# Film Scanners



## mctb

I started with film, went to digital (Pentax crop) and now split my time between digital (Olympus M4/3) and film (Pentax). I have, however, found myself shooting more and more film lately. I accidentally bought some 120 T Max a little bit ago and have now started looking into picking up a TLR or something else relatively portable. My local shop where I buy my film can and will develop it for a few bucks but the real expense comes from scanning. I have looked through B&W, Adorama, etc... and scanner prices are all over the place. What do you all recommend for around $200?


----------



## dabsond

I picked up a used epson flat bed scanner with negative holders for $50.  Keep an eye on craigs list, maybe even create an alert there.  You will find one.


----------



## limr

mctb said:


> I started with film, went to digital (Pentax crop) and now split my time between digital (Olympus M4/3) and film (Pentax). I have, however, found myself shooting more and more film lately. I accidentally bought some 120 T Max a little bit ago and have now started looking into picking up a TLR or something else relatively portable. My local shop where I buy my film can and will develop it for a few bucks but the real expense comes from scanning. I have looked through B&W, Adorama, etc... and scanner prices are all over the place. What do you all recommend for around $200?



I use a Canon CanoScan 8800 (the newest version is the 9000, I believe, unless they've come out with an even newer version in the past couple of months.) I've had no issues with it. With any scanner, it takes some time to figure out how to tweak to get the best scans and I'll be honest - scanning color can be a PITA sometimes, but that's not necessarily the scanner's fault  I just find color more difficult to deal with in general.

Edit: I shoot film almost exclusively (very often with my beloved Pentax, too,) so if you check out my Flickr (link in the signature,) you can get a sense of the scans from the Canon.
PS - Definitely get a TLR - they're a lot of fun


----------



## Ysarex

If you go ahead with the 120 film camera then you'll want to be able to scan that. Given your budget, one of the Epson V series scanners or the Canon that Leonore noted would be your best bet. They'll do a good job with the 120 film and an OK job with 35mm. I've had/have access to both and the Epson is somewhat faster which can be an issue when scanning film. (Specifically I've been able to compare the Canon 8800 with the Epson but haven't used the Canon 9000).

Joe


----------



## jcdeboever

limr said:


> mctb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I started with film, went to digital (Pentax crop) and now split my time between digital (Olympus M4/3) and film (Pentax). I have, however, found myself shooting more and more film lately. I accidentally bought some 120 T Max a little bit ago and have now started looking into picking up a TLR or something else relatively portable. My local shop where I buy my film can and will develop it for a few bucks but the real expense comes from scanning. I have looked through B&W, Adorama, etc... and scanner prices are all over the place. What do you all recommend for around $200?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I use a Canon CanoScan 8800 (the newest version is the 9000, I believe, unless they've come out with an even newer version in the past couple of months.) I've had no issues with it. With any scanner, it takes some time to figure out how to tweak to get the best scans and I'll be honest - scanning color can be a PITA sometimes, but that's not necessarily the scanner's fault  I just find color more difficult to deal with in general.
> 
> Edit: I shoot film almost exclusively (very often with my beloved Pentax, too,) so if you check out my Flickr (link in the signature,) you can get a sense of the scans from the Canon.
> PS - Definitely get a TLR - they're a lot of fun
Click to expand...


I just bought one of those 8800F off eBay for $85.00, should be here in a few days. Looked new, has all the original protective sheeting in place, box, software, holders, etc. I asked for additional pics and I am pretty sure it's never been used, even software is still sealed. Crossing my fingers. 

Not real happy with scans from various places. Some places are real small scans but clean but... can't do much with them or I get a big scan with dust, scan tracks, etc and I have to spend crap loads of time cleaning them up. At least this way I have some control over it. 

