Best Way To Scan Negatives

[RacePhoto]

Having personally scanned about 5000-6000 35mm slides and a considerable amount of rolls of 35mm film on a Nikon 5000 (in my eyes the best desktop film scanner, not really cheap though), I can assure you that EACH scanned image needs postprocessing in terms of colour, sharpness, grain, contrast, ... even if you use all those fancy mechanism and algorithms like GEM and ICE

You can reduce the amount of postprocessing, at least regarding the colour
, if you use scansoftware like silverfast, and use calibration targets to calibrate your scanner and the film used. These targets can be bought from different sources for different types of film. This greatly improves the output of your (even cheap) scanner in terms of colour.

so even if you do not want to spend around 2000 USD for a high end desktop film scanner setup, you can still get decent scanning results if you use third party software. The good thing about silverfast is, that i think to remember that it is rather cheap for the cheap scanners and expensive for the expensive scanners .

Thanks folks. I did some more research and the slide feeder runs about $400 and the comments on here and other photo forums say the autofeed is not consistant and all will be scanned with the same settings. I guess that idea went out the window.


When I look at $1000 for the ability to scan my old slides, just taking them in, is looking better all the time.

I haven't priced film or slides to cd yet, but it's got to be less than days and days of scanning and paying $1000 for the right to do my own work. I don't shoot any film anymore, except for camera tests and just to take the old cameras out for a spin, just to have some fun.

Might as well take the money and buy that 300 f/4L IS USM that I've been drooling over.

Off the wall thought. Does anyone make a slide copier attachment for digital cameras? Drop em in, shoot em and there you have it. All digitized.

 

[Alex_B]

Thanks folks. I did some more research and the slide feeder runs about $400 and the comments on here and other photo forums say the autofeed is not consistant and all will be scanned with the same settings. I guess that idea went out the window.

well, i used a nikon 5000 ED plus the latest slide feeder.
I switched grain reduction (GEM) off, since neatimage is way better at it.
i did not see anything inconsistent when batch scanning. If you have only one type of slide film in the batch, then do the settings right for that film (e.g. using the first slide, or a calibration target), and then let it scan the whole lot with those settings. to me this is very consistent.

I know it is a hell lot of money, but I bought my scanning gear, did the scanning last year and then sold it on ebay (where the nikons go for a VERY good price, at least in Europe).

Might as well take the money and buy that 300 f/4L IS USM that I've been drooling over.

that is a very fine lens
See:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67594

 

[markc]

If you want something cheap and don't mind SCSI, you might want to look for an Acer Scanwit 2720s. It's 2700 dpi and doesn't have all the fancy features, but when paired with VueScan, it does a decent job. It's what I used before going digital capture. I've seen them on e-Bay go for $100-$150. I don't know how cheap dedicated USB scanners have gotten, so there may be better choices now.

 

[mysteryscribe]

I went with a cheap flatbed scanner for negatives and it works well on 120 but poorly on 35mm. The lower the resolution the better the sharpness for some reason. anyway I'm going to look for a 35mm scanner If I plan to shoot any of it.

 

[Jeremy Z]

Do you suppose that in a few years, scanner technology will have advanced? ...or is it forsaken with the digital age?

 

[markc]

I haven't had my fingers in it for a while, but I doubt it there will be anything big. I don't think there has been for a while. Just the normal "little bit cheaper / little bit better".

 

[Alex_B]

as far as nikon is concerned, i do not have the feeling they are improving anything more but the software these days, and maybe replace some metal parts in their scanners by cheap plastic.

there hasn't been any improvement in their scanner line recently. the market probably is just too small and the product rather good already, so it makes no sense for them to waste too many resources on it. in terms of profit R&D is better invested in the DSLR market at the moment.

 

[usayit]

Another option might be the Epson V700 which is a flatbed scanner designed for negative scans as well. I have seen quite favourable reviews and the scan samples speak for themselves.
....
AAgain, the new Epson V700 seems to prove that high quality negative scanning is possible.

I second the V700. I shoot and scan medium format negatives but there are just a handful of dedicated film scanners that take MF. Bad news, they are quite expensive. Some dedicated 35mm scanners have been dropping in price but their larger cousins capable of MF have been holding their price. After some testing and thinking, I ended up with the Epson V700 which replaced my 3170. Its been a few months now and I have nothing but good things to say about its quality. My original post with samples.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=62119&highlight=V700

 

[Azuth]

I just picked up a Canon 8600F for scanning medium format. So far I'm pretty happy with it.

 

[fmw]

Most flatbeds will get you pretty bad quality when scanning negs / slides.

You mean like this?:

Scanned from medium format film with an older model of the scanner the OP asks about.

 

[mysteryscribe]

i think my results are close to fmw's. I have so far been scanning people from old wedding files. The 645 and the 6x6 results look fine. The 35mm need help for sure. Now I'm waiting for my 46mm to arrive to see how it compares to 645 scan wise.

Since the availability of all film is in question, if 127 (46 mm) scans well and I can still find the bulk rolls on ebay, I might just pick up a baby Rollie and every 46mm I see.

Anybody want to buy a whole lot of 35mm camera equipment.

I have estimated that at 2400 dpi (i think it was) scan a 46 mm negative full frame would be about 3500 x 3500 pix. thats not too shabby. It did require a small amount of sharp but at that size it wasn't to noticeable.

The attached scan was 1200 dpi came out about 1800 square This neg is the approximation of a 4x4 negative

 

[markc]

While you can compare color, I don't think you can compare resolution-based image aspects from web-sized images. I'm not saying that you can't get a good scan from a flatbed (I have one I used for my MF shots), but a dedicated scanner will usually give you a better result in comparison. You can minimize the difference if you put some effort into it though, like using oil to mount the neg to the scanner glass to prevent Newton's rings. I do think that "Most flatbeds will get you pretty bad quality" overstates the difference quite a bit.

 

[usayit]

I think the old assumption that dedicated scanners (consumer level not drum scanners etc.. ) will always give you better results than flatbeds needs to be thrown out the window.

 

[markc]

I think the old assumption that dedicated scanners (consumer level not drum scanners etc.. ) will always give you better results than flatbeds needs to be thrown out the window.

Agreed. From what I've seen (which may be outdated), a mediocre dedicated will beat a mediocre flatbed, and an excellent dedicated will beat an excellent flatbed, but that only works at the same level of quality. An excellent flatbed can beat a mediocre dedicated.

I think that there are still benefits to the dedicated design format compared to a simple flatbed, but a superior optical engine can trump them.

 

[mysteryscribe]

I just got back from the photo kiosh at eckerds with the above scan and three others. The results on 4x6 and what would be 5x7 are more than satisfactory. They are sharp and have no real problems that I can see.

That said I am not judging them against anything else. Just are they acceptable to present to someone as a picture of themselves. They are satisfactory for that purpose. Would I put them in an art gallery? no, but then I wouldn't put that kind of shot in one anyway.

I do not find the flatbed near as sharp as my dedicated was before I ruined it. But then again I don't have near the dust problems I did with the dedicated either. Maybe not a wash for the high quality minded, but it seems as of today to work for me. It is just so slow that it is hardly worth the effort for small prints which is about all i can see me ever doing with it.