Choosing the RIGHT Scanner for 35mm Color Film in 2016

[jon_aron]

Hi All-

 

After reading what feels like 100s of threads to no avail, I'm ready to ask for help. I'm in the market to invest in a 35mm scanner but the

options are a little overwhelming. Some of my limitations:

 

- Budget $300-$600 range

- Scanner intended for 35mm

- Quality scans for large scale printing

- Dust and scratch removal a plus

- Batch processing not necessary

 

Any recc's for scanners in that range would be appreciated greatly

 

I used to work with a Nikon CoolScan 5000, but it's since moved. That piece of hardware was a gem though. I'd love to invest in a piece

like that! .

[john_shriver]

<p>You might get more responses in the Digital Darkroom forum.<br>

It's a hard question. I was lucky to get a used Coolscan V for $400 a few years ago. Total steal!<br>

You might want to have a criterion of being able to use the scanner with open-source software. So see if the scanner you are considering is <a href="http://www.sane-project.org/sane-supported-devices.html">supported by the SANE project</a>. That would avoid having your scanner orphaned when the vendor doesn't port the drivers to new operating system versions. (I keep a Windows XP virtual machine on my Mac to be able to use Nikon Scan with my scanner.)<br>

Also take into account if SilverFast and/or VueScan is supported on the scanner you're considering.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>There are still 35mm film scanners being made, but the options are much reduced since so many people who were scanning film have now done their archive and are moving on to full digital.<br>

There are adequate flatbed film scanners like the newer Canon Coolscan series. They will not equal the old Nikon CoolScan 5000, unfortunately. They are good enough if you are just doing 8x10 prints or on-line postings.<br>

One problem with buying older scanners from the day when scanners were scanners is that their machine interfaces may be slow (USB1) or obsolete (SCSI). On some older scanners, people like myself keep then going by keeping an older computer dedicated just to the scanner.</p>

<p>It is <em>possible</em> to copy negatives and slides using a macro setup and stand. If you're not doing a large number of scans this can work well enough. There are heated discussions here on P.net about whether and how....., if you search for them.</p><div></div>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Keep in mind that Kodachrome and BW negatives will probably not work with automatic scratch and dust removal programs in scanners due to the nature of their film. Ektachrome type slides and color negatives should work. When using these removal options, scan times are increased substantially and you will probably have to do so additional spot removal after the scan when you post process. Cleaning up the film before scanning will help the overall process.</p>

<p>Automatic color and lighting adjustments during the scan often don't work well. They may clip the highlights and shadow areas and provide unusual color results that won't be able to be fixed much in post processing. </p>

<p>My conclusion on based on use of an Epson V600 flat bed scanner, around $200. You can check my Flickr for 35mm and 120 medium format scans of color slides and color negatives and BW negatives. I don't think though that large prints make sense with 35mm on a flat bed scanner.</p>

<p>Just a question. Are your 35mm mounted slides or film strips. If they're mounted, will the scanner you are thinking of buying capable of handling them? Flat bed scanners can. I don't know about dedicated film scanners.</p>

<p>Good luck in whatever you decide. You're in for a long trek.</p>

 

[AlanKlein]

<p>Forgot to add that I don't scan with the auto settings but scan "flat" saving all adjustments to post processing. That save times in case the auto doesn't work well, a good possibility, you do not have to re-scan. </p>

[jon_aron]

<p>Thanks for the responses so far everybody. I've concluded that a flat bed scanner (such as the Epson V600) is ideal in terms of pricing. As far as quality, however, I'm still a bit weary. The flat bed scanners that I've heard of don't seem to compare to the regular scanners really. Does anyone know of a flat bed scanner that competes in terms of quality? Again, looking in the $300-600 range. </p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I think the problem you might have is a dissonance between what you say you need and your budget. There's also the likelihood that many film scanners you might buy may be discontinued and unsupported so potentially hard to set up, and a risk in terms of getting it fixed. </p>

<p>I don't think a consumer flatbed (eg Epson) is going to get you to make big prints from 35mm. There are a few better quality flatbeds around but they are bigger more complex beasts for lab use. There are a few people on here who seem to be able to drag a bit more out of consumer flatbeds , but the question you might ask yourself is whether you'll be able to do that. </p>

[dhbebb]

<p>A subject which can inflame the passions :-)<br>

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00e6c3?start=10<br>

I am a critical retired professional and use a Plustek OpticFilm 7600 for the reasons stated in the above thread. In the opinion of some "experts", only a fool would do this!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I use a Reflecta ProScan 7200 (known in the US as Pacific Images), very similar to the Plustek mentioned above. It works perfectly fine, has infrarad scratch and dust reduction and can be found new with warranty within your budget.<br>

For reasons completely beyond me, it seems people believe the options are limited to flatbed scanners or end-of-life products from Nikon only. Apparently it is wrong to use these cheap, new film scanners, but well, they work. They are manual feed, which is a bit a drag, but all the other choices have drawbacks too. Anyway, I would check a Plustek or Pacific Images/Reflecta with ICE (IR dust reduction) at your budget.</p>

[phil_gunderson]

I have a few different scanners and each has their benefits and their problems. With the OpticFilm 8200i I have, it does a

serviceable job. I find it does a better job with negatives than slides. It isn't as sharp as the older Canons, Nikons, or

Minoltas, but unless your needs are grain sharp huge enlargements, the scanner does a pretty good job, albeit slowly.

