huddy wrote:
For now, Plustek is your best bet for a brand new scanner. I'm aware of a German company called Reflecta that makes dedicated 35mm scanners but they don't appear to have much of a distribution/support network for the US.
reflecta scanners are labelled as 'pacific imaging' in the us. you might get better search results looking for them.
I am a neophyte film shooter and have the Plustek 7600 and Silverfast combo mentioned. Really happy with it except for the time involved but not much to be done about that. Can anyone tell me if it's possible to see the 'edges' of the film strip where the frame numbers are? I'm sure it's in the documentation; just trying to save some time.
I don't know that scanner, but usually the film edges are masked off by the film carrier. If not, the light through the sprocket holes creates flare. There would also have to be another mechanism for gripping the edge to hold the film as flat as possible. I have scanned 35mm on my old Nikon 8000ED (medium format film scanner) with the glass holder, but that requires a mask of some sort to avoid the flare.
chez wrote:
Well if you value your time, the $10 is a bargain. You will spend 5 minutes per image for scanning. So for that 36 exposure roll, you will take 3 hours to scan. Is you time worth $3.33 / hour? I know mine is worth much more than that.
Scancafe Aldo produces excellent results.I'd be doing it in my "free time" so my time is free. I'm not losing money by taking the time to scan myself. I'm not about to pay to have people do a job that I can do myself, even if it takes more time instead of money.
Jewced wrote:
I'd be doing it in my "free time" so my time is free. I'm not losing money by taking the time to scan myself. I'm not about to pay to have people do a job that I can do myself, even if it takes more time instead of money.
I guess if you have the luxury of "free time", then it might make sense. I have months of processing work stacked up right now and that is not even taking into account of setting up a web and blog site which I plan on doing this next year. For me, it's a matter of priorities and if I can offload some of the mundane work to others, I will.
if you're going to shoot film and work with it you make the time. its just like processing and printing. nothings changed in all the 35+ years i've been shooting except maybe the exess amount of mostly useless images people produce they need to go through with digital with spray and pray.
sjms wrote:
if you're going to shoot film and work with it you make the time. its just like processing and printing. nothings changed in all the 35+ years i've been shooting except maybe the exess amount of mostly useless images people produce they need to go through with digital with spray and pray.
Unfortunately, I love using film, everything from 35mm, 6x9 to lately 4x5. I develop and scan my own 6x9 and 4x5 using a v700. I farm out the development of the 35mm, get a contact printed and then choose which negatives to scan and farm this out to ScanCafe. The quality of 35mm scans I get from the v700 cannot match what I get from ScanCafe. The medium and large format film gets developed at home and I'll scan the negatives on the v700 as proofs. Most of the time the v700 scan is ok...depending on the size of print I want. For special shots, I'll farm out for a drum scan. I shoot only b&w film.
thats quite a time consuming process you have going there for 35mm. i don't know about the cost per hour there. and your right the v700 can't can nearly as good as what i've mentioned too.
If all you're interested in doing with your photographs is sharing over the web almost any dedicated 35mm film scanner will work fine. The low resolution of the monitors on which people will be viewing them is likely more limiting than the scanner. I've done a lot of scanning with an Epson 4990 which does an excellent job with 4x5 and 8x10 film as long as the print isn't larger than about 16x20 but doesn't do very well with 35mm. Unless there's some overwhelming other advantage to a flatbed such as a huge cost differential, I'd avoid a flatbed for 35mm film.
some of the scanners also suffer from flaring where bright sky next to treelines causes the lots of flare to cross over into the tree-line, the Nikon 9000 with the most diffused lighting system doesn't suffer from that and it also handles auto-dust removal even with K64. However that one costs $$$$ and K64 is dead.
any old current rebel plus a third part film emulation filter would probably provide better results than shooting your film camera and low end scanning and end up costing you far, far, far less in the long run, even in the near short run
if you are just scanning for web you can get away with a lot more than for top archival quality or 6x9"+ prints, but then again a high quality filter pack to emulate film might give you the same look from a digital rebel or d7000 without needing to keep buying film and developing again and again, so if price is the worry, i don't see how film could ever win
ihaven't tested digital film emulation filters too much yet so I can't 100% vouch for the look yet though
maybe if you carefully wet developed and printed B&W yourself you might do better with the film cam though, if it was a high DR, low grain stock
this compares a direct and a diffused light scanner (Nikon V vs Nikon 9000) for flaring and then for over-emphasis of emulsion bubbles and scratches and grain (even the 9000 overemphasizes all of that unless you wet mount but at least it's not quite so bad for dry mount as directly lit scanners):
Ok thanks for the comparison there. I'm using film mostly because I like the look of it, and the entire process of shooting film (how it makes me slow down etc.). I'm still using my digital as well (Nikon D3100), but it's nice to work with film and also get the chance to use a pro body (Nikon F5) even if it's film instead of digital. The ridiculous AF speed, body construction, large viewfinder etc. all make it great to work with.
I'll be scanning mostly for web use. If I want a print made I'll pay to have it done. I just want something that can somewhat preserve the look of the film when it is scanned, and it appears that the Plustek can do that job very well.
Jewced wrote:
Ok thanks for the comparison there. I'm using film mostly because I like the look of it, and the entire process of shooting film (how it makes me slow down etc.). I'm still using my digital as well (Nikon D3100), but it's nice to work with film and also get the chance to use a pro body (Nikon F5) even if it's film instead of digital. The ridiculous AF speed, body construction, large viewfinder etc. all make it great to work with.
I'll be scanning mostly for web use. If I want a print made I'll pay to have it done. I just want something that can somewhat preserve the look of the film when it is scanned, and it appears that the Plustek can do that job very well....Show more →
yeah Plustek is probably a solid choice for that, the nikon 9000 is $$$$$$$ for what you are doing
Are you shooting color or B/W neg? If so, have lab make a disk instead of prints. If you are shooting color tansparencies, edit the take, and have a disk made of your keepers. You could do them yourself at Walgreens, or wherever, for really nominal cost; most of the time you spend will be editing in your software, anyway....
I have a V700 and had a dedicated film scanner...I got rid of the film scanner shortly after getting the Epson.
Anyone who tells you that a machine like a V700 can't scan 35mm negs either hasn't used one or is doing something wrong. As for grain, I use a technique to remove it unless I want it to be a visual element of the image. Scanning is a lot to do with technique and software. The main problem with the V700 are the rubbish film holders which sometimes fail to hold the negs flat...which can potentially introduce some softness unless careful. The dedicated film scanner was better in this respect.
I have to admit however that I don't print above A3 plus from my 35mm scans....because I only have a R2880.
