# Scanning? Place to send out? do it at home?



## jfoote (Dec 10, 2010)

Getting back into photography and have decided to go the film (instead of digital) route...the prices on professional level equipment, especially manual focus, have reached the basement and super equipment is available for cheap. Nikon F2's and Canon F1's for <$200. Ok, they are decades old but so am I..........lenses? unbelievable..

Nonetheess, the digital world can't be ignored. I'd like your thoughts/biases/rants on how to get the film into a digital format. Should I buy a film/negative  scanner or have a scan made when the picture is developed? What is a good DP? Do the home scans look decent? Just trying to get some information.


----------



## Orrin (Dec 11, 2010)

I get my color-negative film scanned when it is processed.  The shop I use here in Northern Nevada provides a 6MP scan (2048x3072) in either JPEG or TIFF.

I also have a reasonably good scanner buried into the top of my Canon MP990 printer that
is used to rescan older material that was never scanned or scanned by Kodak at 1024x1536.

Check to see what is available in your area. If you cannot get at least a 6MP scan, I would invest is a scanner. (Most drug stores only do a 1024x1536 scan).


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 11, 2010)

I send the film out, scan at home (using an Epson V600).

I used to use a PlusTec 7300, which I really liked too.

What is a DP?  Not familiar with that...

Home scans look just as good as any other scans, for the most part.  It depends a lot on how well the film has been taken care of.

Both the Epson V600 and the PlusTec 7300 are in the $2-300 range.  They both do a pretty good job, IMO.

I have never really been able to figure out what is so much better about the Epson V700 to justify the steep price difference.  Looking at the specs, I see very little difference between the 600 & 700...


----------



## djacobox372 (Dec 11, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> I send the film out, scan at home (using an Epson V600).
> 
> I used to use a PlusTec 7300, which I really liked too.
> 
> ...



I would definitely recommend a flat-bed type scanner, as feeding the frames in one-by-one into a dedicated film scanner is way to time consuming. With a flatbed you can scan 12 to 24 frames at a time. 

The reason for the higher price for the v700 is that it's literally TWICE the scanner of the V600. Not in terms of quality or resolution, but in how much film it can scan. It also allows one to scan 4x5 and 8x10 film. Is it worth the extra $$? your call--the ability to scan 4x5 made it a must have for me. 

The difference can be seen in the film holders:

V700 film holders (included 8x10 mask is not shown):






V600 film holders:


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 11, 2010)

Ah.  So I guess the top scanner is much larger on the V700.

Now, see - that's something they need to tell you when you're looking at specs on Newegg (or wherever).  Online, I couldn't really find anything that showed the differences as clearly as you have (even on V600 vs V700 threads on photo forums).


----------



## djacobox372 (Dec 11, 2010)

I hear you about the price of quality film cameras dropping, I just sold a MINT Nikon FE for $40 on ebay (no reserve auction).

Right now I have a very nice F2A on ebay not-selling at $150 buy it now, and a near mint FM for $74.  

Frankly, if you plan on using the camera a lot I'd recommend an staying away from the F2 and F2A--the meters are just too primitive and unreliable.  The F2AS has a solid meter, but you'll pay more for it.

The FE, FE2, FM, FM2, F3, F2A, F100, F4 and F5 are all recommended.

The F100 is probably the best deal out there, selling for as low as $130.


----------



## KenC (Dec 11, 2010)

If you are going to scan only a few frames per roll, then a dedicated film scanner may be better because feeding a few strips of film is not that onerous (my Nikon Coolscan V doesn't use film holders, eliminating that step), and results from a scanner designed specifically for film are likely to be better.  As for 6 MP, scans, they are OK for page size and perhaps 11x14 prints, but if you ever want to make much larger prints or crop considerably and print a small part of the frame page size, that is not enough resolution.  A dedicated film scanner (even a relatively low-end like the Coolscan V) will give you about 15-20 MP.


----------



## djacobox372 (Dec 11, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> Ah.  So I guess the top scanner is much larger on the V700.
> 
> Now, see - that's something they need to tell you when you're looking at specs on Newegg (or wherever).  Online, I couldn't really find anything that showed the differences as clearly as you have (even on V600 vs V700 threads on photo forums).



Yeah, but it really isn't much of an advantage to be able to scan 24 vs. 12 negs at a time.  

The only clear-cut reason to buy a v700 is to scan 4x5, 5x7, or 8x10.


