A question about scanners

[jim_ochwat]

I need some advice on whether I should buy a scanner.

 

I shoot both digital and film and have my film processed and written to a CD

for post processing. Will I gain anything by scanning the film as opposed to

post processing from an image on the CD?

 

Thanks in advance for your help.

[Ed_Ingold]

You can do much better with a film scanner than you can get from a camera shop CD. All of the film images you see in the Photo.Net gallery were scanned. If you are persuaded to go cheap and use a flatbed scanner for film, you might be better off with that Wal-Mart CD. Be warned, scanning takes skill, practice and a lot of time.

[jim_ochwat]

Edward,

 

Thank you for the advice. I really appreciate it.

 

I already have a flatbed scanner but it's not very good. I think that I will invest in one of the Nikon film scanners. I'm retired and have plenty of time to learn how to make the most of its capabilities.

[eye-of-searle]

A film scanner is FAR FAR superior to what you get on a CD from your local proccesor. The CD scans are about 1 to 2mb each in size. For example, a 14 bit scan from my Coolscan V is 135mb each. That's a huge difference. For 4x6 prints, not that big of a deal but for prints any larger, the difference in quality quickly becomes evident.

 

BTW, film scanning is not that hard. It takes some practice at first but excellent results can be had with a minimal learning curve.

 

Jim

[hique]

Jim,

 

When you say you have your film written to a CD, you should be more especific. Actually what the lab is doing is 'scanning' the film.

 

It all comes down to what scanner the lab is using versus. the scanner that you would use.

 

A lab with a Frontier Scanner gives really nice results.

[michaelschrag]

Hi Jim,

 

I bought my first camera in 1978 - a brand new Nikon FM with a 50mm f2 lens - and since then I have collected a large number of negatives. Two years ago I bought a Konica Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II because I was not happy with images that I received on CDs from commercial sources. There is one exception, however, and that is if you can get a CD burned from a scan produced by high-end photolab that uses a drum scanner. Drum scanner aside, the Dimage has yielded great scans/results for me. I think you can still buy one even though I believe they are not made anymore (Koinca/Minolta got out of the camera business). If you are like me eventually you will sell of your film equipment (I still have my FM) and go entirely digital. So you will need the scanner only as long as it takes to scan in all you favorite film based shots. I have had good luck with mine because it seems quite durable - after many scans. I have about 2 more years of photos to go through and if you are interested - in 6 months - you can have mine for a nominal fee.

 

 

-Mike

[eye-of-searle]

Marcio, Frontier scanners are not even close in terms of the results you can get from a dedicated film scanner. To reiterate what I said above, 4x6 prints are fine from the typical lab scanners but you can see a difference in 4x6 prints between those scans and scans from a good film scanner. 5x7, 8x10 and larger, the difference is substantial.

 

When I first started converting my negatives to a digital medium, I thought CD scans were top quality. Then, I had a custom lab do a high res scan at a cost of $18 for one negative. The difference was dramatic not only in the scan itself but also in being able to have much more "headroom" in terms of image manipulation. The more manipulation done to a file, the more info that is lost. Starting at 135MB compared to 2MB is nice.

 

At $18 a scan, I soon realized $550 dollars delivered for a Nikon Coolscan V was a good investment, plus I have complete control now.

 

 

Jim

[robert_martin5]

Jim, get a film scanner if you want a high quality scan. I have a Nikon 9000 I use for scanning 35mm and medium format. I have only scanned color negative film to date, but will scan some positives in the future. My wife shoots 35mm color negatives with a Nikon 8008s, I shoot medium format color negatives with a Bronica, and digital with a D200. I scan using Nikon Scan, but you will find a lot of people that say get VueScan or SilverFast. I like Nikon Scan better that either of these and it also gives you all the features of the scanner.

 

The largest I have printed from a 35mm scan is 16 x 20 inches on Fuji Crystal Archive paper using a Lambda printer. The print looks great with no grain at all - one person thought it was from medium format. You can't do this with low quality scans from the CD you get at processing or with a flatbed scanner.

 

I am retired also and this has been my hobby for 50+ years. It does take time to learn how to best use the scanner.

 

Good Luck.

[brettjohnson]

Not all flat bed scanners are poor quality - I am considering the new Epson V700 as it has been given some excellent reviews and compared to dedicated Film scanners there is little difference - even against film scanner that are 3 times its cost.

 

This new model is a big leap forward for flat bed scanners and is reasobaly priced. It provides a lot of flexibility in terms of media carriages. Downside is that it has limitations in scanning B/W negatives but if this is not an issue for you then this new Epson may be the choice. Check out some of the reviews - well worth a look

 

Good luck.

[mike_willis1]

This topic interests me greatly. My local lab offers both the regular CD and a high resolution version for more money, for 36 exposures they charge $35. I will be picking up the first high res CD tomorrow. I have them doing it to a roll of Velvia 50, so it will be very interesting. I have not yet converted to digital, I am still very much in love with my F3's, but the lure of digital is very tempting.

[Ed_Ingold]

The greatest benefit of scanning film yourself is that you maintain control over this step - more control than you would have in a darkroom, in my experience. Once you have a good scan, you can have it printed anywhere and get acceptible results (or excellent results). While most commercial CDs don't have very good resolution, more resolution won't necessarily help without the control and experience that scanning requires. You would have to pay $50 or more per image to get that level of attention (e.g., a professional drum scan).

 

The downside of scanning is that it is not commercially viable to scan images when you can do as well or better with direct digital imaging. It simply takes too long and is too hard to maintain consistency. Scanning is a labor of love - or at least a labor.

[eye-of-searle]

Mike, ask the lab what scanner(s) they use for their high res scans. I found the lab I used was using a Nikon scanner. Something I could easily buy, and did. At $35 a roll, it makes sense to buy a scanner and do it yourself or go fully digital.

 

Jim