Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2017 · Film Scanner?

  
 
Danner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Film Scanner?


Recently started shooting B&W film again (HP5 in 35mm), and was looking for a scanner.

Mostly, I am printing this stuff on my enlarger, but I would like to scan some stuff for posting on the Internet.

Recommendations for a scanner please?

I found this Wolverine unit at B&H that looks OK.

Thanks for your thoughts.

- Dan



Feb 21, 2017 at 11:10 AM
walts.photo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Film Scanner?


Tried my hand at scanning 35mm for a while recently. My experience is with an Epson V600 and a couple of more generic scanners.

Scanning 35mm is ok for small pictures, like posting on the web. So, probably any junky scanner or even a DSLR setup would work. If you have a choice, try to get a scanner that does the background subtract using infrared, called ICE by Epson. That helps reduce the dust.

Anything more important and it's not worth it unless you have a pristine development process and a clean room to do the scanning. You know, white gloves and filtered air, etc. Otherwise, dust and developer defects become a problem.

It might be worth doing if you have medium or large format negatives. Then the defects are less noticeable relative to the size of the photos.



Feb 21, 2017 at 12:56 PM
rdeloe
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Film Scanner?


I don't have the link saved, but if you search the FM forums there was a long thread with lots of advice on this topic not that long ago. In a nutshell, the advice the OP on that thread got was send it out for professional scanning unless you like scanning negatives more than making images!


Feb 21, 2017 at 01:16 PM
Danner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Film Scanner?


Thank you for the responses.

Hmmm ...

Starting to wonder if I should just use my D800/60 Micro/ES-1 slide copier set-up, or, maybe flat-bed scan my prints?

Sounds like there is no free lunch for this task, .



Feb 21, 2017 at 01:26 PM
AmbientMike
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Film Scanner?


I've got an old Minolta Dimage, I think it is the IV. Judging by prices on ebay, these still may be pretty good.

I haven't used it lately, and it might not be compatible with a new computer, but I don't remember having much trouble getting good scans. I may need to work on focus, though.

But apparently getting good scans from a flatbed, more regular document scanner, is harder.

I started a thread recently, for old family photos of this guy's family. A one shot deal, basically. For that, I'd probably use ScanCafe. But for scanning on a regular basis, I'd rather not have to spend money and send them off. I hate risking my originals to a shipping company, anyway



Feb 22, 2017 at 09:54 AM
AmbientMike
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Film Scanner?


Another thing you can do, I thought of this after I posted, is to copy prints by shooting a photo of them with your camera. I haven’t done a lot of it, but it doesn't look that hard (famous last words lol)

If you pick up the free DxO download, it corrects distortion, etc automatically, and you might be able to use even a cheap zoom. Copying isn't something I've done yet, though.



Feb 22, 2017 at 09:59 AM
walts.photo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Film Scanner?


When I was developing my own BW fllm, I don't remember so many defects getting onto the final prints. I wonder if the process of enlarging has a blurring effect on particles sitting on top of the negatives.

In contrast, scanning a negative directly uses a larger depth of focus (film + defects) that get transferred to the digital image.

So, I wonder if scanning a fully enlarged print would be better than scanning the negatives.

Just guessing at this.

One other possibility is that today's scanners are much higher resolution and so we just see more of the defects than ever before. My scanner's 6400 dpi translates to 4 microns per pixel. Most rooms are full of 4 micron sized particles.



Feb 22, 2017 at 10:20 AM
chez
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Film Scanner?


walts.photo wrote:
When I was developing my own BW fllm, I don't remember so many defects getting onto the final prints. I wonder if the process of enlarging has a blurring effect on particles sitting on top of the negatives.

In contrast, scanning a negative directly uses a larger depth of focus (film + defects) that get transferred to the digital image.

So, I wonder if scanning a fully enlarged print would be better than scanning the negatives.

Just guessing at this.

One other possibility is that today's scanners are much higher resolution and so we just see more of the defects
...Show more

Your 6400 dpi scanner lies. There have been tests done on various scanners and the vast majority highest settings do not achieve any finer resolution...just larger files.



