# Best Way To Scan Negatives



## kilifila66 (Jun 20, 2005)

Hey everyone! I was just wondering what I should do to scan my negatives into my computer.  I heard that the Epson 4180 is a good choice but thats about the only thing I seen that has negative support.  Any suggestions, comments, or solutions would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Unimaxium (Jun 20, 2005)

I would recommend you get a dedicated film scanner like the Plusted OpticFilm 7200 or the KonicaMinolta Dimage Scan Dual IV, or some other similar film scanner. Most flatbeds will get you pretty bad quality when scanning negs / slides.


----------



## John the Greek (Jun 21, 2005)

OK, I understand that Minolta is a big corporation but their scanner is 3,200 dpi while the other is 7,200 AND 100$ cheaper!

Is there something I'm missing here?... or is the 7200 dpi scanner truly the superior model?


----------



## EmergentFungus (Jun 21, 2005)

Once the 35mm negatives are scanned, how clear is the image on the computer and how big can it be made?


----------



## John the Greek (Jun 21, 2005)

I'm seriously interested in buying a film scanner now that I found out about them.... this will definitely be helpful since my current scans suck. Plus, this will allow post-processing for my film shots.


----------



## 303villain (Jun 21, 2005)

wow i was wondering the same thing at best buy just a few days ago, now that i see that minolta film scanner, i might have to pick one up, that would make my life so much easier!  but i too would like to know about the quality of the scans...


----------



## ThatCameraThingy (Jun 21, 2005)

I am fortunate to have the shop (my workplace)'s NIKON COOLSCAN LE 5000 D to scan my negs and slides with.

The quality is by far superior to flatbed scans.

I get approx 5300 x 3600 pixels on 35mm film. That means that at 300dpi output i can print 17.6 x 12v inch prints. If i scan at highest res and asve as Tiff in 16bit colour depth I end  up with 110Mb files.

Typically I scan high quality JPEG's at about 10Mb ea.

Hanno

PS when looking at scanners specs also look at D-max rating - the higher the number the better the contrast range the scanner can handle. under correction but i believe a D-max of 4 or above is supposed to be good.


Hanno


----------



## Jeremy Z (Jan 9, 2007)

OK, just to prove that I actually did search, I'm bringing up this old thread.  What are people using these days to scan negs?  Where did you buy?  From reading this and a couple reviews at B&H, it seems like I can expect to spend around $500 to get decent negative scans without a ton of corrections.  Is this about right?

If possible, please provide links to the film scanner you're happy with.  I don't really want a flatbed scanner, as I wouldn't use it much, and I don't have the desk space.


----------



## RacePhoto (Jan 11, 2007)

Jeremy Z said:


> OK, just to prove that I actually did search, I'm bringing up this old thread. What are people using these days to scan negs? Where did you buy? From reading this and a couple reviews at B&H, it seems like I can expect to spend around $500 to get decent negative scans without a ton of corrections. Is this about right?
> 
> If possible, please provide links to the film scanner you're happy with. I don't really want a flatbed scanner, as I wouldn't use it much, and I don't have the desk space.



I'm with you. I have a SCSI interface HP Photosmart S20 which is a nice toy, 300 DPI 36 bit color. Time to upgrade. I want to do slides and film, don't care about flatbeds, I have a few already.

I have slides going back to the 50s and I think it's time to archive them on DVDs before I lose another batch of my favorites, like I did in a flood.


----------



## Alex_B (Jan 11, 2007)

I would only reccommend the NIKON 5000 ... I tried several scanners including minolta. but as in workflow and superior scan quality, I got stuck with the nikon for negatives and slides.


----------



## tasman (Jan 11, 2007)

I have the Minolta Dual Scan III and it works great. It is about 3 years old and scans at 2800 dpi. I will not use a flatbed scanner for negatives, you will not get the quality out of it as a dedicated negative scanner.


