Negative scanners revisited

[sebastianmoran]

<p>For quality scans, the highest quality, a good lab with a drum scanner.</p>

<p>For many of us, it's what to do with the boxes of negatives in the closet. That's what I'm working on. My Coolscan V w/VueScan does a good enough job, but it takes several minutes per shot, maybe ten in an hour, including the scanning and post processing. Shooting negatives with a DSLR would require the same post processing.</p>

<p>Then, there are the relatively inexpensive bulk services, Scan Cafe comes to mind. For roughly $0.25 a frame, they'll return reasonable jpegs.</p>

 

[rexmarriott]

<p>I've got a bit left behind, and wanted to respond to a few things.<br>

Sebastian, I'm shooting 35mm at the moment, but have got my eye on doing medium format down the line. This being the case, I know that Epson (what I've already got, but I've concerns about reliability which I'm discussing with Epson) at least offers holders for different formats. However, I'm starting to think that those drying marks on my 35mm negative scans are not drying marks at all. I suspect that, in the middle of a strip of 6, it's where the negative sometimes touches the glass; serious black mark for Epson's flimsy plastic negative holders.<br>

Drum scanners is a no-no for me. I won't pay somebody else to do the work. In lieu of printing (what I'd really like to be doing), it will be DIY.<br>

I'm quite surprised that there have been few strong advocates for scans by DSLR here, and take this to imply that there is not a great deal in it in terms of quality. I want to test DSLR scans, and am aware that this is going to involve some extra outlay. I reckon I'd need, at the very least, a copy stand and a light pad. It's not going to break the bank, I suppose.<br>

A worry for me with Nikon or Minolta (I'd almost certainly go for Minolta, as the general drift seems to be Nikon for colour, not B/W) would be software. Would I be correct in assuming that I'd use VueScan, and I'd have no problems related to the age of the hardware?</p>

[lenny_eiger]

<blockquote>

<p>For quality scans, the highest quality, a good lab with a drum scanner.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I would say this is almost correct. Drum scanning is an art, not a science. It is best done by scanner operators with lots of experience. I do this professionally, as do many others. We look at the film carefully, the aesthetics of the individual photographer and adjust things so that the prints they want to make are possible.</p>

<p>The model of a lab is based on volume. They often have people who are paid very little, experienced, etc. running the scanners. The often treat the machine as if it will do all the work, just stick the neg in there. You get what you get. It might be a little sharper but it ins't a great scan. This is not always the case, some labs have operators that are terrific. There are good stories and bad....</p>

<p>Just like hiring a person to print for you, you want to find someone who understands your aesthetic, who you can talk to, etc. If you are going to pay for this expensive service you should get something just right for your needs.</p>

[Edwin Barkdoll]

<p>I use vuescan with LS4000 and LS9000 and am happy.</p>

<p>I have used SiverFast as well and see no significant improvement in quality. SilverFast's business model also turns me off - I have no problems paying for software, however, I am irritated when I have to pay nearly full price for a license to use it on every scanner I have. I paid for the pro version of Vuescan and I use it with all my scanners and get upgrades as well.</p>

[allen_gara]

<p>Using Vuescan with older scanners solves the issue with operating systems and older software/drivers. So, that answer is yes. I used it on all the multitude of scanners I've had, including three Minoltas. I did get sick of them breaking (and breaking the bank to buy), and got a Plustek. They will probably break too, but at least for 1 year you get a warranty. It worked almost, but not quite as good as the Minolta 5400. If a dedicated is your preferred path, I wouldn't hesitate to get the Plustek. You can even get earlier versions, that have the same internals as the newest, pretty cheap on ee bay.<br /> <br />That all said, I switched to DSLR digitizing 2 years ago and never looked back. E-6 and B&W are simple processes. Negatives are obviously trickier. My process is to use an 80A filter, and white balance on a blank frame. I always make sure to take a blank shot as the first one on each roll to get a frame to calibrate off of. Why 80A? Well, with the 4000k LED light source I use, it seemed the most consistent. I did test after test until I figured I tested enough. <br /> <br />The scans had 95% of the accutance/sharpness as the Plustek, but much lower noise, especially in the shadow areas. And that was when I used an Olympus 12Mp E-30. After that a Canon T3i with 50mm macro and 1:1 converter was even better. Now a Sony a7ii with the same Canon macro is hands down better than anything I've ever used that was dedicated. And I have a really nice camera to shoot with. <br /><br /><br /> I have to admit the quality and ease of use is in part due to using a custom designed digitizing unit and light source. Not everyone has something like that, and if you just cobble things together, you're not going to optimize the quality. Film flatness, evenness of light source, color temp, and elimination of stray light all contribute to quality. <br /> That's the answer to the question on limits to quality with DSLR digitizing. Every time you get a better digital camera, you get a better scanner.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Rex, of course you can't let the film touch the glass, but I haven't had that problem with my V500. I'm getting quite good prints at 12x18 inches from 6x9 film with a V500 scan. A V700 or V750 would do a little better.</p>

<p>Everyone, can anyone offer a sample comparison of color negative film scanned with DSLR vs. a dedicated scanner? </p>

<p>Lenny, your point is right on. It's obvious to me that the operator skill makes a big difference.</p>

[rexmarriott]

<p>Thanks for those comments about VueScan, Edwin and Allen.</p>

<p>As regards scanning with a DSLR, what you say makes perfect sense to me, Allen, especially the last part about variables which might compromise quality. I think I've now got the information I need.</p>