Feb 22, 2017 at 10:29 AM
walts.photo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Film Scanner?


Be careful with blanket statements. My scanner says that it can scan 6400x9600 or up to 12,800 dpi. That is a bit misleading (or a lie as you say). It's native optical resolution is the smallest of these numbers - 6400 dpi.


Feb 22, 2017 at 10:54 AM
rdeloe
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Film Scanner?


Tim Parkin posted a nice discussion of scanner resolution issues here:
http://www.drumscanning.co.uk/about/resolution/

The drum scanning technology he uses likely represents "as good as you can get" by scanning different sizes of film, so the page provides a nice benchmark.



Feb 22, 2017 at 10:56 AM
slay12345
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Film Scanner?


I use an Imacon 848 to digitize film at my job to produce high quality scans for stock photography.
It does a superb job but, as most things in life, you get out what you put in.
We scan a high res 12"x18" tiff file, then color correct in photoshop followed by some dust/scratch filters where applicable but mostly manual cloning and healing with a wacom tablet, then save out as a jpg.
Start to finish I average 20 minutes per image. Broken down, roughly 5 minutes to remove film from mounts, blow dust off (sometimes I use a liquid cleaner for stubborn spots) and scan. Some images are in photoshop for as little as 5 minutes or as long as 30 for the digital clean up.

Previously we used a Minolta Dimage which gave a good quality for its age. If you don't need this for high end scanning, I would recommend a minolta (or nikon coolscan has good reviews) IF it is still functioning on today's operating systems. The scans take more time, but the rest of the process is the same. I can't offer any advice on the scanner you provided in your link though.

So calculate what your images are worth to you, and if it's worth shipping them out or buying a scanner and investing your own time.




Feb 22, 2017 at 11:14 AM
walts.photo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Film Scanner?


I see they have a special effort to remove dust from the scanning environment.

I love Parkin's statement about drum "...scanners originally cost the price of a small house." Partly explains them charging $15 per 35mm photo.

Still, I'd love to compare them to our local commercial shop which uses Epsons, charging $5 per 4000dpi scan.




Feb 22, 2017 at 11:34 AM
chez
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Film Scanner?


walts.photo wrote:
I see they have a special effort to remove dust from the scanning environment.

I love Parkin's statement about drum "...scanners originally cost the price of a small house." Partly explains them charging $15 per 35mm photo.

Still, I'd love to compare them to our local commercial shop which uses Epsons, charging $5 per 4000dpi scan.



It's not only about resolution, but also how much detail can be extracted from the highlights and especially the shadows. I have an Epson V750 which I use to scan old negatives and prints as well as some of my 4x5 B&W film. I also used to have a Nikon 9000 scanner and I can tell you the Nikon did a much better job at extracting details in the shadows than the flatbed epson.

I also did some testing with the Nikon before selling it and from my testing it resolved about 4000 dpi whereas my V700 stops getting anymore detail past around 2400 dpi. Sure the files get huge, but if you zoom into the details, you don't see anymore information that the 2400 dpi file has.

This is why I say be very careful with the "claimed" manufactures dpi numbers.



Feb 22, 2017 at 12:38 PM
walts.photo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Film Scanner?


I just took a look at some of my scans of color negative film. Seems that I settled in at about 4000 dpi. The resulting 6000 x 4000 pix files look a good deal worse than anything captured with a cheap 24 mpix DSLR, mostly due to artifacts like dust and developer pooling. Even with the digital ICE turned on. Shadow areas are indeed muddy. These files would look no worse scanned at 2000dpi, consistent with comments about this being a practical limit. So, I admit now that 6400 is really more misleading that I was led to believe.

Scanned 4x6 prints look ok, so I'd probably give medium or large format film scanning a go if I inherited an old camera back. Just as a hobby for kicks, since the practical DMAX of this scanner is said to be something like 3.1 instead of the stated 3.4. (compared with >4 for the better drum scanners.



Feb 23, 2017 at 10:22 AM
carnac
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Film Scanner?


I have been slowly scanning a number of old 35 slides. Most are just snap shots from the 60's - 80's.

