Scanner for Newbie on a budget

[mike_clinard1]

I have gotten back into 35mm photography and want to start doing some of the work myself. I’m currently sending my film off for processing and uploading. In addition, I have a large amount of negatives on file from years ago. Would it be more efficient if I could have my film developed and then scan and upload myself? If so, what would be a budget scanner that would work for me? There’s a small unit on Amazon that is less than $200, but I’m not sure of the quality.

[AJG]

It depends--if all you want to do is post images on a site like this one then the $200 scanner might be adequate.  If you expect to make 8x10 or larger prints that look good, then probably not.  I use a full frame DSLR with a macro lens, slide copying attachment and studio flash that I've had around since film days, and I can get very high quality with that set up.  But if you're not into digital this would be an expensive way to get into scanning.  

Regardless of how you digitize your negatives, if you are doing the scanning you can expect to do a fair amount of post processing in Photoshop or another imaging program to get the best results. Even film that has been stored reasonably well can have lots of dust spots that are a nuisance to clean off. And speaking of film developing, doing your own B&W film processing is pretty easy and inexpensive to get started with.  Color is more demanding of temperature control and not worth it (IMHO) unless you have a lot of volume.

[glen_h]

There is near me a lab that does C41 for $9/roll and E6 for $12/roll,
35mm or 120, develop only.

At my current rate of about 1 roll/year, that is just fine.

DSLR scanning, for me, works well for slides, and probably black and white negatives.

For color negatives, there is the orange mask, but also the low gamma.

You have to correct for both of those.

 

I suspect you can get away with an 8x10 with a $200 scanner,

if you don't look too carefully.

There are used scanners that are not so bad, and not bad priced, though many
need older OS to run. 

[Ed_Ingold]

Dedicated film scanners are 10 years out of date. The good ones are insanely expensive, and the film holders are scarce.

You should consider using a digital camera to "copy" the negatives. You need a camera, 1:1 macro lens, and a film holder. Nikon makes a pretty good holder for slides and film strips, the ES-2. I have that one, but have recently switched to a Valoi Easy35 for speed and convenience. I described the Valoi system in a recent post.

[digitaldog]

Dedicated scanners are not necessarily insanely expensive. 
I bought a $20000 Film Scanner for $500
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKC7h6muOfo

As an owner of this scanner, this guy got a screaming deal on a superb film scanner. 

[paddler4]

Some correct me if I'm wrong, but I have never understood why a scanner would be as good as a camera (Ed's suggestion) for this because the resolution of moderately priced photo scanners is so much lower. I use a Canon 9000F II scanner that has a resolution of 600 dpi, which is 23.6 dots per millimeter. The sensor of my camera (an R6 II, which is not high resolution by today's standards) is more than 7 times that. I use the scanner for photos, but if I ever get around to digitizing my huge collection of old slides, I'll use a camera.

B&H sells a Vello slide and film copying aparatus similar to the Valoi that Ed mentioned, https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1760393-REG/vello_nsd_35_35mm_negative_and_slide.html. It's much cheaper and I suspect not as good, but it might get the job done.

[digitaldog]

It's a lot more than just sensor resolution! Interpolated color vs. Trilinear color, DR, sharpness, the lens (look at just the Rodenstock in the Imacon). PMT vs. CCD scanner, same resolution; huge differences just there 

Edited June 1 by digitaldog

[Adrian K]

On 6/1/2024 at 7:46 AM, paddler4 said:

Some correct me if I'm wrong, but I have never understood why a scanner would be as good as a camera (Ed's suggestion) for this because the resolution of moderately priced photo scanners is so much lower. I use a Canon 9000F II scanner that has a resolution of 600 dpi, which is 23.6 dots per millimeter. The sensor of my camera (an R6 II, which is not high resolution by today's standards) is more than 7 times that. I use the scanner for photos, but if I ever get around to digitizing my huge collection of old slides, I'll use a camera.

B&H sells a Vello slide and film copying aparatus similar to the Valoi that Ed mentioned, https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1760393-REG/vello_nsd_35_35mm_negative_and_slide.html. It's much cheaper and I suspect not as good, but it might get the job done.

I just bought that Vello system and am impressed with it so far. I've only tried a few slides so far and I'll have to look into a negative conversion program to copy negatives. I do have a Nikon Coolscan V but it takes a while to scan each frame or slide. I still have tons of unscanned film to digitize. 

Follow the (yellow brick) road!

[rodeo_joe1]

£200 or even £100 for a plastic gizmo that just holds the film/slide in front of a macro lens doesn't seem very budget-friendly to me. Whereas this all metal attachment can be found a lot cheaper if you look around. 

This one is branded "Astron", but I've seen the identical thing sold under different names. The above one cost me UK £10 some while back, used, but boxed and looking like new/old stock. Fleabay throws up similar items quite regularly at way less than 100 bucks. 

Of course, you need to add a digital camera + macro lens, or lens+extension tube(s) and a light source. As you do with the Vello or Valoi.

The issue with old film scanners is finding drivers/software for them that's compatible with newer computer hardware and OS's. And WRT scan quality, IME a 24 Mp (or above) camera can scrape all the detail going from any 35mm size piece of film. Even 25 ISO Ektar or Kodachrome.

 

[SCL]

Hey Mike - if you're still there:

I'll add my $0.02. Having moved from a dedicated scanner, to a slide duplicator, to a homemade scanning setup with my digital camera, I can say that if you have a decent digital camera and macro lens, this is the easiest and least expensive way to get quality scans consistently. If you do a search on scanning in recent times, you will find many non-professional photographers and an increasing number of pros moving in this direction. There are exceptions where people have mastered expensive scanners or have a need for special equipment to achieve consistent repetitive calibrated results, etc. But for most users the digital body (DSLR or mirrorless) is not only economical, but pretty easy to use and achieve very good results.