Negative Scanners

[harold sicks]

<p>Today I was helping clean out my deceased brother's garage with my brother. He had my father's college trunk that contain thousands of negatives taken starting in 1926-1960. There are the black and white photos but not as much.</p>

<p>My question is what type of negative scanner would work the best for these negatives. I have looked on the internet but my I see are for 35mm film or slides. I have seen many flatbed but I need some help before I start this "big" project.</p>

<p>Thanks<br>

Harold</p>

[LenMarriott]

<p>Harold, Search under Gallery>Photo Tags> Epson V500, or V600, or V700 or V750. for some sample photos. Granted, web results can be deceiving but it should give you an idea of what to expect. Good luck. Best, LM.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>That's a huge project. Many set out thinking its manageable and find its incredibly burdensome. If cost of outsourcing is a concern consider scancafe. The work is sent overseas, which may seem unpalatable, but some research on other's experiences is easy to do.</p>

[walter_degroot]

<p>fot technical and financial reasons, the popularly priced dedicated film scanners are becoming almost impossible to find and buy.<br>

hat is left are several brands and models of flatbed scanners.<br>

the leader at this time are the Epson perfection flatbed scanners.<br>

If you go to www.epson.com<br>

click onthe map, choose USA, and then go to store and clearance center.<br>

Scroll down to scanners and look what is available.<br>

the V500,v600,v700 will do medium format up to 2 1/.4" wide.<br>

12- or 620 film. It is possible that some negatives may be larger, then a v700 would be needed.<br>

EXCEPT: it is possible or likely that a scanner that will only SEE 2 1/4 inches wide will<br>

cover the important parts of the images.<br>

If there are only a few negatives that are larger, a print could be made and then scanned.</p>

<p>The results will be "acceptible" or somewhat better.<br>

true a dedicated Nikon Coolscan will provide better results.<br>

But they cost several thiousands of dollars.<br>

the most expensive "photo scanner" on the epson site sells for $415.00<br>

others for less than $200.00. they show the list / store price so you can see the savings.<br>

They will answer questions, the scanner sale is not without help from epson.<br>

Canon used to seel similar scanners but they were discontinued<br>

Prices on the " big auction site USED; ar higher than Epson's direct prices.<br>

Expect to take a while to get things done. A comfortable chair and a good monitor.</p>

[dangoldman]

<p>id do a search. this has been discussed many many times by people exactly in your position.</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>If you can find a good Epson 4870, Get it, Its just as good as those mentioned and does 4x5 also, for what you need:</p>

[rossb]

<p>There is a review in Shutter Bug this month on the Epson V600. It says it is a big step up from the V500 at they cost about $249.00. It will scan 35mm and medium formats. I am sure it would do a good job for you to scan all the photos. Scanners do have a learning curve.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

I use a Canon 8800F flatbed for 35mm but it will handle an area of 2 1/4 X 6 transparencies and up to legal size documents

[benbangerter]

<p>I have photographed many b/w negatives, 2.25x2.25" and larger, taped to a lightbox. I used Canon 300D and 5D bodies with an old 50mm Takumar macro lens. It is important to avoid reflections from the negative due to ambient room light. I was very pleased with the results, and for me this procedure is significantly faster than using a flatbed scanner. Prints up to 8x10" are quite acceptable. These negatives were from the 1920s-1960s, and I suspect the cameras used were a variety of box and folding cameras of that era. So the lenses used to take the photos were less than wonderful. If your negatives were taken with good lenses and good technique, you might not be pleased with this method. Here is an example:</p><div></div>

[warren_wilson]

<p>Harold:</p>

<p>I'd like to add my voice to Ben's. Although I actually own a very expensive Nikon Coolscan V film scanner, I've had equally fine results taking photos of the slide / neg on a light table. I do have a top-notch macro lens, which might make a difference, but when going to 100% crop in Photoshop, I cannot see much real difference between the results from the scanner and the photograph.</p>

<p>(Actually, in both cases, the original film and chromes were the source of the most image degradation, not the technique I used to copy them — Maybe it's just me, but I suspect we're much less tolerant of grain/noise than we were a few decades ago).</p>

<p>Also, the scanner takes a long time to create the file: for that reason alone, it's worth considering the alternate approach.</p>

<p>Not to mention the fact that this gives you a perfect excuse to buy a very nice macro lens if you don't have one yet!</p>