Is scaning negs a do-it-yourself job?

[mike dixon]

<p><em>I'd like to know those of you who have experience with this would choose a new full frame DSLR or the combo of film and self-scan if you had both options-- and no large collection of old negatives to scan.</em></p>

<p>One of the primary reasons I started shooting digital was that scanning film (and cleaning up the scans) was such a tedious, miserable task. Most of my film shooting now is b&w work which I print in a wet darkroom (no scanning). I would definitely choose a new full-frame DSLR over a film scanner.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I enjoy scanning my own film, but don't do it much. I'll sit down every so often and do them in a run.</p>

<p>Really, I have found the opposite: smaller scanned film files did just as well or better than larger-sized digital files, <em>on television. </em>Images which looked poor or soft on computer monitors looked great when burned to DVD and played on a television. Digital camera-originated files looked best when printed on paper. </p>

<p>I suspect that a lot of what I came up with has to do with aligning your image creation technologies on down to the final image. Line up your methods with what looks like it'll generate the most success for the end result you want.</p>

[timothy_gray]

<p>Michael, to answer your question, I prefer to do the scans myself. </p>

<p>Yes, it is an investment in equipment, time, and resources, but it keeps me in control of the final product. There are certain creative decisions during the scanning process which only I can make. I've used labs in the past, and unless you have a custom scan lab close by, one where you can work side-by-side with the scanner operator, it can be a real hassle.</p>