Best resonably priced scanner for old negatives & slides..

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, I also find the learning curve steep and tedious ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You know, this seems to be common wisdom but I really haven't found this to be the case. The tonal and color qualities of a scan is strongly dependent on a properly set up digital darkroom. Specifically, if the workflow is not well color managed, getting the digitized image to look right is difficult. It's easiest to blame the new piece of hardware when things goes screwy.</p>

<p>I use both a Nikon 5000 and a couple of Epson flatbeds. With the Nikon in particular, using the included Nikonscan software and letting it autofocus and autoexpose gets accurate results almost all of the time. The most telling is that the color balance of a scanned frame of reversal looks like it does on the light table; the inkjet print looks like it does on the monitor.</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>Dear Robert,<br>

I agree with you. It is easy to blame the new hardware, but this has not been my intention at all to state with my post. I have used the auto functions with my Coolscan and I am very content with this. However, when scanning some 30-60 years old slides, some of which have been exposed to air pollution and age, even the auto functions have to have a human helping hand, and that is when I find the learning curve steep.</p>

<p>Of course, the only remedy is to practice, practice and practice. My problem here is that the day has not enough hours, so I have not always the time to practice what I have learned. And, as a cheapskate, I want to find out these things myself - no expensive schools. So for me, the learning curve is steep - and it is my fault ;) .</p>

<p>As previously stated, the Coolscans are wonderful machines, and auto functions will help many. I am sure that Lil will be very happy with hers.</p>

[norman_smith1]

<p>I have the Plustek 7500 ai which I use with the Silverfast ai software that comes with the scanner - the results are far better than I got frm my Epson Perfection scanner ( older 3170 model ). After moving to the Nikon Coolscan I found that the results, when using the NikonScan software, provided , were better than the Plustek - so the Plustek scans were very good but the Coolscan results were excellent. However, to muddy the waters even further, I purchased a copy of Vuescan, from - http://www.hamrick.com/ , to use with the Coolscan and what a revelation; if the normal Coolscans are excellent, then the scans done with Vuescan as the software are excellent++. I've also used vuescan with the Plustek and found that the scans are improved. <br /> <br /> So, my conclusion, for what it's worth, is this - regardless of which scanner you choose, Vuescan is a must.</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>Hi Per-Christian,<br>

Thanks for the additional information Per-Christian - more research t be done I see... Appreciate your help.<br>

Hi again Robert Lee,<br>

thank you for the additional input. I will keep this in mind. :-)<br>

Per-Christian,<br>

is that not true for all things that matter - practice, practice, practice - makes perfect. :-)<br>

Hi Norman,<br>

Vuescan software is noted. :-)</p>

<p>Thanks for all the help</p>

<p>Lil :-)</p>

 

[norman_smith1]

<p>If you use a 64 bit OS, then the Plustek 7500 is your option as the Coolscan doesn't have 64 bit drivers and the folks at Nikon don't seem to be too keen to provide any. Other photo scanners that support 64 bit are the Epson Perfection 2400, the Perfection 3200 and the Canon CanoScan 8800F.</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>Thanks for this information Norman,<br>

I'm an XP user at this time - I don't trust Vista at this time.<br>

But this is something to think about for the future....<br>

Lil :-)</p>

[norman_smith1]

<p>"I'm an XP user at this time - I don't trust Vista at this time"<br>

I'm with you on the Vista bit - It came installed on my laptop and I had such a bad time with it that, after six months of fighting it, I replaced it with XP and destroyed my restore discs. However, I am, at present, dual-booting my main machine between XP and Windows 7 beta ( 64 bit ) and I have to say that I love Windows 7 - it's everything that Vista should have been, in fact it's the OS that's going to enable me to, forever, forget about buying a mac. The only downside is that my Coolscan doesn't work with it but I can always continue to dual-boot and use the coolscan and Capture NX 2 in XP ( Capture NX is "hit and miss" - more hit than miss, in 64 bit and, again, Nikon tech-help don't want to know ). I really don't know just why I bother to give Nikon so much money; you would think that forty + years would have taught me the lesson that brand loyalty is rarely rewarded.</p>

[joseph_sorrentino]

<p>If you have a good digital camera you could try copying the images. ( you may already have what you need)<br>

John Harrington did a write up on his blog - <a href="http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/06/returning-to-digital-darkroom.html">http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/06/returning-to-digital-darkroom.html</a></p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>Hi again Norman,<br>

I intentionally bought from DELL as I could on my computer request XP - it's probably about 2 months old. I'm very happy with it. It should hold me for a while.<br>

I'm not brave enough to Beta test Windows on my new computer - but I'm willing to test it on one of my old laptops. If it can handle the 332 bit version.<br>

I've shot Nikon since 1980 - they've only once done something for me - - I got called in for a consumer focus group & yes they did pay me for that. :-)<br>

Better than nothing.</p>

<p>Hi Joseph - huummmm I've seen something like this. Thanks for reminding me of the posibility.<br>

Lil :-)</p>

[norman_smith1]

<p>Good luck with the choice you make. It's pretty difficult to find a "bad" scanner nowadays and, as the proud ( raise eyes and shake head ) owner of four of them ( two film and two flatbed ), I can say that scanning is a fascinating subject.</p>

<p>If, like me, you get relatively deeply involved in the subject, you may find that you begin to regret the fact that you sold all your film gear ( if, indeed, you did ) and the next few months may find you trawling through the local used camera shops buying up all the available F3s ( I bought two good bodies and three decrepit ones for spare parts ). As Robert Duvall might have said "I love the smell of fresh film in the morning".</p>

[al_barber]

<p>I bought a Canon 4400 F, it only cost about 150 dollars Canadian and it did a great job of the slides and negatives.</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>Norman,<br>

I just bought a 50mm f/1.2 Nikkor along with which came a N90s. And I just got a FM after having had two of them stolen from me when I was a lot younger. I've been over this before to get a scanner due to the fact that I have some old scans I've wanted to get scanned in. First Best Buy gave me $ 50.00 worth of worthless scans. Then the other week I rant a roll of film through my new used FM & the scans were just horrible. Scrapes etc. I mean - it was horrific.<br>

So - I have old negatives & I'd like to ensure I have them for a long time.<br>

Scanning seems my only option to keep them.</p>

<p>Hi Al,<br>

I'll check the Canon out as well.</p>

<p>Lil :-)</p>

[norman_smith1]

<p>The "infrared clean" facility in vuescan is excellent for getting rid of scratches and, in the UK, it's very necessary as the photo labs seem to believe that they're obliged by law to run the customers negatives over every sharp, dusty and tacky surface they can find. That's why my next batch is going to a Pro lab and I'm even considering going back to developing my own. I've, also, found a way to install my coolscan on a 64 bit system - how good can life get ?</p>