scanner out there that does something better. I say, decide exactly what you realisticly want out of a scanner and buy one that does just that. The cheaper the scanner the less likely you are to regret buying it.

 

I plan on testing the Minolta Scan III, and if it does the job (scanning for the web and light-weight printing) that's the one I'll get ($300). The more expensive ones have ICE/FARE dust removal which (1) doesn't work on black & white negs and (2) you can get around by cleaning your negs as long as you don't have a huge volume.

 

When I'm ready to produce 16x20 gallery-quality prints I'll look at a drum scanner, and skip all the stuff in between :)

Can someone recommend a good scanner list or forum? For recommendations, techniques and so on?

<a href="http://www.scantips.com/">Here.</a>