The Coolscan V I have scans at least 3 times faster, in part because it does the IR channel in the same pass as the rgb

scan. The OpticFilm does two passes to get IR data and rgb.

 

Lately I've been scanning very old c22 negatives with the OpticFilm and been fairly pleased with the results. The pictures

aren't so grain, okay dye cloud, sharp like the others with autofocus would have been, but the pictures I'm scanning aren't

so sharp as to need it either.

 

You mentioned large scale printing. Do you mind elaborating on that? A 4000 point scan of 35mm film yields around

12x18 @ 300ppi output. Depending upon final output resolution, you can go up or down from there. On the plus tell, I

scan at full 7200 points sensor resolution and down sample to 3600 on save as I've found it's a bit sharper and avoids the

stair step artifacts I was getting scanning at 3600 directly. YMMV on that one.

 

People talk about flatbed scanners a lot as well. They can yield some great results, but for me with 35mm or smaller, the

dedicated scanners do a better job. Again, this is just my experience. I use a flatbed for anything larger than 35mm but

don't scan much higher than 1800ppi since, on my scanner, I don't pull any more detail beyond that.

 

The nice thing about having a currently manufactured and supported scanner is that it can be more easily serviced, and

you can get spares like film holders for reasonable prices compared to the high prices of, say a holder for 35mm for a

Minolta Scan Elite 5400.

 

What you'll probably find is that all of us scanning film have our own preferences and expectations.

[jon_aron]

<p>David H - I think you're right, in so far as my expectations (what I say I need) are quite high, whereas my reality (the budget I have) is rather low. Perhaps this dissonance is why I'm struggling to find the right scanner for me. On the other hand, I just picked up a Canonscan FS2720U for $35 - budget, check; quality, check. So, working below a $600 price range is certainly not out of the question! In fact, I've seen several of the Coolscan (Nikon's rather amazing 35mm scanners) in the $4-700 range as well.</p>

<p>Does anyone have experience with the Canoscan? How do we think this FS2720U will bode?</p>

<p>Phil - the fact that your Coolscan is doing better numbers than your OpticFilm 8200i is insane. Just goes to show - timeless quality can't be beat. I'm really hoping to scoop a Coolscan myself. If I only plan to scan: 35mm; color; negative; and for the purpose of large enlargements - it really does seem ideal. Open to any objections, though.</p>

<p>Which scanner is allowing you to scan at 7200? I'm interested in scanning at high resolution and down sampling, as you say. </p>

[phil_gunderson]

I have a Canon FS4000 that I picked up just to scan APS film my family has. I can't say for sure how the FS2720U will

perform for sure but if the optics are like the FS4000 I think you'll be quite happy. I used to scan a lot at 2700ppi on my

Minolta until it started giving me fits when it was time to scan.

 

The OpticFilm allows scanning at 7200ppi as that's the max resolution of the sensor. That being said. Just because the

sensor has that capability doesn't mean the lens can deliver. In the Plustek it can't deliver that high a result. It maybe hits

about half that if the film is entirely within the scanner's depth of field. Since the Plustek has no autofocus, there isn't

much way to optimize it.

 

Along with sharper optics, the Nikon's autofocus capability gives it an edge for detail.

 

Basically I use the OpticFilm as my scanner to do old instamatic/auto camera stuff. The Nikon for my SLR stuff that has

more detail to it. The Canon for the APS. My Minolta, when I can get it to work, I use for the highest resolution scans

when conditions were perfect for the film to achieve the best sharpness I could. Sadly that scanner is probably not long for

this world unless I can figure out how to fix it.

 

How large are you hoping to print?

[dhbebb]

<p>I had a Canoscan once, I think it was an FS2700. It was a moderate performer in terms of Dmax, after 10 months of ownership it developed a CCD problem (big green line across the middle of all scans). It was fixed under warranty, after 10 months more the same fault recurred, at which time I threw it in the trash.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Jon said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As far as quality, however, I'm still a bit weary. The flat bed scanners that I've heard of don't seem to compare to the regular scanners really.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David Henderson said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think the problem you might have is a dissonance between what you say you need and your budget.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There in lies the rub. There's not much, if any, difference in the 100s of threads you've read on this subject. Best bet for compromise is to see if you find a used Nikon CS V or 5000 or 4000 in good working order at reasonable price. You might be able to get a used one in your price range.</p>

[PaulWhiting]

<p>I've been interested in "scanning" (note quotes!) with a copy arrangement. That is, a procedure using a slide or film negative setup with a copy lens of some kind. I'm narrowing in on a Nikon ES-1 Slide Copying Adapter and a previous era Nikkor Micro 55mm lens. I'm keeping my eye out for a good condition body such as a Nikon D90, which I believe has about 12 mp. I don't see much mention of this kind of "scanning" in discussions such as this. Am I missing something by pursuing this route? Maybe there's a reason for this method not coming up as often, and I'm missing some major problem with it.</p>

