How to scan ~4500 negatives (plus some slides) as good as possible?

[edith_beerdsen]

I would like to scan about 4500 negatives and some slides as good as

possible, for archiving and printing purposes.

After some research, I am thinking of the following options:<br>

- Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 (about 745 Euros), <br>

- Coolscan V (about 800 Euros), <br>

- Canon FS4000 US (about 580 Euros).<br>

I also haven't completely ruled out Coolscan 5000 ED, though at 1300

Euros this is actually above my budget.<br>

<br>

Now, I don't have any experience in scanning. Of course, quality is

the main issue. But on the other hand, having to scan 4500 negatives

inserting them one by one doesn't sound too nice, so userfriendly film

insertion is another consideration. Also, as I understand, the

Coolscan V doesn't have ICE, so you have to spend some time on each

picture after the scan (which in principle is ok, but for 4500

pictures this time should be as limited as possible).<br>

<br>

Who can give me advice which scanner to choose? (Just in case: I will

use the scanner under linux, probably with Vuescan) Help is much

appreciated!

[markus_ehrenfried]

Edith, I recently bought the Minolta DiMAGE 5400 and couldn't be more happy with the

quality. Negatives might be tricky but slides almost always come out on the first try with

correct colours, contrast and sharpness (I use the AF function). Only tiny adjustments are

needed to get on the screen what you see on the light table. I didn't expect that and I'm

really pleased with this device.

 

I have no experience with the other scanners you mention, but yes, I wish the Minolta

DiMAGE 5400 dpi would be faster. I didn't buy Vuescan yet but the bundled Minolta

software (on an Apple with 768MB RAM is a bit slow, if I select the highest quality and

switch on ICE. I want to scan every slide once and for good and forget about searching for

it again if I need it.

 

ICE does an remarkable job. I wouldn't consider buying a scanner without ICE. I switched it

off once (as the scanner is much faster in this mode), but then I had to spend my time with

cleaning up the image on the screen.

 

The frames can take four mounted slides and six negatives (but my negs are always cut

into four negs...) -- and the scanner is SLOWER with negatives than with positives

(actually, I would love to know WHY the hell!). If you have 4500 negs to scan you better get

somebody to do that boring task :)

 

hope that helps, Markus

[jack paradise]

"Also, as I understand, the Coolscan V doesn't have ICE,"

 

Where did you pick that tidbit of information ?

 

Of course, The Nikon Coolscan V Ed has ICE. It has Digital ICE-4 Advanced (Digital ICE Quad Advanced), amongst other things, like GEM, ROC and DEE.

[marshall]

That's a lot of slides. So far as I know, only the Nikon scanners have an available bulk feeder, which enables you to feed 50 slides at once and go away whilst it does the work. It's ridiculously priced, but a very very worthwhile accessory for a job like that. I have some experience with working on a 120,000 image stock library, and that device has proven invaluable for freeing up people's time in the office for keywording, etc.

[imaginator]

Have you looked at the films (slides and negs) on a light box? Before you scan over 4000 frames, you might consider how many are actually worth scanning (I'm talking about exposure... how bright/dark they are) A $50 light box should be your first investment. I'm no scanning expert, but honestly, scanning takes time, and so does post-scan adjustments (most images will need some work... this take time) Also, software is important, so you have to learn about the scanner and the software (check into Vuescan and Silverfast) There are also computer issues... mostly memory, and I won't even get into calibaration and workflow, color issues, printing, ect. I just found a program to help my get better scans from negatives... now I have re-scan hundreds of negs... can't imagine doing thousands! You will have to do what many of us do... edit... weed out the rejects (often because of exposure, not content) and get that number down into the hundreds... or scan thousands and weed them out later. By the way, what films... what circa? Are they all Kodak max800? Old Kodachromes? Don't mean to be a "smart-ass", but some films scan better than others, and some people store their film better than others. It would help to know more specific details... for more specific, "real world" answers. Oh, one more thing: I just noticed you said "...as good as possible" Taken literally, this means sending the films to a pro lab, or buying a Flextight "drum" scanner (thousands of $$) and also Photoshop (hundreds of $$), plus monitor calibration units and programs (more$$) I don't mean to scare you off, and by the way, I'm personally on a very low budget, but since you asked, I'm attempting to give you a realistic answer (you know... logical men, should have read between the lines I guess?) Hey, you can scan the film and do all adjutments later... no pressure, but don't expect quick results, and do plan on spening time later fine tuning the scans.

[edith_beerdsen]

Thank you very much for your answers. I don't remember where I got the information that Coolscan V comes without ICE, probably somewhere on this forum, but apparently I was wrong. The Minolta 5400 sounds like a good option.

 

Jeffrey, I understand your points. 'As good as possible' is of course a vague notion; what I mean is 'as good as possible' in this price bracket and within reasonable time. I agree with you that 4500 negatives and slides is too much to scan and manually correct. I think I will scan all of them and spend further time only on the really good ones. Not all 4500 are top quality, but many of them I would like to keep for other reasons (e.g. they where taken during travels). The manual feeder that can be used on Nikon scanners sounds great, though I read somewhere that it costs $500 :-(

 

You ask what type of film: the large majority of the negatives are Kodak Supra 100, some Supra 400. The slides are mainly Ektachrome 100 VS, some Velvia 50 and some Provia 400.

 

Thanks again for your quick replies!

[marshall]

Yeah, the attachment is $450, so it is pretty expensive.

[oskar_ojala]

My understanding is that the Canon is quite slow, especially compared to the latest batch of scanners. ICE or similar hardware dust removal is recommended. Be sure to look at the speed of scanning (and software support), as 4500 frames is a lot (IIRC, the Coolscan 5000 was fairly fast, but I don't remember exact numbers so it's worth making a search.)

[robert goldstein]

Edith,

 

It's your life, and you can spend it however you choose. However, I cannot understand

choosing to spend hundreds of hours scanning mostly mediocre photos. I say this on the

assumption that your photos are on a par with those of most other amatuer enthusiasts,

myself included. If you already have prints of these images, then putting them in digital

form seems a double waste of time.

 

The real thrill of scanning is that you can, with a good scanner and proper editing skills,

transform your better photos into something far beyond what you have gotten in minilab

prints. The improvements in sharpness, detail, tonal range and color are mind boggling.

And the fact that you have control over the whole process can really get your creative

juices flowing. To me, that's the true value and enjoyment of scanning. You learn that

you can create better images than you ever thought possible.

[drolight]

I am not sure I have 4500 images, but I have asked a similar question as Edith's (which scanner to buy) in another thread and got some good responses.

 

This business about ICE has me confused. I have read in some threads and even some of the manufacturer's websites that ICE does NOT support Black & White negatives. So, if they happen to be wallowoing in dust, using ICE ain't gonna help one bit. Is this true? And what's this about Advanced Digital ICE Quad?