I use a Canon 9000F flat bed scanner. It has a 4 slide holder that works well.

For most of my scans I set the desired resolution to give me about 18 to 20 mb files.

The Canon has its own dust/grain/scratch remover software called FARE.

The biggest problem is speed. As the resolution goes up and more pre-processing options are selected the time to scan 4 slides or negatives gets long (5-10 minutes).

So, my solution is to scan at a medium resolution (18-20 mg file) and moderated pre-processing so that scan time stays under 5 minutes. Then any really good/important photos that I want to print, I re-scan at a higher resolution and more pre-processing options.

I keep my original slides/negatives in case I need to re-scan for a different purpose.

Jim



Feb 23, 2017 at 12:14 PM
Greg Campbell
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Film Scanner?


AmbientMike wrote:
I've got an old Minolta Dimage, I think it is the IV. Judging by prices on ebay, these still may be pretty good.

I haven't used it lately, and it might not be compatible with a new computer, but I don't remember having much trouble getting good scans. I may need to work on focus, though.

But apparently getting good scans from a flatbed, more regular document scanner, is harder.



I'd agree. If the OP wants truly high-res scans, one of the Canon, Minolta, or Nikon dedicated film scanners will (arguably) produce better images than any but the most expensive flatbeds being produced today. (That Wolverine looks like junk.) Of course, the trick is finding a 10+ year old scanner that is still in perfect working order...

Here's a list of the sort of hardware I have in mind. http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN1.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN1.HTM

I see several of 'my' Canon FS4000US jobs on Fleabay for under $100. Add a SCSI card, cable, and WinXP computer and you're good to go!

p.s. As mentioned above. You'll need LOTS of free time. At highest resolution, with IR dust detection enabled, scanning a single roll of 36x takes an ENTIRE evening.





Feb 23, 2017 at 10:20 PM
philosli
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Film Scanner?


I have a Plustek 7600i and also an Epson V750. The 7600i is essentially the same as the current model 8200i.

If you only shoot 35mm, a dedicated negative scanner like 8200i is better than a flatbed. But the current sub-$500 dedicated film scanners are no match to the old Nikon Coolscans, unless you go up to Plustek 120.

Since you also do wet prints, the other option is to scan your prints using a flatbed.

Also the IR dust removal won't work on true B&W negatives. The silver crystals reflects the IR and will be misjudged as dusts. However, it works for color negatives, reversals, and films like Ilford XP2 (C-41). But I don't use that. I just blow off dusts before scan, or if that fails, touching up in LR.



Feb 23, 2017 at 11:05 PM
Danner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Film Scanner?


Thank you all for the continued responses. I have not purchased anything yet.

I did play around with flatbed scans of prints, with mixed results (meaning some were pretty good). I did notice that doing color scans of B&W prints seemed to look better, ever after the color was removed in PS, so that's a bit weird.

I still might give that Wolverine unit a try, since it's rather affordable.



Feb 24, 2017 at 09:05 AM
butlerkid
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Film Scanner?


A few years ago I tackled scanning all my old slides and negatives using a Nikon CoolScan LS4000 I bought years ago.

Although time consuming (negatives are the worst because you almost have to scan them to see them! !) - I was very happy with the results.



Feb 24, 2017 at 10:16 AM
Archibald
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Film Scanner?


I'm using the Coolscan 5000 ED to scan my 35mm B&W and color negs. The results vary depending on the degree of fading of the colors and how well I can manipulate the color curves to compensate, but many look really great, like new actually.

But it is a slow and tedious process. I am now considering faster ways, sacrificing quality to gain speed. Rougher scans of many of the photos might suffice, or could serve as previews of the few more important ones to be scanned later on the Coolscan.

I'm thinking I could set up a DSLR on a copy stand photographing my negs on a light box. This should work fine for B&W negs. For color negs, I would need a good quality of blue light or a blue filter to get a satisfactory exposure of the cyan dye layer. There are issues and details that need to be worked out and I'm not there yet.



Feb 24, 2017 at 11:32 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.