<p>I'm mainly interested in family slides, but I do have an occasional b/w negative from my Leica days I'd like to make a quality 8x10 of, for matting and framing.</p>

<p>Best,</p>

<p>Paul</p>

 

[phil_gunderson]

Paul, with slides and BW negatives I've had pretty good results with that method and have used it mostly for odd sized

BW negatives that wouldn't fit my scanner. Color negatives never really gave me very good results so I stuck with the

scanners to digitize those. The slide shooting method can be quite quick once you have your flow figured out. I would

suggest shooting in raw to finish tweaks in your raw editor of choice.

[PaulWhiting]

<p>Thanks for the positive feedback, Phil. Interesting too, that the D90 still commands a respectable price. Must be some sort of classic, if there is such a thing among DSLR's. (and I know very little about the huge range of digital cameras out there!)</p>

<p>Best regards,</p>

<p>Paul</p>

[phil_gunderson]

<p>To add to what Les said, the dust and scratches on a body like the 80D when I did it took forever to clean. With BW, that was inevitable since IR cleaning doesn't work on those anyway.<br>

I did happen to think about something I tried with color negative when trying to do that with a DSLR. I got the best color shooting in RAW and using a tool called MakeTiff from the same developer that does ColorPerfect. Then take the TIFF file MakeTiff outputs and convert it using the appropriate negative film profile in ColorPerfect. It was fiddly to do, but if I didn't have other alternatives, it can be made to work.<br>

Doing it myself, I didn't use a slide duplicator. I used a light box designed for viewing slides, made a mask to both hold the film flat and block extra light and shot with a macro lens with the camera on a tripod with live view and remote trigger. Once everything was in focus, I just needed to slide the next odd sized negative into place. With slides, just make sure to have heavy paper with an opening just smaller than the slide. Pop it into place, and shoot. My settings were F8 at 100 ISO 105mm on a Canon crop sensor.</p>

[PaulWhiting]

<p>@Les: Thank you, Les, I take your point on DX vs FX bodies... however, I insert some spacer rings (about 20mm total) to give more enlargement so that a smaller sensor will in fact "scan" the whole slide. See: http://www.scantips.com/es-1.html and also see attachments showing my setup.</p>

<p>@Phil: Thanks for the lead on "Make TIFF", I'll have to check that out.</p>

<p>Thanks all,</p>

<p>Paul</p>

[PaulWhiting]

<p>Here's the setup disassembled.</p>

[jon_aron]

<p>Pardon my absence! Been away these last few days...regardless, I'm amazed to see where this conversation has gone. Thanks for responding!</p>

<p>Clearly, there is no RIGHT option for 35mm scanning - especially in 2016. Go Nikon Coolscan (V, 4000, 5000 - even 2000) or go home in terms of quality. Buy a newer scanner - from Epson's flat beds to dedicated Plustek models - if you're looking for security and confidence in the ability to maintain/repair.</p>

<p>Definitely want to try and play around with a couple things. Canoscan FS27270U is on the way, very close to purchasing my Nikon Coolscan V, and would love to test out a more modern scanner soon. Thanks everyone!</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>This trusted site's review of the Epson V850 attests that it produces good reproduction of 35mm film both slides and negatives the size of film he mostly based his review on.</p>

<p>http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/scanner/epson_v850.html</p>

[PaulWhiting]

<p>@Jon: I was pleased to see you mention the 2000. I have one, got it free from a colleague who couldn't get it installed on her computer. I got it installed on an old XP (the scanner needed a SCSI interface) and had it cleaned up for around $90 by a guy on eBay. He did an excellent job and although it was slow I did get some good scans out of it. I ended up using the Nikon software, VueScan's learning curve was too steep for me!</p>

<p>Help me with this phrase from your post: "go home in terms of quality"... sorry, I don't understand.</p>

<p>Anyway, I was encouraged by your post re: the 2000. Maybe I'll use my slide copier setup for some casual family "scans" of old slides, and use the 2000 when I need to take some time with some of my "art" 35mm b/w negatives. Thank you including this old but apparently still viable scanner.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>David, I would be interested to know how you evaluated DMAX.</em><br>

By drawing on the expertise gained in 60 years of photographic activity (in other words, guessing :-)). I would of course use a densitometer if I had one, since I don't, I work on the assumption that a scanner with a Dmax rating of 3.2 will handle colour negative material okay, while 3.2 to 3.4 is likely to be adequate for colour reversal material. The hardest type of image to scan is black and white negatives, apparently needing a Dmax rating of at least 3.6. I base this hypothesis on the fact that results with black-and-white images with my Canon FS 2700 were horrible, the ones with a Nikon Coolscan IV were just adequate and the ones with my present OpticFilm 7600i seem fine (although this would only apply to carefully-exposed film – excessively dense negatives are exceedingly difficult to scan).</p>