Comments of slide scanners

Retired casual photographer with a few thousand slides I would like to scan...

 

Back in the day when I was shooting the Nikon Cool Scan was pretty much cream of the crop....

I see used units in eBay for too much money....$1500 and up......and I'm not sure any of them

had USB interface....

 

What are some of the upper level scanners available I should look at....???

Would like a pretty high resolution scan....at least to good quality 11x14....

Some kind of batch scanning....I would love to drop in 36 slides and turn it

on and come back later....

Something like the Nikon scanners had in eliminating dust and scratches...

 

Anything out there that "affordable".....say $5-600 or so...

 

Many thanks

Steve in St Louis

See if you can find a good price on an older, used Imacon Flextight; hard to beat. The lens alone cost more than that entire Cool Scan!

This looks like my old (and a poor man's) Kodak PIW (at the time $65K) but this might be worthwhile looking into:

Edited March 28, 2022 by digitaldog

Steve, Do you intend to print thousands or just some and use the rest of the scans for display on your monitor or 4K TV or on the web? If so, you could get an Epson flat bed like a V600 for $225 new for the latter stuff and send the few out you want prints from to be professionally scanned and printed. The Epson has ICE which gets rid of the dust (mainly) and you could insert 4 at a time. (I assume your slides are in fact mounted slides not strips?) The V850 does a little better in resolution and dMax and you can scan 12 at a time. But the unit runs $1150 new. It also has ICE.

 

 

Note that ICE does not work on Kodachrome or BW negatives.

 

Some 35mm samples from my scans: Note that all my pictures are checked for dust in post and removed then.

 

V600 mounted slides (Ektachrome mainly):

V600 35mm strips Ektachrome:

V850 film strips negatives Tmax 400:

V600 Kodachrome mounted slides: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157626911395064

Yeah Steve, you really want to go from Nikon Cool Scan to an Epson Flat bed if your desire is poorer quality scans. :D

It is easy to use a digital camera and macro lens to copy slides with higher quality (24 MP and up) than a long obsolete Nikon Coolscan. The automatic slide feeder was lucky to remain jam-free for a dozen slides, much less an entire roll.

 

The Coolscan used a scanning laser light source. While precise, it exaggerated scratches and dust, making digital ICE mandatory. Slide copying setups use diffuse lighting, and (in my experience) render scratches almost invisible. Dust is easily and quickly removed with a soft anti-static brush and squeeze blower.

 

I have seen carousel slide projectors modified so that slides are presented to a camera, rather than a projection screen. However I can copy 120 or more slides an hour, one at a time, in a simple slide holder attached to a macro lens.

 

The technical details have been discussed ad naseum in Photo.net, not without contention.

I agree, copy use a macro/repro lens and digital camera. Easier and quicker and with better results. Lots of stuff on photonet about this, just do a search. Edited March 30, 2022 by Robin Smith

Although I am personally convinced that something like a Nikon CoolScan 9000 does better than a copystand and camera, it is getting close to impossible (and expensive) to get a scanner with a modern interface connection.

 

You should use a camera with a high-quality macro lens, a controlled light source, and a good quality copystand.

 

A Repronar Universal (one made for your choice of cameras, not the one with the built in Pentax) is great if you must do it this way:

I remember the Reponars...had one in my lab back in the day....worked pretty good....

 

So...in answer to the various questions....

I do want high quality.....I have some images I would like to blow up to 16x20 or thereabouts...

The Imacon Flextight is not in the budget...whew...

 

I have a Canon flatbed scanner...9000f...older unit....it does great on flat art but when I tried it with some slides the results were not up to my expectations.....

Maybe I need to modify my expectations.....

 

Here's where I come from...

I used to own a commercial photo lab....specializing in photo composing...this was before Photoshop was invented....worked in all formats from 8x10 down to 35mm...Made internegatives and had the capacity to do a lot of masking.....which I could actually sharpen an image somewhat with the application of a b/w mask....highlight masks etc......so my expectations are rather high.....

 

But my budget is rather low...:).....

 

Now I realize that the technology has made a HUGE change over the years.....What we used to get out of a Nikon Coolscan....or even the bigger Nikon models is not up to the levels that some of this equipment puts out today....

 

Does anyone have any experience with this model or similar...

https://www.amazon.com/Plustek-OpticFilm-Digitizer-Resolution-Photograph/dp/B009PHCWL4/?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_w=p4kbt&pf_rd_p=067e8e18-34c5-4e6e-8c6c-a4d937ff3226&pf_rd_r=DA400EKD7FRR4FZM66N3&pd_rd_r=fccf7e07-3881-46ca-832f-af09768bed8b&pd_rd_wg=sMQ3J&ref_=pd_gw_ci_mcx_mi

 

Amazon.com

 

https://www.amazon.com/Pacific-Image-PrimeFilm-Automatic-Scanner/dp/B07K2GCRRY/ref=sr_1_37?crid=2WMZZJG3395C3&keywords=film+scanner+35mm&qid=1648664535&s=electronics&sprefix=fillm+scanner%2Celectronics%2C85&sr=1-37

 

Three units I have been looking at....