----------



## djacobox372 (Dec 11, 2010)

KenC said:


> If you are going to scan only a few frames per roll, then a dedicated film scanner may be better because feeding a few strips of film is not that onerous (my Nikon Coolscan V doesn't use film holders, eliminating that step), and results from a scanner designed specifically for film are likely to be better.  As for 6 MP, scans, they are OK for page size and perhaps 11x14 prints, but if you ever want to make much larger prints or crop considerably and print a small part of the frame page size, that is not enough resolution.  A dedicated film scanner (even a relatively low-end like the Coolscan V) will give you about 15-20 MP.



Resolution wise: 3200dpi is the max you would ever need when scanning film.  I typically scan at 2400dpi, unless the film is extremely fine grain.

As for the time thing, it takes around 3 minutes to scan one frame of 35mm film at 3200dpi. So a roll of 24 will take over an hour.  With a V700 you just go do something else while it's working, with a hand-fed you have to intervene every three minutes.

So basically instead of spending around 1.5 hours of your time scanning 24 frames with a hand-fed, you spend only a few minutes with a flatbed. That's was a HUGE deal to me, maybe not to you.

Quality-wise hand-fed and flatbeds are about equal, although getting the proper scan height on the epson flatbeds is a pain and will degrade quality if you don't set it correctly.


----------



## KenC (Dec 11, 2010)

djacobox372 said:


> KenC said:
> 
> 
> > If you are going to scan only a few frames per roll, then a dedicated film scanner may be better because feeding a few strips of film is not that onerous (my Nikon Coolscan V doesn't use film holders, eliminating that step), and results from a scanner designed specifically for film are likely to be better.  As for 6 MP, scans, they are OK for page size and perhaps 11x14 prints, but if you ever want to make much larger prints or crop considerably and print a small part of the frame page size, that is not enough resolution.  A dedicated film scanner (even a relatively low-end like the Coolscan V) will give you about 15-20 MP.
> ...



I did say "a few frames per roll" and I agree that scanning all 24 frames with a dedicated scanner would be a pain, although I don't really see why anyone would want to do that.  Is there anyone who takes 24 frames all of which are worth spending time on?  I used to scan about five or six and this took about 30-40 minutes including adjusting contrast/color/etc. on each, and I didn't see this as a burden.

I agree about resolution.  The Coolscan V has 4000 max and I usually scanned at 2800, sometimes at around 3200 if I cropped a lot.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 11, 2010)

KenC said:


> I agree that scanning all 24 frames with a dedicated scanner would be a pain, although I don't really see why anyone would want to do that.  Is there anyone who takes 24 frames all of which are worth spending time on?


Not counting errors on my part (like, forgetting to turn my flash on - you'd be surprised how often I do that, lol), or bracketing (usually only one picture from a bracketed series is the 'keeper') - I usually scan everything I shoot.

Usually.  There are of course, a few shots here and there that just didn't turn out the way I had hoped.

For the most part though, I try not to take bad pictures that aren't worth scanning.

Is it really that hard to take 24 or 36 consecutive pictures that don't suck?


----------



## Ron G (Dec 12, 2010)

I have an dedicated film scanner which allows me to batch scan if I choose.I don't often do it if time is available to watch over it but batch scanning can save a lot of time as you can be doing other things while it is happening.
I set up the frame and resolution,adjust the colors,contrast etc and start the process.I have my film developed at Walgreens or whoever I happen to be near at the time and tell them NOT to cut the negatives which they don't always observe but if you can get the whole roll in one strip you are good to go.
I then look at the results and if there is something that I want to rescan the scanner will go to whichever frame that I tell it to and I can make my changes.
I also use my flatbed occasionally for batch scanning.If I have a lot of slides to do I can set up my Microtek 9600XL to scan as many as I choose.I have started that process and left town while it was doing its thing and returned to find the job completed.
I use VueScan for my scanning,there are not many scanners that it won't work with.
It is invalueable to me,especially trying to save old and faded pics and negatives.Ron G


----------



## KenC (Dec 12, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> KenC said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that scanning all 24 frames with a dedicated scanner would be a pain, although I don't really see why anyone would want to do that.  Is there anyone who takes 24 frames all of which are worth spending time on?
> ...



It depends on what sort of stuff you're doing and your definition of what sucks.  If doing a wedding (never done one, so speculation here) you take the pictures you need and so probably all of them need to be processed so clients can choose.  I and most people I know who are serious about photography and doing it for ourselves shoot a lot of frames, digital or film, and a given batch often is of similar subject matter.  While all of mine (at least imo) are OK, some are much better than others, so why spend time on the ones that are less good?  If you shoot some frames of a subject at different angles and maybe try different framing, are you really going to show all of them or just the one that really stands out?  Some of it also is just a matter of time, really, because I don't have time to process and print (or otherwise display) every shot I take.  Well, everyone does what works for them - just relating the experience I and many others have had.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 12, 2010)

I didn't mean to imply that you sucked or anything like that, lol...  (I hope it didn't sound that way.)

