film scanner problems

[p_elcock]

<p>Hi can anyone help recommend the best way to digitise my 100's of Kodachrome and Fulichrome slides?<br>

I've tried an epsom 4490 photo scanner on high res 1200 and the clarity and colour range just isn't there. I can't afford the £2000 for the plustek scanner, but I'm not convinced buying the current Epsom photo scanner at £700 will be much better than the old version.<br>

Are there any other ideas/ways to do it?<br>

thanks, paul elcock</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Plustek scanners aren't 2000 pounds, but more something like 200, IF you only need 35mm (for medium format and larger indeed things either get expensive, or an Epson). As an alternative to Plustek, there is also Reflecta - filmscanners, relatively simple and plasticky, dynamic range isn't the world's greatest but on a whole I am content with what mine does given what it costs. I had a scan with my Reflecta ProScan 7200 of a 35mm negative printed at 60*90cm, and frankly I am amazed how well it kept up.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Flatbed scanners just aren't high-resolution enough for 35mm, other than snapshot quality for the web. The Epson V700, V750, V800, and V850 are higher resolution, but still a long way from (for instance) a Nikon Coolscan.<br>

In terms of color, have you tried dedicated software such as SiverFast or ViewScan? Multi-scan can certainly improve shadow detail and color fidelity. Also, using a Kodachrome IT8 target to calibrate the scanner can help a lot with Kodachrome.<br>

It takes a lot of experience and accumulated skill to scan Kodachrome well. It is not scanner-friendly film. (One of the dyes is really wonky.) <br>

If you intend to keep shooting film and scanning it, consider joining the bidding wars on a used Nikon Coolscan. (You want a IV or LS-40 or better.) You may also need a dedicated outdated computer and operating system to run the software on.<br>

If this is a one-off scanning event, look into http://scancafe.com. I can't quite tell what level of service they offer in the UK. They will scan the slides on a Nikon Coolscan 9000.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

Do you have a high resolution (22mp or higher) Digital camera and a macro lens? You can use it to create "digital dupes"

 

For an overview of how to do this See

 

http://www.dpbestflow.org/camera/camera-scanning

 

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/01/scan-film-with-camera-1.html

 

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/01/how-to-scan-film-2.html

 

The three big advantages of this approach are:

1) Massive time saving per slide or negative.

 

2) you end up with a true raw file.

 

3) greater depth of field.

 

Whether you use a scanner or a camera, keep in mind that you will still need to retouch the inevitable dust and scratches.

[Colin O]

<p>Another option is to send your slides to a scanning service and have them do it for you. You pay for the service obviously, but it means you save having to invest all the time it would otherwise take.</p><p>Here are a few for example:<br>

<a href="http://www.pro-scan.co.uk">

http://www.pro-scan.co.uk</a><br>

<a href="http://www.pixave.co.uk">

http://www.pixave.co.uk</a><br>

<a href="http://www.exposure22.com">

http://www.exposure22.com</a><br>

but you'll find others by searching for "film scanning", "scanning service", etc.</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

The $2000 Plustek is needed for medium format, not for 35mm.

 

Doesn't the 4490 go higher than 1200? That looks like a prints resolution, not a transparencies one. Maybe your problem

is with the. Technique ather than the tool. But yes, anything short of a drum scanner won't be satisfying.

 

The DSLR route has no infrared cleaning. That writes it off for C41 and E6 material.

[bernard_lazareff]

<p>See this thread<br>

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00cwCa<br>

where I posted an actual A/B comparison flatbed (V700) versus dedicated 35mm (LS-2000). <br>

To obtain significant advice, you need to <em><strong>define</strong></em> to yourself and to this audience your <em><strong>intended use</strong></em> of these scans (screen viewing; internet posting, 4x6" prints, 8x10" prints, etc, whatever). <br>

In the absolute, there is always better, more expensive; if we know your need better, we'll be able to suggest what is "just right". </p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>Last I looked, the Plustek 120 had been lowered to $1800. It does very well on 35mm slides and the SilverFast software has a Kodachrome setting. It does a good job on all slide film with the exception of Velvia 100. </p>

[danielheller]

<p>Antonio, "anything short of a drum scanner won't be satisfying" I tend to differ here. A scan from a Hasselblad Flextight would be very satisfying!</p>

<p>Paul, if you can't afford the cost of a decent scanner you can always do what was suggested here by Colin. Let the pros do it. You only need to scan your best shots don't you? This will help reduce the hundreds of slides into a much more manageable quantity and save you a lot of money and the heartache if you were to purchase a scanner, spend hundred of hours scanning and perhaps end up with less then desirable results that would not meet with your expectations.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>I have a DualScan III and DualScan IV, both bought used for a good price. They are good enough for most of what I need, but pretty slow. For that reason, I don't scan as many as I could.<br>

I had many Ektachrome slides from my college dorm years that I did with the DSLR and AI 55mm/2.8 lens, with a plastic tube to give the right spacing, and a thin extension ring to allow for the appropriate magnification. (It isn't 1:1, as it is a crop sensor.) The quality might not be as good as a scanner, but it is a lot faster and didn't need to be especially good.<br>

When I do use the DualScan, I usually use the highest resolution (except to post here.)<br>

Used Nikon scanners are still pretty expensive for me. (Actually, I have the LS-1000 that I bought used, but that is even slower.)</p>

 

[Robin Smith]

<p>Agree with Ellis, if you have a 20MP camera then suggest you consider digicopying. Best bang for the buck in my opinion. You can do a search on this site to see discussions about it.</p>