Best option for scanning B/W?

[patrick_mason3]

<p>Hi Guys,<br>

So here's the thing, i have been shooting alot more b/w film recently and am as i want to save money and have more control over my negs i am going to start developing at home. However i don't have enough space to setup a darkroom to accommodate an enlarger etc so i am looking into the option of scanning my negs but am unsure of which is the best way to go about this. My first thought was to invest in a decent film dedicated scanner such as a coolscan but recently read that flatbeds may also be a viable and cheaper option. It may help to know what my goal is i.e what i need to achieve quality wise, i am hoping to create a quality website to showcase my work and at some point in the near future possibly produce a zine of my work. Any info on which would be the best option to aid me in achieving this would be much appreciated.<br>

Cheers.</p>

[User_4754088]

<p>In thirty some years of shooting B&W, the only negative scanner that has given me acceptable results has been the Nikon Coolscan 9000. The Coolscan 5000 and the older models like it give very high contrast results. </p>

<p>The best comparison I've heard is that the Coolscan 9000 is like a diffusion enlarger, while the Coolscan 5000 and the models like it are like a condenser enlarger.</p>

<p>That would be my recommendation.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

-Tim</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I dunno, for hobbyist use and 35mm film... I've been very happy with results from a Minolta Dual III, so long as it's with Vuescan.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Having scanned Tri-X with the Nikon Coolscan V and the Minolta Scan Elite 5400 version I (with it's hardware Grain Dissolver in the light path), the latter is by far my favourite: much better (dense) highlight detail, crips 5400 dpi grain resolution, and much more impervious to finding each-and-every scratch and dust speck.</p>

<p>Of course it's out of production, support is spotty and likely it won't run with it's OEM software on Vista and onwards. Vuescan probably still works though.</p>

<p>It takes about twice as long as the V per-scan, say 4 minutes vs 2 (with GD), and it's depth-of-focus is pretty finicky, but doable.</p>

[DWScott]

<p>Tim, any opinion on the Nikon 8000 vs 9000? Or is the 9000 the bee's knees?</p>

[User_4754088]

<p>Never used the Nikon 8000 so I really can't compare them. Sorry.</p>

<p>-Tim</p>

[blumesan]

<p>IMHO if your only (or primary) use of the scans is for web publishing then you do not need to invest in a dedicated film scanner (Nikon Coolscans, etc.). Any reasonable quality flatbed scanner should provide adequate results.</p>

[mark_punch]

<p>I agree with Mendel ... the Minolta Scan Elite 5400 is excellent for B&W ( and color too !) I've used one for about 4 years with great results ( but it is a bit slow, however ).</p>

[mark_punch]

<p>Should have added that I use the Minolta 5400 with Vuescan</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>... i am looking into the option of scanning my negs ... invest in a decent film dedicated scanner such as a coolscan but recently read that flatbeds may also be a viable and cheaper option. ... i am hoping to create a quality website to ... possibly produce a zine of my work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For any kind of web presentation, scans from a $100 Epson will be indistinguishable from that of a $50k true drum scanner. Keep in mind that even a high resolution panel, say of 1920x1080 resolution is only about 2MP.</p>

<p>So for the stated purposes, do indeed get that ~$100 Epson V500 or Epson 4490.</p>

<p>Where dedicated hobbyist scanners like the Nikon 5000 or 9000 really comes into their own is for the print. With these, the amount of enlargement possible is limited by the film itself. This is about all that can asked for of any scanner (or traditional enlarger for that matter.)</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>I agree with Robert Lee- just about anything is good enough for web viewing.</p>

<p>In my experience, modern dedicated film scanners are all good enough to scan B&W with the right software. Excessive contrast is a software, not a hardware issue. Using Vuescan can fix this, as can workarounds like scanning as a positive. Scanner noise can be dealt with through setting the hardware exposure carefully and potentially multisampling. Grain can be dealt with using a diffuser like the scanhancer, taking care with the film exposure and developing in the first place, or using grain reduction programs like Noiseware or Noise Ninja.</p>

[a._robert]

<p>I've gotten good results with Epson V750. It's a higher end flatbed scanner that I've been pleased with. The only thing that I've had holdups with is my own scanning ability. It's a giant learning curve, like Photoshop, and I still find myself perplexed by it a lot of the time. I switch between the supplied Epson scanning software, Silverfast, and Vuescan depending on my level of frustration at the moment (right now it's pretty high...). They all have their positives and negatives. I've considered the Nikon Coolscan 9000, but keep telling myself that my main problem is the software and not the scanner itself. The V700, I think, is basically the same thing for cheaper, it just doesn't come bundled with Silverfast, and I think the V500 is pretty comparable. Hope this helps. - Adam</p>

[patrick_mason3]

<p>Thanks so much for all the awesome advice. So if i was to go with the flatbed option, would i just need a film attachment? and this would be sufficient for web posting but how about when it comes to print? i'm also guessing that a flatbed would be perfectly fine for using as a means of say replicating a contact sheet, as in editing purposes, if so i guess i could use that for the mean time then if i need to print anything in the future i could just get my selected negatives scanned more professionally?</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>... would i just need a film attachment? and this would be sufficient for web posting but how about when it comes to print?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>135 and 120 film attachments comes with the V500 and the older 4490. Other than an inconsequential change in light source, it's the same scanner in all respects. </p>

<p>Look for refurbs directly from Epson. They tend to release these in batches. I picked up a 4490 for around $80 and a V500 for a bit more than $100.</p>

<p>When it comes to print, the flatbeds are good for about a x5 enlargement. They yield pretty good quality 7x5 prints from 135 format film. </p>

<p>The Nikon scans will provide for up to about a 10x enlargement. This translates to something like a 12x18 print - an excellent match for high resolving, low grained film like Acros or 100 TMAX. </p>

<p>I personally think 135 Tri-X or HP-5 is unpleasant past an 8x10 print regardless of reproduction technology. Said another way, these film runs out of steam before the scanner or enlarger does.</p>

<p><a href="../digital-darkroom-forum/00J1d2">Look at this thread</a> to see actual crops from the V500 and 5000. I use a Nikon 9000 as well. It's the only "reasonably" priced, high resolution scanner for 120 film left. The scans between the 5000 and the 9000 are otherwise indistinguishable.</p>