Scanner help

goodluk2u · Sep 28, 2003

Okay, i need a scanner. ive had to resort to getting photos developed in digital, which costs twice as much, and takes twice as long, just to develop the photos and scan them. so, what would YOU (yes you, reader) recommend for a good scanner? price really doesnt matter, but cheaper would be better

drlynn · Sep 28, 2003

A good dedicated film scanner such as the Minolta Dimage Scan Dual III, which can be had for $300 or less would be best. There are better film scanners on the market, but I think the Minolta is probably the best of the under $300 lot.

The film scanners will always produce higher quality scans than a flatbed scanner, and you can save money on developing, because all you need is the negative strips (or slides if you shoot slide film

), instead of having to pay for prints to scan.

terri · Sep 28, 2003

I have an Epson 2450 and love it. It comes with three different film/negative holders that work like a charm. Very versatile and easy to use. It was priced around $400?? There was an Epson rebate going on at the time that reduced my cost by $100. :mrgreen: I love it!

goodluk2u · Sep 29, 2003

Yes, I assume that both of those can develop directly from the film roll and the negatives?

drlynn · Sep 29, 2003

Both dedicated film scanners and flatbed scanners (the ones that come with film adapters) can scan negatives and slides, but not from an undeveloped roll of film.

The term "film scanner" or "film adapter" is really a bit misleading. It means film negatives or processed slides, not unprocessed film.

terri · Sep 29, 2003

Oh, right, and I was misleading, too..... you have your DEVELOPED negatives nearby, but you're too cheap to make a bunch of prints until you get an idea of what you're after.....turn to your trusty scanner and use the negative holder; you get enlarged images onscreen and can fool around with the contrast, etc, till you see the image you want from the darkroom. Or, if you don't WANT to use the darkroom, find high quality photo paper and print your image. It sort of lets you use film for strictly digital output, is what I am fumbling to say.