----------



## burtharrris (Jan 12, 2007)

Can you get a dedicated film scanner for under $500?  I might be getting a flatbed (Canon 8400f, Epson 4490, HP something) for about $200, just cause I can't afford others.


----------



## SaSi (Jan 13, 2007)

I have seen the prices for dedicated film scanners drop since originally introduced. My Canon FS4000US sold for $1200 when I bought it some 3-4 years ago, and have seen it on sale for $500 recently. The question now becomes of availability. Other good (more expensive) models come from Nikon as well as Minolta.

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.

Avoid any of the low cost ($90~200) flatbeds. In papers, they seem to offer high dpi but the focusing and scan density appear to be poor. 

Typically, to scan a negative or slide, you need only about 4000dpi, which is about the resolution of the film and probably higher than the resolution of the lenses used for taking the pictures. 

The issue is, flatbeds seem to offer 4000dpi or more, but this seems to me mechanical resolution and not of the optical system (which includes the flatbed glass and the scanner lens).

Again, the new Epson V700 seems to prove that high quality negative scanning is possible.


----------



## Jeremy Z (Jan 13, 2007)

SaSi seems to know what he's talking about here.

I have decided not to pursue this any further, since it seems like any film scanner costing less than $500 is not worth taking home.  (i.e. lots of color correction will need to be done at the least)

I'm just going to have the negatives that I really like scanned locally.  They've already paid for their machine, and I don't have THAT many great negs...


----------



## Alex_B (Jan 13, 2007)

Jeremy Z said:


> I have decided not to pursue this any further, since it seems like any film scanner costing less than $500 is not worth taking home.  (i.e. lots of color correction will need to be done at the least)



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 .


----------



## RacePhoto (Jan 13, 2007)

Alex_B said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (Jan 13, 2007)

RacePhoto said:


> 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 (Jan 13, 2007)

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 (Jan 13, 2007)

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 (Jan 13, 2007)

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


----------



## markc (Jan 13, 2007)

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 (Jan 13, 2007)

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 (Jan 13, 2007)

SaSi said:


> 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 (Jan 13, 2007)

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


----------



## fmw (Jan 14, 2007)

Unimaxium said:


> 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 (Jan 14, 2007)

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 (Jan 14, 2007)

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 (Jan 14, 2007)

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 (Jan 14, 2007)

usayit said:


> 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 (Jan 14, 2007)

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.


----------



## fmw (Jan 14, 2007)

markc said:


> While you can compare color, I don't think you can compare resolution-based image aspects from web-sized images.


 
That's true.  I can't show you a print on the internet.  But look at the lower image.  You will see an arch through which you can see the door of the building across the street.  About half way up the arch on the left you can see a little round thing.  it is a clock in that building.  On the 8 1/2 X 11 digital print it is very easy to read the time of 9:47.  Good enough resolution?

The only dedicated film scanner I ever owned was a Polaroid for 35mm.  The images it made were no better or worse than the Epson flatbed.  It was more convenient.  I've used flatbeds for medium and large format right along.

The truth is scanners are scanners.  They all work the same way.  Some are faster than others but there isn't a quality difference that I've ever encountered.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jan 14, 2007)

I beg to differ from my esteemed friend only in the sharpness of focus.  Some are sharper than others.


----------



## fmw (Jan 14, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> I beg to differ from my esteemed friend only in the sharpness of focus. Some are sharper than others.


 

If it doesn't focus properly, then it is defective.  Personally, I've never encountered one that didn't focus properly.


----------



## markc (Jan 14, 2007)

I look at it like zooms vs. primes. Primes are made to do one focal length, so they do them very well. Zooms have to make compromises. You can still get a great zoom lens, but for the same money, if you are only going to shoot one focal length, you are probably better off getting a prime.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jan 14, 2007)

Well I'm gonna have to wonder now about those two scanners I replaced because the pictures were always just slightly soft.


----------

