# Scanning negatives, What do you use and why?



## Hackett (Apr 30, 2012)

I am shopping for a negative scanner, and though I like the Epson v700, it's a tad out of my play money budget. I've thought about going with one of the older models like the v100-300, but the quality just isn't there. So, I will be saving for a bit and considering more options, but I am curious what those on here are using, and what brought you to deciding to purchase the one you use. What you like/dislike about it.

Thank you in advance.


----------



## Hackett (Apr 30, 2012)

I should add, I shoot both 35mm and 120 roll film, and about 150 odd shots per month average.


----------



## bhop (Apr 30, 2012)

I'd suggest you save a little longer and get the V700


----------



## Hackett (Apr 30, 2012)

Any particular reason, or personal experience with it?


----------



## bhop (Apr 30, 2012)

It's what I use.  I've used older Epson scanners, they just weren't as good.  Honestly, Nikon dedicated film scanners are better.  They're older tech at this point, but still hard to find at a decent price.  The only one that's still sold is the 9000ed, but it's around $8000, and still nearly impossible to get due to demand.  V700 is pretty much the next step down, but it's also a good sharp scanner, and one of the few that scans 120 film.  I think it'll scan 4x5 as well.  It's worth the price IMO.

Here's a non-scientific comparison I did when I got my v700 vs, the older 4490
V700 vs 4490 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------



## Hackett (Apr 30, 2012)

Thank you!


----------



## Derrel (Apr 30, 2012)

I have an older Minolta Scan Dual for 35mm slides and negatives....not the best film scanner, but does an "okay job"...I have basically not committed to scanning my old archives...just more work than I want to take on at this time. For larger negatgives from 120 and 4x5, I have an EPSON Perfection 3200 PHOTO, which has a an illuminated top and holders for 35, 120, and 4x5 sheet film. All in all, very low-cost, rather basic scanners. The EPSON does an "okay" job on 120 and 4x5.

Older film scanners are, as bhop said, rather hard to find now, and the used prices are now as high as they have been for quite some time...the actual SUPPLY of film scanners is rather tight, now. A few years ago, they were being sold off en mass, but today they bring a pretty penny used!


----------



## Helen B (Apr 30, 2012)

We have a V-700 in the studio for scanning 4x5 for laying out pages etc (the final scans are done with an iQsmart2) and I'm quite impressed with it. I use the holders from betterscanning.com. With care you can get a true resolution of about 2400 ppi from it.

At home I have a Nikon 4000, 5000 and 8000 (I sold my 9000), two Minolta Elite 5400s and a Microtek M1. The (5400 ppi nominal / about 4600 ppi actual) Minoltas are my favourite of those for 35 mm film, but the ( 4000 ppi nominal, about 3800 ppi actual) Nikons aren't bad. The 8000 is much slower than the 9000 for good scans, but the quality is about the same and they both scan 120 fairly well, though they only go up to 6x9 in one pass. You need glass holders to get the best 120 scans from both of these. Apart from not being able to do 6x12 scanning, these are very good for 120. The Microtek M1 is slightly better than the V-700 in terms of resolution, but it doesn't have ICE like most of the other scanners. It gets used for 4x5 and 8x10. I rent time on an Imacon 949 for high-end 35 mm scanning at 8000 ppi, and on an iQsmart3 for good 4x5 scanning.

There is a 35 mm/120 scanner due out sometime from Plustek (Google 'Plustek 120 news'). It is said to scan up to 6x12. Final specs and pricing are not yet available, but it is likely to be more expensive than a V-700 and less expensive than a Nikon 9000 (which go for about $4000 in NYC at the moment - who knows if the price will come down if/when there is competition from the Plustek).

I'll be happy to give more details on any of the scanners I mentioned.


----------



## Hackett (Apr 30, 2012)

Far more information than i ever expected. 

Thanks!


----------



## Buckster (Apr 30, 2012)

I use a Canon 8800f for all my 35mm & medium format negs, plus old family photos.  I got it about 2.5 years ago, and have been very satisfied with it, especially for the price difference.


----------



## usayit (Apr 30, 2012)

This is going back a few years but I still have the v700 and completely happy with it... although its seen less use recently..

Thread with my first impressions:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/digital-discussion-q/62119-epson-v700-experiences.html


----------



## Sw1tchFX (May 1, 2012)

The V700 is easily the best of the budget scanners, just bear in mind though, although the resolution is great (considering it's a flatbed), the color can leave much to be desired.

One thing that i'm surprised nobody has mentioned yet is that scanning is an art in itself. You can't expect to just re-fi the house on a Coolscan 9000 and expect miracles. It just doesn't happen that way. This is why some people don't scan themselves, because they don't have the time or desire to tweak their scanning software to get the best (or correct) color out of their film.


----------