I've never done weddings either, but yeah - I could see there being a lot of duplicate shots.


I get what you're saying, and I guess I kinda do the same thing.  I still scan pretty much everything, but I don't print the 'less good' ones.  I just like to scan it anyway (sometimes it's hard to tell on the small preview scan anyway), just in case.  Worst case is I never print it and delete it eventually.


----------



## stroker (Dec 28, 2010)

Where do you send your film out to? NOBODY around here has a dark room..


----------



## Ron G (Dec 28, 2010)

The franchise drug stores like CVS and Walgreens develop film and print pictures in most areas.Do they have those stores in your town?Otherwise you may have to mail the film to a lab.Ron G


----------



## stroker (Dec 28, 2010)

Walmart does film.. But they just screwed up a large batch of mine and im still upset. Everything was overexposed and anything that was black or brown came out as green.


----------



## Ron G (Dec 29, 2010)

stroker said:


> Walmart does film.. But they just screwed up a large batch of mine and im still upset. Everything was overexposed and anything that was black or brown came out as green.


 You might be able to save the film by scanning it yourself with suitable scanning software.I would give it a try if you are equipped to do it.
I am not pleased with the work of these franchise labs either,fingerprints,waterspots,film not cut properly etc.They are fast and cheap and you need to balance that with your expectations of the quality of their results when using their services.
They have superior equipment in some cases but for many reasons do not produce superior work.The film that you got from Walmart is unacceptable however if in fact the problem was the result of their work.Ron G


----------



## stroker (Dec 29, 2010)

I have a scanner but it is not set up for film.. can i use that? also is there a website for the software?


----------



## molested_cow (Dec 29, 2010)

Depends on how much are you planning on scanning.
I bought the V700 more than a year ago and realized that I should have done it YEARS ago! It has saved me sooooo much money. I do take a ton of photos with film though.

Let's put it this way, if I send in 10 rolls of film for just developing and scanning, I would spend more than $100 for crappy res scans. Now, I just pay like $3++ ($30)per roll for developing and scan the negs myself. I save $70. It's a hobby so time isn't an issue, plus I can choose how big I want to scan them at.

I typically do them at 2400 dpi. If someone likes the photos, I will rescan them at 3200 dpi for large print. I stopped using the ICE or even the dust removal feature because it often does more damage than good. This reduces the scanning time significantly, which I can use towards touching up those that I want to keep.

A batch of 24 vs 12 definitely is a great advantage. You don't have to scan every neg in the batch, but you can preview them all at once.

The scanner was about $500. Within a year, I already got my money back (I mean the amount I saved by scanning by myself). It all depends on how much you scan and how much more you plan to scan. If you only do a few rolls a year, you can go to professional labs for higher res scans. If you are trigger happy like me, V700 is your best option.

Also, get a good photo editing software because you will need it.


----------



## stroker (Dec 29, 2010)

Im doing film because of two reasons. One: it's different and I like the whole fim thing. Im also somewhat new to photography and I feel that I make every shot count with film. I shoot for competition and always relate things back to shooting. If you give a new shooter a semi auto with ammo that costs a little over a penny a round, they will blow through ammo like no other and get So-So accuracy. If you give the same person a single shot that costs $.25 or $.50 a round they will shoot slower, make every shot count and get better accuracy. 

 Two: I have yet to upgrade to a DSLR. As stated above all of my 'fun money' goes to feeding the addiction(shooting).

So my question remains. Is it worth it to use a consumer grade scanner and get some software rather than submit to the pathetic quality of walmart..
A symbolic freight train just crashed through that thought. I do not have a dark room yet, I would still need them to develop the film? As of now im not getting prints, just the CD. Is the problem with how they process the negs or the print/scan?

PS: I do not need pro quality. I shoot film as a hobby and for my own enjoyment. If they become prints they are 5x8 from my own printer for some friends.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 29, 2010)

stroker said:


> So my question remains. Is it worth it to use a consumer grade scanner and get some software rather than submit to the pathetic quality of walmart..
> A symbolic freight train just crashed through that thought. I do not have a dark room yet, I would still need them to develop the film? As of now im not getting prints, just the CD. Is the problem with how they process the negs or the print/scan?
> 
> PS: I do not need pro quality. I shoot film as a hobby and for my own enjoyment. If they become prints they are 5x8 from my own printer for some friends.


