Switching to film and need scanner help

[matroskin]

<p>i'm not going to go into details, but i decided to stick with film for the foreseeable future. now, i'd like to get a decent film scanner (dedicated or good flat back) and hope ya'll can help me out. here is what i have and would like to have:<br /> <br /> i'm not a professional, my budget is about $400 and the scanner can be used.<br>

since i'm relatively new to film (circumstances forced me to use film for a couple of months and i like the colors better then digital) i don't have a huge pile of film ready for scanning, so speed is not important;<br /> i'd like to be able to print no larger then 11X14, but can live with 8x10;<br /> presets for fuji Reala, Superia,(optional for Neopan 1600), and Kodachrome 64 are desirable;<br /> output in tiff format;<br /> are there any scanners in my price range that will take an uncut roll of film even if i have to advance it manually? or is it better to have the lab mount the slides and negatives and scan those? <br /> <br /> the scanners i've been looking at are Plustek 7300 and 7500. i've read that Dmax is extremely important. those have 3.5 - is it really bad? the scanner's grain removing capabilities are of no importance to me - i like grain <img src="http://www.nikonians.org/forums/images/wink.gif" alt="" /> and i'm not going to go over 3600 dpi anyhow and don't need any more). i've looked at Epson flat backs too but i'm utterly confused with all the numbers and not sure what does what...?<br /> <br /> i will appreciate any models you can recommend from your experience or somebody you know.<br /> <br /> thank you.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Most people recommend the Nikon Super Coolscan preferably the 9000, but the 5000 will suit you if you are not doing this on a day to day basis and are shooting nothing greater than 35mm. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Super-CoolScan-5000-Scanner/dp/B0001DYTOY">http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Super-CoolScan-5000-Scanner/dp/B0001DYTOY</a> . A Dmax of 3.5 is actuall pretty low for a dedicated film scanner, some flat bed scanners claim a Dmax of 4.0 and higher. </p>

[paulh]

<p>If you are only doing 35mm, then a dedicated film scanner is the best option.</p>

<p>Second hand is the most likely, given your budget. Something like the Nikon Coolscans (IV or V), or Minolta DualScan IV should meet your criteria. If you can find one for the price, the Minolta 5400 is an excellent scanner. Note that Sony now provide support for the Minolta scanners. The later Plusteks are getting better reviews, so if you have the chance to actually test one for yourself, that may be an option, and you'd be able to get that new.</p>

<p>You put the negative strips, unmounted slides or mounted slides in the appropriate holder, and the scanner (not the plustek) will advance the film. Each holder take a strip of 5 (IIRC). The Plustek has a manual advance. Accessories are available for the Nikon scanners that will allow you to scan a whole roll at a time, but these are quite expensive.</p>

[yoshio]

<p>Kostya</p>

<p>I would go further and say that if you are only using 35mm then a Nikon 5000 or 4000 will be better than a 9000 because it has bulk film attachment and will be cheaper and faster. I do not think that these will be within your budget. I have read only negative and disappointing points on the plustecs. I have purchased recently a LS-IVED scanner and found that it gives good results but requires multiple efforts to ensure it is good or better than what can be done with an Epson. On reading another thread and a blog site I found it would seem that some places which develop 35mm film have Noritsu minilab machines which are able to scan very close to the results you can get with a Nikon LS-IV. Given the lack of capital expence and time savings (scanning takes time) I think this option is good, especially if you can get to know the staff who are running the minilab.</p>

<p>I am waiting for delivery of an LS-4000 which I bought last week, I also have LS-IV and Epson scanners so I can report the differences if you wish to follow up to my email.</p>

[seandepuydt]

<p>Kostya I would try to find a used Nikon, not the 4000 or 5000 the IV. You might want to check out KEH. If I was making this choice for you It would be the IV hands down. Stay away from a flat bed you will just be disapointed. - Sean</p>

[robert_martin5]