If there are other film scanners available that are more "professional" I am not aware of them.....again for an old retired guy my budget is in the $5-600 range

which means I cannot get the very best stuff....

 

 

Alan...I really like your b/w images....those are superb.....

I have an Epson flatbed V700 which suits my requirements just fine (10" x 10" max prints from 6x6cm slides). But it won't make a print 11"x14" from a 35mm original that I'd expect to like.. It would make a decent image for on screen or a 6x4. Otherwise the OP is asking for something that has never existed affordably and is unlikely to make an appearance in future.

 

Scanning is a horrible, dull, boring job especially in the context that you're likely to have to make adjustments in Photoshop of similar to use them well. If I were a patient man I'd read Ed Ingold's post and try that route. 120 "scans" in an hour seems pretty good to me even if I'd personally expect to be bored in ten minutes, pouring a glass of red by 15 mins and hating every moment I spent doing it ( the scanning, not the red)

 

I do wonder whether you have a real need for all those scans. If you have 100 that you might print from get someone with an Imacon to do them for you and find something to do with your retirement that is not, frankly drudgery. I speak as a photographer who has maybe 20 000 MF transparencies/b&w negs of which maybe 1000 of the best are scanned by or for stock agencies and some even by me. I have absolutely no intention to scan the rest , or indeed any at all unless a clear and present need for the scan emerges.

I have an Epson flatbed V700 which suits my requirements just fine (10" x 10" max prints from 6x6cm slides). But it won't make a print 11"x14" from a 35mm original that I'd expect to like.. It would make a decent image for on screen or a 6x4. Otherwise the OP is asking for something that has never existed affordably and is unlikely to make an appearance in future.

 

Scanning is a horrible, dull, boring job especially in the context that you're likely to have to make adjustments in Photoshop of similar to use them well. If I were a patient man I'd read Ed Ingold's post and try that route. 120 "scans" in an hour seems pretty good to me even if I'd personally expect to be bored in ten minutes, pouring a glass of red by 15 mins and hating every moment I spent doing it ( the scanning, not the red)

 

I do wonder whether you have a real need for all those scans. If you have 100 that you might print from get someone with an Imacon to do them for you and find something to do with your retirement that is not, frankly drudgery. I speak as a photographer who has maybe 20 000 MF transparencies/b&w negs of which maybe 1000 of the best are scanned by or for stock agencies and some even by me. I have absolutely no intention to scan the rest , or indeed any at all unless a clear and present need for the scan emerges.

I agree. While scanning, you'll want to give your home defense weapon to a friend for safekeeping from using it on yourself.

I'm not sure there is much new in terms of quality from the day and price range of the Nikon Coolscans or in scanner tech as the digital camera movement has taken the gas out of the development of that. The next step up is probably gong to be the Imacon's and that is also a jump in price as well. I agree with Dave Henderson above. Unless you enjoy spending the rest of your retirement slaving over a hot scanner, you might want to cull the best images, or consider sending them all to a service, have proof sheets made and then have the selects scanned. It's a lot different if you just have a couple of hundred, as opposed to thousands.

Once scanned, Lightroom is all the proof sheet I need. Considering the amount of organization and preparation needed, and the low cost of disk space, I scan once and done at full resolution. Ideally, you want to be able to connect an image with that frame on film. I file the scans by roll number (date, description), and scan in numerical order.

I had not really considered all the time it might take....I was thinking in terms of a feed tray....drop in 36 punch the button and come back after lunch...

But from the comments above....I think it might be a LOT of lunches...:)......

 

Has anyone used any of the commercial slide scanning operations....

Slide Scanning Service

For example....49 cents per slide.....1000 slides is $500 bucks and I'm not doing the work....

 

Thoughts...???

My thoughts are, scan the hero images (yourself if you want full control, especially for negs). Forget all the others.

Would you print every image on a roll of film? Or would you print those that deserve being printed? The same question applies to scanning.

49 cents a scan: you will likely get what you pay for. But by all means, send out say a dozen and see how you like the quality.

It's often hard to judge which negatives to keep, or even identify persons and places, until inverted and blown up on a screen. Even slides can be hard to judge if you're looking for critical sharpness. The time it takes to decide may be greater than the time it takes to scan/image the film, and breaks the rhythm of the process.

It's often hard to judge which negatives to keep, or even identify persons and places, until inverted and blown up on a screen. Even slides can be hard to judge if you're looking for critical sharpness. The time it takes to decide may be greater than the time it takes to scan/image the film, and breaks the rhythm of the process.