Yes, it's worth it.

It's also worth sending the film somewhere else.

Walmart is about the cheapest it gets for the processing (I think it's like $1.50 or something for process only), but they absolutely destroy the negatives.  Their scans and prints don't look bad, because they do that before they start messing around with it and scratching the **** out of it.

Lately I've been using Mpix.  They'll send you mailers for free, then when your film is done you pay for it and they ship it back.  It costs $0.19 per frame.  After that, they put scans in an album for you that you can order prints from, or a CD of the scans.  (And, of course, the negs are on the way back to you - so you could just wait for them and do your own scans too.)

So far, I haven't had any issues with them damaging the film.  The negs look perfect every time.

Film that I have had processed at Walmart (been a few years now) was always so scratched up that it could take over an hour to fix one frame after scanning.

edit
http://www.mpix.com/Product.aspx/film

Request the mailers there.  You'll get 3 or 4 of them in the mail for free, drop up to 4 rolls in each one, then send it back to them (also for free).
They'll e-mail you when it's ready, you pay for it (19¢ per frame, shipping included), then it'll be on your porch a couple days later.
Total turnaround time for me (including shipping both ways) is usually about a week and a half.


----------



## Ron G (Dec 30, 2010)

stroker said:


> I have a scanner but it is not set up for film.. can i use that? also is there a website for the software?


I just lost a long post to you....oh well.Here is a good link to scanning and scanner software for reference.Scanning Basics 101 - All about digital images
There are plenty of scanners available these days that will scan transparencies for very little money if you are willing to wait your turn at the big auction sites.........like $20.00 plus shipping is fairly common.
I have used Microteks for many years and check for prices occasionally but that is what I usually find.If you are open to using a SCSI interface your options increase considerably.
There are SCSI/USB adapters available now I think if you find something that would make the purchase worthwhile.
I use VueScan scanning software but the software that is bundled with many scanners can do the job as well as many free paint programs for the downloading.
The scanner link that I posted is a good place to start and can be very valueable for future reference.Ron G


----------



## alexb (Feb 9, 2011)

I have Epson V500 and I am very satisfied with it but if I could afford it I'd go to Epson V700. Much more important than quantity to scanning is density range wich is higher in V700 than in V500/V600. This is the real reason why it's so expensive.
Some of my scans with Epson V500:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/film-discussion-q/221282-slide-scanning.html


----------



## Professional (Feb 12, 2011)

I send my color films to the lab, i develop my own B&W films at home, and i scan al the films after processed/developed, i have Epson V750, doing a good job even i always feel i want a drum scanner or dedicated film scanner like Nikon one.


----------



## cliffy13 (Feb 13, 2011)

Pity you are in the USA because I use a great little firm in Hull that scans my 35mm negs to disc at 14 meg with excellent quality and a very reasonable price


----------



## antiquerookie (Mar 26, 2011)

Re outside scanning, North Coast Photographic Services in Carlsbad, CA (LA area) does really good work.  Contact them at North Coast Photographic Services.  I send all my 35mm and 120 film there.  They charge $8.25 to develop E-6 slides, whether or not they're mounted, $11.95 for their enhanced scan or $5.49 for their budget scan, and $6.00 to ship the stuff back to you, so you're into a roll (doesn't matter whether it's 35mm or 120) about $25.  Their budget scan is OK, probably equal to or a little better than Walgreen's or the local photo shops I've used here in the Portland, OR area.  It takes them a week or ten days for standard flow.  With the enhanced scan you get 9 to 12 meg jpegs for 35mm and 18-22 meg jpegs for 120.  If you've nailed a shot, particularly in 120, their enhanced scan will bring tears to your eyes.  You'll know why you shoot film when picture quality is really important.  

Dwayne's Photo in Parsons, Kansas,   www.dwaynesphoto.com  also did good work on one order I sent them.  They also seem to be pretty well regarded in the US.

Costco is also supposed to do good work, although I've never used them.

The worst scans I ever got came from a local old time photo shop, so just because someone's got a photo shop doesn't mean that they do good work.  I've also gotten only so-so scans and prints from a couple of other shops here in the Portland area.  Therefore, all my 35mm and 120 film goes to North Coast.  I'm starting to get into 4x5 and if I can figure out a way to ship my exposed flilm to them, they'll get that work too.


----------

