Decent film scanner

[drew_back]

What would be a good scanner for b/w negatives..I have a Hpscanjet 4070 but it

makes a lot of my scans look almost cartoonish and it locks up my computer when

scanning anything over 600resolution ..I dont want to spend a mint but is there

something a little better for a modest price??

[john_shriver]

Epson flatbeds. Say the 4490. As with any scanner, be sure it supports the Operating System you're using.

 

The real resolution of this scanner is somewhere between 1000 and 1500 pixels/inch. The optics aren't all that sharp. You may need to keep your negatives from not being too dense -- pull the film in exposure and processing.

[jim nichols]

I bought an early Epson flatbed, a Perfection 2450, primarily to scan large negatives, but found that it does a decent job with 35mm negatives as well. The photo below was made with a Leica IIIf RD and 50mm Summitar with a yellow filter on C41 film.

 

Jim N.<div></div>

[jimsimmons]

Find a used Minolta Dual Scan II or III or IV on ebay.

[Troll]

http://www.adorama.com/IPIPF3610.html#ProductReviews

[ellis_davison]

You will see a lot of discussion on the Digital Darkroom forum. You do not specify format - the flatbeds will be a little challenged if you are trying to make large enlargements from 35mm. Conventional gelatin silver Black and white is a challenge for all scanners, because the individual grains that make up the image are opaque, and scanners don't like opaque. C-41 process films work best because the silver is replaced by dye. Next best are the thinner films, medium to slow. Fast films like Tri-X will challenge even a dedicated film scanner. Also, grain tends to be accentuated.

 

I have an Epson 4990 that I consider good for medium & large format, but not so good for 35mm, but I like to go to 12"x18" on prints. I have an older Minolta Dimage Scan Elite which is a pain to interface (SCSI) but does fairly well with medium to slow speed films convetional black-and-white films. An older film scanner may be a good option. 2900 ppi is pretty much required for 8"x10" or bigger.

 

You may also need to look at your computer - locking up may be a function of not enough memory. 2 gigs of memory are good if you are running Windows XP (or, presumably, Vista). The operating systems are resource hogs.

[richam]

I've posted this image before, but my experience is to go with a dedicated film scanner. I

have the Epson 2450 and 4490, but neither one is nearly as good as my Nikon film

scanner.<div></div>

[jim nichols]

I have a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II film scanner purchased off the auction site, and it does fine for clean B&W negatives and slides without spots. For challenging 50-year-old negatives, the Minolta scans require a lot more clean-up in PS than do the Epson scans. However, the Epson does lose some fine detail.

 

Jim N.

[stb]

I took Michael image and did 2 things in Photoshop to the Epson part:

 

Levels 29, 0.77, 191

Unsharp Mask 182%, Radius 1, Thr. 0

 

The limits are the jpeg artifacts in the file.

 

This is the result:<div></div>

[stb]

Now, keep in ming the Epson is 1/10 the price of the Nikon!

 

To have a rough idea of what it looks like in print, let's view at 50% reduction:<div></div>

[stb]

And that's a 4490. I get better with my V750.

 

Film scanners have their place, but for amateur use a good Epson well used will do fine.

 

Stephane

[richam]

Stephane,

 

You're a genius! But I tried this on the original scan and the result was not nearly as good.

Did you do anything else? I'd like to set up a PS action to "correct" the 4490 scans. Any

help appreciated.

 

Enjoyed viewing your images. Very nice.

[tripanfal]

If you do an action to clean up 4490 scans, I would very much like it if you are willing to share. :)

[stb]

Michael, thanks for the compliments, but no, I am not anything special. I have just spent a

few years scanning B&W film with different scanners. The highest resolution scanner I've

had was the Minolta 5400 first version. The lowest was the Epson Perfection Photo 3200.

Even that one was good enough to print great 10x10" and good 12"x12" from Rollei negs.

 

Now with my V750 I can print great 12x18" from 35mm.

 

I have abandoned the idea of a PhotoShop action. One image is not the other and the final

output has its importance too.

 

I'm afraid it is a case by case tuning affair.

[richam]

Stephane,

 

OK, I'll take your adjustments as inspiration, not action. Thanks again.

[charles_stobbs3]

I have a flat bed scanner (Canoscan D2400U) and I think the dynamic range on flatbed scanner is a limiting factor. Many dedicated film scanners have a range over 4.0 and the 3.2 of mine (and Bill's example) is too low to bring out details in the light and dark areas of a picture. Maybe other PN'ers can expand on this.

[stb]

"Many dedicated film scanners have a range over 4.0"

 

Wrong. Most don't. Only the very expensive ones manage that. We are talking Imacon and drum scanners.

 

For negative films it does not matter a bit. The maximum density they can achieve is around 3 for silver B&W and 2.5 for dye C41.

 

Some slide films are problematic, most notably Kodachrome and Velvia 50 (the original). With those, multi-sampling can help a lot.

 

Stephane

[stb]

One thing I could not do to your jpeg and that work remarkably well with low speed film

3200 dpi scans with the V750 is to apply 2 sharpening passes, each being 1 pixel radius at

120%. The result is simply unbelievable after having been brainwashed by the conventional

so-called wisdom that Epson scanners are worthless. I'll post one example.

 

Stephane

[charles_stobbs3]

The specs for some Nikon, Microtek, and Epson scanners have dynamic ranges of 4.0 or better. I couldn't find any ranges for HP or the newer Canon scanners. One reviewer said don't go below 4.0 for a film scanner.

[stb]

Specs are just ink on paper. They give the theoretical range based on the number of sampling

bits. Most of the time it is just hot air.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Stepahane - all you've done is show that flatbed scanners are fine for small enlargements. I own an Epson 4990 and I limit enlargements to 4x.

[drew_back]

Do any of the scanners have an adapter for medium format negatives? I just want something user friendly and very simple.

[stb]

Robert, you just don't use your scanner potential, that's all. Regarding what I've shown, you

see what you want to see.

 

Drew, I'm afraid scanning and very simple don't go very well together.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Sorry Stephane, I don't buy it. A good film enlarger is a much better choice for making larger prints. I looked at your edits in Photoshop and it does not hold up as well when I zoom in to where I would print.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

SHould read "film scanner is a much better . . " Though I do print in a darkroom, too.