How did I manage to figure out what images to send to my clients, or print prior to scanners? <g>.

The conclusion I reached many years ago is that there is no purpose making or buying scans that don't get used to do something worthwhile. So for me I wouldn't scan or pay anyone else to make scans unless I absolutely know what I want to achieve from that/those scans and understood what sort of scan I need to fulfil that purpose.

 

I achieve my aims through owning a 10yo but not intensively used flatbed which works as well as I need for over 95% of a very limited scanning need. Anything beyond that I put out, but I need to stress that there isn't much of that primarily because I don't any longer have much need for big prints either for myself or for sale. If I do its much more likely that it'll be of a digital image I've made in the last 12 years or so .

 

I wonder what the prize is for scanning an entire film collection? I think that all it would provide for me is a certain neatness, and I'm unconvinced that neatness has any important value. And that if I dedicated myself to that I would conclude afterwards that I'd wasted time doing something that didn't really need doing and so failing to to do things that would have been more enjoyable and/or more valuable.

 

And so for me there's no point debating how to get the "scan the collection" job done when there may well not be sufficient reason to do it at all. If you'd settle for scanning those you'd like to put on a website, or to print, or to make a book ( Andrew's "hero" images from above) , then there is an interesting debate about making or buying those scans and on what equipment those scans should be made.

It's often hard to judge which negatives to keep, or even identify persons and places, until inverted and blown up on a screen. Even slides can be hard to judge if you're looking for critical sharpness. The time it takes to decide may be greater than the time it takes to scan/image the film, and breaks the rhythm of the process.

 

Back in the day when many of us were developing and printing b/w in wet darkrooms, when starting to print you would first of all, print a proof sheet. These days you can do the same on a flat bed scanner, but absent that, I believe many services will do that for you. Reviewing and selecting images, no matter how you do it would, I think, take a lot less time than scanning thousands of negatives.

 

Also, since I didn't see it mentioned, getting a loupe to view your negatives and transparencies is essential for both proof sheets or just looking directly at the film. I do agree with Ed that looking at negatives directly can be confusing to the brain, hence the desirability of getting proof sheets, though positives are pretty easy to see under a loupe.

Ed said. "I wonder what the prize is for scanning an entire film collection?"

 

Maybe John Maloof with 90% of Vivian's entire photography collection comprising about 100,000 negatives and 700 rolls of undeveloped color film, costing around 80-100,00 USD to scan. The film about the project was nominated for an Oscar.

Edited March 31, 2022 by http://www.photo.net/barryfisher

Also, museums around the world scan a lot of negatives.

How did I manage to figure out what images to send to my clients, or print prior to scanners? <g>.

I flag the keeper images in Lightroom, then generally export those to JPEG or TIFF format, hence to the customer. In this case, we're talking about personal archives, which may have value beyond their artistic content. Also, the incremental cost of photo-scanning film is small compared to the logistics up to that point. If I were fluid mounting film to a drum scanner it would be different, but I can afford another 1/4 second with a camera.

 

It helps to preview each frame on a monitor in real time, using the HDMI output of the camera. That makes focusing on the dye clouds easy, even when stopped down (the camera compensates the exposure).

Once scanned, Lightroom is all the proof sheet I need. Considering the amount of organization and preparation needed, and the low cost of disk space, I scan once and done at full resolution. Ideally, you want to be able to connect an image with that frame on film. I file the scans by roll number (date, description), and scan in numerical order.

And you do that for thousands of images that haven't been scanned yet? Awesome.

And you do that for thousands of images that haven't been scanned yet? Awesome.

Each roll has a date code. Each frame has a number. Scan them in order and the correlation is easy. I'm using the same principles used to build a relational data base - store once with a unique name or hash code.

I agree with the DSLR and macro focusing lens for slides.

 

I still like actual scanners for color negatives, which need demasking, gamma correction, and reversal to become actual scans.

 

You can buy the Nikon ES-1 from Japan for a little less than most US sellers.

https://www.amazon.com/Pacific-Image-PrimeFilm-Automatic-Scanner/dp/B07K2GCRRY/ref=sr_1_37?crid=2WMZZJG3395C3&keywords=film+scanner+35mm&qid=1648664535&s=electronics&sprefix=fillm+scanner,electronics,85&sr=1-37

 

Three units I have been looking at....

If there are other film scanners available that are more "professional" I am not aware of them.....again for an old retired guy my budget is in the $5-600 range

which means I cannot get the very best stuff....

 

 

Alan...I really like your b/w images....those are superb.....

 

I have the Pacific Image XA scanner and I love it! The dust removal software is amazingly effective such that I no longer brush and blow the slides before scanning. And it does it with only a single scan. The other scanners I've tried all required an extra infra-red scan thus doubling the time. Down side is that it does it one slide at a time so the process is very laborious, but perfect for the beginning of the pandemic when I had lots of time on my hands.