<p>I have used flatbed and dedicated film scanners - I find flatbed scanners not acceptable for film scanning, I now use a Nikon 9000. I think you should get a scanner that has Digital ICE for automatic removal of dust and scratches - you sill be suprised how much is on the film. Scanning takes a lot of time and you don't want to spend time removing dust if the scanner will do it automatically. <br>

I agree with the recommendations for Nikon scanners.</p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>A lot of people huff and puff about how flatbeds are not acceptable for film scanning.<br>

They would be wrong.<br>

Some dedicated film scanners ARE better then flatbeds. The Nikon Coolscan line most certainly is significantly better then any flatbed. However, saying a flatbed is not acceptable would mean saying no matter what the scan is not usable.<br>

Patently false. I've printed from my Epson 4490 scans to 8x12 size and they look good. The real world resolution on something like the 4490/V500 is around the 2200-2400dpi range, not the 4800/6400dpi that is claimed, but that 2200-2400 is still plenty good for an 8x12. An 11x14 would really be pushing what most flatbeds are capable of (the V700/750 may be slightly better then the 4490/V500...but it would be a very small increase in real resolution).<br>

Of course in comparison, scans from a Nikon Coolscan V, 4000, 5000 etc could easily be printed at 13x19 and still look very good.<br>

The Plustek 7300/7500 seem to have very slightly higher real world resolution then the Epson flatbeds, but it is very, very small amount higher. Their Dmax is around the same or slightly less then the Epson flatbeds. You cannot bulk scan with the Plustek scanners, so it can be very time consuming to scan a whole roll. With the Epson 4490/V500 you can scan up to 2 film strips of 6 negatives at a time (8 Slides if I remeber)...so you can setup a batch scan of 12 negatives at a time and come back in an hour and a half when it is done...with the Plustek your stuck with the single film holder (6 negatives or 4 slides) and you have to manually position it...so your stuck to the scanner the entire time it takes to scan your roll, instead of being able to pop off for awhile and come back to setup the next several film strips/slides. The V700/750 can scan 4 film strips/rows of slides at a time...so even larger batches can be setup for scanning.<br>

Also the Plustek scanners seem to have a very, very bad history of their digital ICE not functioning correctly or at all.<br>

If you can streach your budget you might be able to get a Nikon Coolscan V or a used 4000 or 5000 which would probably be your best bet for 35mm film. If your budget can't streach then your probably best off with an Epson 4490 (at around $130-140) unless you need to scan fairly large batches of film at once, then the V700/750 is your best bet.<br>

If you need/want to do medium format then your best bet is the Nikon Coolscan 9000...but your budget won't come even close, even for a used one. In that case the Epson flatbeds are about your only decent choice (but with 645 let alone something like 6x7 you could manage at least 12x18 prints from medium format scans).</p>

[don_e]

<p>For your budget the Plusteks are probably the best film scanner. An alternative would be the Epson flatbeds in the V series (V500, V700). Don't expect any bargains for used Nikons or good Minoltas, though...I bought a (now discontinued) Nikon V last summer for under 600$. Today, a new one on Amazon is 1500$, and a used one at 750$.</p>

<p> </p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>Boy those plustek's are getting bad press here. I should wonder why mine works so well? It must be that I actually have used one...lol</p>

<p>Much of what Matthew says is on the money, with regard to resolution / printable size. I usually scan at 2400dpi, but use 3600 if I am going to make a 13x19. Going above that seems to put the scanner into interpolation mode; bigger image but no increase in image resolution.</p>

<p>I will say, the the ICE functions fine and am not sure where that criticism could come from.</p>

<p>There are only 2 films that I have found to tax the dmax would be velvia and portra. As I shoot mostly B&W, this is not a real concern for me.<br>

Try http://www.flickr.com/photos/peterbcarter/3344424057/ for an example from the 7200i</p>

 

[roger_smith4]

<p>I doubt Portra could tax the Dmax of any scanner- you're seeing scanner noise in the highlights? Do you mean Provia?</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>I doubt Portra could tax the Dmax of any scanner- you're seeing scanner noise in the highlights? Do you mean Provia?</p>

