tommarcus Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 Alot of places make the bulk of their film developing by charging and arm and a leg to scan it for you. The scanning is just like the development, no guaruntee that it will look good. In fact most of the scanned images i have gotten, were worse then the scans i did myself with a 10 year old film scanenr with a 5 mp output.. Example one famous spot charges you 10 dollar a roll for 35mm c41. then charges you that much to scan it, UNLESS you pay them 6 dollars for a single print sent of photos, then scan is only 6.99 Asked them about it, and they really did believe it was a savings.. When there are PROFESSIONAL places that scan film for 20$, 20$ minimum. And they have the nice big fancy scanners that let them adjust each image if neeed.... Some of these scanners are the nice big ones that can scan an entire reel of 35mm movie film in little time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCL Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 Not sure what your point is...if it is that having a lab develop and scan film is expensive and quality is not always reliable...yeah, so either do it yourself or go digital. That's today's market and complaining about it isn't going to change it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 I agree that mini-lab scans are not worth the money - low resolution, poor quality JPEG with exaggerated color. There are alternatives to paying $15 and up for custom scans. I and many others produce good results digitizing film and slides with a digital camera. They are as good or better than scans made on a dedicated film scanner, and take a fraction of the time. I can say this because I have a Nikon LS-4000 scanner for 35 mm and an LS-8000 for medium format. At some point you ask yourself, "If digital cameras are that good, why do I need film?" I have many years of unscanned film and slides, and using a camera for digitization is the only way I can hope to finish. I haven't bought nor used film for nearly twenty years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommarcus Posted July 5, 2020 Author Share Posted July 5, 2020 I agree that mini-lab scans are not worth the money - low resolution, poor quality JPEG with exaggerated color. There are alternatives to paying $15 and up for custom scans. I and many others produce good results digitizing film and slides with a digital camera. They are as good or better than scans made on a dedicated film scanner, and take a fraction of the time. I can say this because I have a Nikon LS-4000 scanner for 35 mm and an LS-8000 for medium format. At some point you ask yourself, "If digital cameras are that good, why do I need film?" I have many years of unscanned film and slides, and using a camera for digitization is the only way I can hope to finish. I haven't bought nor used film for nearly twenty years. Alot of the scanners you can buy online arent that great quality wise until you hit the magic level of 800$ going by reviews... At that point one wonders because ONE of the places i used with bad scanning results used a professional scanner that retails for 3200$. The use of a lens mounted film scanner set up is wonderful until you see the price on them, and that at least the one sold by Nikon only works with two lenses they make, and each lens costs 8-1000$ on top of 5-600$ for the attachment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 I use a Nikon ES-1 for slides and an ES-2 for slides or film strips with Nikkor 55/2.8 Micro I purchased used for $150. The film adapters can be used with nearly any macro lens in the 40-60 mm range with a 52 mm or 62 mm filter ring. Aside from the camera, The assembly costs less than $350, far less than an obsolete Nikon film scanner. On my last session, I scanned over 200 slides in 2 hours, on a kitchen table with an LED desk lamp as a light source. One roll of film, 36-40 exposures, takes nearly 2 hours on a Nikon LS-4000 with a roll feeder. The auto slide feeder jams every dozen slides or so with cardboard mounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommarcus Posted July 6, 2020 Author Share Posted July 6, 2020 Ed, either of them work with the D7500? the reveiws for the Es-2 say it needs the D850 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 The D850 is a full-frame camera, which works best for copying film at 1:1 magnification. A DX camera needs only 1:1.5 magnification to reproduce the full frame. This means the film must be further from the lens. The ES-2 comes with several extensions and both 52 and 62 mm threads. According to the specs, it can be used with a Nikon 40mm macro lens for DX cameras. You don't need live view for focusing, but it helps a lot. In order to use the EX-2 with an FX camera (Sony A7Riii) and the Nikon 55/2.8, a Nikon PX-13 27.5 mm extension tube between the lens and camera, and a Nikon to Sony lens adapter, I had to use the long 62 mm tube on the ES-2 plus a 52-62 mm adapter. The adapter had just enough extension (1/4") for focusing. For other lenses, you might need a filter ring extension tube, available from several vendors. This technique has been discussed externsively o PNet. Please shop around here for more information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts