Scanning Leica images

[geri_brandimarte2]

I am looking into getting a scanner and wonder if the only way to go is a film

only scanner. Does anyone get good results using a flatbet with the adapter.

Canon has some new flatbed ones coming out 5000F/8000F. My choice is to

wait for those to come out (or find something similar) or get the 2720 film only

scanner. Thanks in advance for any advice as I am new the digital process.

 

Geri Brandimarte

[doug_landrum]

For 35mm scanning, a film scanner is the way to go. I prefer the Nikons.

[carl smith]

For scanning any film, a film scanner is best. but for 35mm there aren't really any good alternatives. You can't get by as easily with a flatbed like you can with medium and large format.<br><br>

 

The Nikon film scanners are excellent for 35mm (aside from the 8000, which has a horrible banding problem). Another excellent option that can match the Nikon 4000 at a price just over that of the Nikon IV is the Canon FS4000US. <a href="http://www.rit.edu/~cgs2794/comparison.htm">Here</a>, I have a comparison of the Nikon 4000/8000 and Canon FS4000 since they're a hot topic. Unless you need bulk scanning of a whole roll of 35mm or 50 mounted slides, I would suggest the Canon. If speed is an issue and you don't have SCSI support, the Nikons will be faster.<br><br>

Minolta scanners are excellent as well, but I don't find the to be quite as sharp as the Canon, and maybe still a little behind the Nikon 4000. The software on the Canon is probably the nicest, but it's rediculously slow and I suggest you consider Vuescan as a necessary addition to the cost of the Canon FS4000.

[sal_ortega]

If you want to do justice to your equipment and work, get the best film scanner you can afford. I started with an Artixscan 4000 which I sold after a year due to inadequate shadow detail. I have been much happier with a Polaroid Sprintscan 120. Luminous Landscape has a lot of info on this subject.

Sal

[johann_fuller]

Another vote for the LS4000 - apparently a whisker behind the Canon in sharpness terms but it digs more detail out of dense film ( shadows in tranny and highlights in neg) and the analog gain + multisample feature is very usefull. You do need a fast CPU and lots of RAM to get the best out of it - older slower machines make for very slow scanning.And yes - for 35mm scanning a flatbed is just not good enough - you wouldn't be able to tell if the picture was taken with a Leica or a throwaway camera. BTW here is a comparison between a old LS2000 (not a touch on the LS4000 BTW) and the Epson 1640 (quite a good flatbed for the money) - the Nikon sample was downsized to the same max dpi as the Epson.

[carl smith]

I suggest you look at the web page I provided. As someone who has extensive experience with the Canon and the Nikon, the shadow reading abilities of the Canon are actually quite good and while maybe not as great as the Nikons, some of what the nikon pulls out is useless anyway.

 

Many other reviews will tell you the same or similar things about these two scanners. But as you know you cannot judge DMAX readings without actually using and testing the scanner.

[johann_fuller]

Carl - the analog gain control of the Nikon alows you to dig very deep into dense film - you can make 2 or more exposures at different gain settings and comp them together in PS to capture a hell of a lot of usefull detail. Does the Canon have this feature?