[robert_k1]

<p>Not only will you be learning how to shoot film, but also how to use a scanner. Before diving in, perhaps my following post can help:<br>

"Choosing a good scanner is just the beginning, learning how to use it well is the key. Given the less than great native sw and documentations, and the lack of good tutorials/books, the learning curve can be steep. Some would get a third party and/or calibration sw. Scanning introduces another generation of degradation from film to print. Along with it come the additional steps in the workflow, such as getting the correct exposure/color/tone, maintaining sharpness, reducing noise/grain, archiving, etc. Each of these can be non-trivial if done well."<br>

Before making a decision, check the following links. Some Nikon users reported flares in their scans, but no Minolta users had reported this problem. I own many Nikon equipment, and would have gotten a Nikon scanner if not for the flares.<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IGyN">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IGyN</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001A4q">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001A4q</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004EWS">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004EWS</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00A2Sh">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00A2Sh</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CTcF">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CTcF</a><br>

<a href="http://www.vad1.com/photo/dirty-scanner/">http://www.vad1.com/photo/dirty-scanner/</a><br>

<a href="http://www.pearsonimaging.com/ls5000cleaning.html">http://www.pearsonimaging.com/ls5000cleaning.html</a><br>

This member apparently was aware of the flares:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00H558">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00H558</a><br>

Here's what he ended up with after buying a Nikon:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HCnM">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HCnM</a></p>

 

[greg_mikol]

<p>I've used the Nikon 5000, the Epson V750, the Plustek 7500 and the PrimeFilm 7250Pro3, all with VueScan, so I can't comment on the software packages. But from a hardware standpoint, for a budget 35mm-only scanning option my recommendation would be the PrimeFilm (sold in Europe as a Reflecta model, I think). It's just a little above your budget, but there is a $100 rebate in the US right now.</p>

<p>Why? The PF7250Pro3 is capable of scanning full rolls without any extra attachments. This has an upside and a downside...There is no film strip holder, so this can cause problems with 1- and 2-frame pieces, but it comes with some reusable slide mounts that can work. Slides are 1 at a time. The PrimeFilm and the Plustek are about the same speed, real resolution (~3000-3200 dpi), and D-Max / D-Range. PrimeFilm has less image noise in deep shadows, IIRC, and the Plustek is far quieter in operation. Neither supports multi-sampling, but both showed good registration for multi-pass scanning. But don't forget that the Plustek can be had with SilverFast AI for basically the same price as the PrimeFilm, but as I said, this was not a consideration for me.</p>

<p>What more do you get with the Nikon? Improvement in real resolution, faster operation, multi-sampling, individual R,G,B channel exposure controls (for higher-quality negative scans), better D-Max. But it is prone to flare in very high contrast images, and it costs about double the other 2. Don't forget that the standard SA-21 strip adapter can be hacked to scan full rolls.</p>

<p>What about the Epsons? Don't know much about the V500, but with the V700/V750 is arguably the best flatbed for film scanning that Epson has made. You sacrifice real resolution (as said above, about 2400 dpi). My impression is that the D-Max was better than the Plustek and PrimeFilm, but maybe not quite as good as the Nikon. But you get the benefit of being able to scan larger film sizes affordably, if you need that. You also get multi-sampling if that's important to you.</p>

<p>What do I use? A Coolscan 5000 and a V750, but that's because I got a great deal on the auction site for the CS5000 with the SF-210 slide mount feeder, which I needed. And I occasionally shoot 6x9, so I wanted to be able to scan that as well, and 2400 dpi is fine *for me* for MF negs.</p>

<p>Hope this long-winded answer helps you out.</p>

<p>--Greg</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>Robert is the person here giving you the honest truth. You will not get decent results just sticking your negatives into a machine and crossing your fingers. The learning curve on getting decent scans is pretty steep and there are very very very few resources online, most of which are so overly technical or specific to a certain scanner and editing software that they are almost useless in terms of application. You should be focusing your efforts on learning how to shoot on film, not on the ins and outs of scanning. I recommend starting with color, or a nice C41 B&W (like Ilford's XP2, I don't care much for the Kodak stuff) and getting it processed and scanned in town. While this might seem expensive at first, it is important to know how your scans SHOULD look before you start attempting your own. In general, the software in commercial scanning machines is much more advanced that what comes with most home scanners. Trust me, there is no ends to the frustration you will encounter just beginning with film and diving right into scanning.</p>

[benny_spinoza]

<p>Get a scanner that comes bundled with SilverFast. That will make the learning curver easier, and you'll more likely get good scans.</p>

[eugene_green]

<p>I have had very good results scanning slides and film with a Minolta ScanElite 5400. Unfortunately, I recently found that SONY no longer can supply spare parts for this unit. They assume that the scanner should be repairable for at least seven years, and they provide reimbursement as a fraction of original sales price for time remaining.<br>

I now have a Nikon LS-50 or V ED scanner, which also provides good scans, but is less convenient to use.<br>

I believe that it this scanner may still available new for about $600.</p>

[matroskin]

<p>Thank you all for your suggestions and time. unfortunately i can't increase my budget and simply can't afford any of the Nikons. for now, i decided to get epson v500, see what it'll do. and if it's bad i'll send it back.<br /> <br /> Patrick, i completely agree with you that i need to see what a good scan should look like. i've taken a couple of rolls to Photographic Works lab in Tucson, AZ. they charge $10 for the most basic scan of 1 roll. that's too expensive for me right now - i'm AmeriCorps volunteer here. i moved here a month ago and i'm quite certain that i'll take more then 20 rolls (cost of a scanner) in the next 11 months as i'm working with various youth organizations here and will have opportunities to do photo projects. and the light here is quite different from Houston and CHicago, so i'm getting used to and practicing on that. i hope the learning curve for scanning won't be too steep, though. ;)</p>

[matroskin]

<p>Eugene,<br>

i've been looking for Minolta ScanElite 5400 and i can't find it in any condition.<br>

Benny,<br>

i've read about the SilverFast, but i don't think v500 comes with it. if their software or VueScan is not good enough i'll try your suggestion.</p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>The Epson software isn't great, but it is okay. I can't get the scanner to work on my desktop running XP (and I am having issues reinstalling XP, my installation isn't the best right now). It works fine on my wife's laptop running Vista and her old one running XP.<br>

My comment on the Plustek scanner is based on 4 or 5 reviews online that all commented that either the digital ICE didn't work out of the box, ceased working within a few weeks and couldn't get it functioning again or else worked, but poorly. I've also read some reviews were everything worked A O-K. The couple of reviews that I could find that evaluated real resolution showed that the Plusteks were only a hair better then the Epson flatbeds (in this case the V750), but had worse dMax and of course can't batch scan. I certainly wouldn't call them garbage, but since there is no worth while resolution advantage of the plusteks over the Epson flatbeds...and the Epson flatbeds can batch scan and have a better dMax (oh and some models are significantly cheaper then the Plusteks) for my Money the Epson flatbeds are basically the best scanner out there until you step up to a used Minolta or New/used Nikon dedicated film scanner. Its just to bad there aren't any intermediate scanners in both price and ability.</p>

[matroskin]

<p>that's what it seemed to me too - there is no middle ground. either a flat back for around $200 or a high performance beast at over $1000 (used for around $600). i went ahead and ordered the V500. for some reason Plustek's lower end scaners don't work on Apple computer so i'd have to get something well over $300 and one slide at a time?... i'll live without the fake 7200dpi.</p>

[pankaj purohit]

<p>Nikons are always best but if you talk about flatbed with reasonable 7 to 12 megapixel image, Canon 8800f is nice tool with combo of Vuescan scanning software. I am using this scanner and happy with what I paid. But if you want to bringout all the details from the film, go for Nikon dedicated scanners. You can get those very cheaply today as buying used.</p><div></div>