I used to scan years ago and didn't really know what I was doing and nothing was critical. I used film /developing as a reference tool, nothing more. In other words, I didn't consider film as an art form for me. My scans were 10 times better if not more. I owned two film SCSI scanners back in the day. One was a microtech that got damaged in a move and an Epson that I sold to my uncle when I decided to stop using film as a reference tool. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ysarex

jcdeboever said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mctb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I started with film, went to digital (Pentax crop) and now split my time between digital (Olympus M4/3) and film (Pentax). I have, however, found myself shooting more and more film lately. I accidentally bought some 120 T Max a little bit ago and have now started looking into picking up a TLR or something else relatively portable. My local shop where I buy my film can and will develop it for a few bucks but the real expense comes from scanning. I have looked through B&W, Adorama, etc... and scanner prices are all over the place. What do you all recommend for around $200?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I use a Canon CanoScan 8800 (the newest version is the 9000, I believe, unless they've come out with an even newer version in the past couple of months.) I've had no issues with it. With any scanner, it takes some time to figure out how to tweak to get the best scans and I'll be honest - scanning color can be a PITA sometimes, but that's not necessarily the scanner's fault  I just find color more difficult to deal with in general.
> 
> Edit: I shoot film almost exclusively (very often with my beloved Pentax, too,) so if you check out my Flickr (link in the signature,) you can get a sense of the scans from the Canon.
> PS - Definitely get a TLR - they're a lot of fun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just bought one of those 8800F off eBay for $85.00, should be here in a few days. Looked new, has all the original protective sheeting in place, box, software, holders, etc. I asked for additional pics and I am pretty sure it's never been used, even software is still sealed. Crossing my fingers.
Click to expand...


Good deal: that's an excellent price if it is "as new". It's does a very good 120 film scan and a respectable 35mm scan -- fingers crossed.

Joe



jcdeboever said:


> Not real happy with scans from various places. Some places are real small scans but clean but... can't do much with them or I get a big scan with dust, scan tracks, etc and I have to spend crap loads of time cleaning them up. At least this way I have some control over it.
> 
> I used to scan years ago and didn't really know what I was doing and nothing was critical. I used film /developing as a reference tool, nothing more. In other words, I didn't consider film as an art form for me. My scans were 10 times better if not more. I owned two film SCSI scanners back in the day. One was a microtech that got damaged in a move and an Epson that I sold to my uncle when I decided to stop using film as a reference tool.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## mctb

Thanks for all the information. My local shop will develop 35 and 120 for under $10/ roll, which to me is a bargain. Having a 17 month old, I have neither the time nor want extra chemicals in the house. Eventually, developing might be an option but for right now, not so much. 

The real cost comes from the scanning. Something like $20/ roll on top of the developing. I have 4 rolls waiting which is about the cost of a flatbed scanner. It just makes sense to invest as in short order, it will have paid for itself. I found a good tutorial on scanning on Popular Photography's site. 

I understand that 120, bring bigger, will scan better but why does 35 only result in okay results? Is it density of the image within the smaller frame?


----------



## jcdeboever

mctb said:


> Thanks for all the information. My local shop will develop 35 and 120 for under $10/ roll, which to me is a bargain. Having a 17 month old, I have neither the time nor want extra chemicals in the house. Eventually, developing might be an option but for right now, not so much.
> 
> The real cost comes from the scanning. Something like $20/ roll on top of the developing. I have 4 rolls waiting which is about the cost of a flatbed scanner. It just makes sense to invest as in short order, it will have paid for itself. I found a good tutorial on scanning on Popular Photography's site.
> 
> I understand that 120, bring bigger, will scan better but why does 35 only result in okay results? Is it density of the image within the smaller frame?



I think your correct of the 35mm. Better results will cost a lot more money. I trust the dedicated 35mm scanner is what the pro's use. I have been satisfied in the past with the scans from a flatbed. They take longer but they are detailed enough to post on here. I guess if your wanting to print large 35mm images, it may not offer a lot of detail in shadows. 4 x 6, 5 x 7 look fine to these eyes. Flatbeds work real nice for imaging old photographs.  

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## limr

They're simply smaller and so you have to work harder to get at the information in them, especially if you plan on cropping/editing. Scanning 35mm at a lower resolution is fine for uploading and printing up to a certain size, but if you want better prints, it's better to scan them higher, which can take a long time. I've done 8x10 prints from 35mm frames I scanned at 1200 dpi that are fine, and I even once did an 11x14 print, though most 35mm scans at that rate won't print well that large. These days, I'll scan at 2400 dpi, and that can take a good ole chunk of time.


----------



## cgw

Look into DSLR scanning. Film scanner technology has been stagnant for years.


----------



## mctb

cgw said:


> Look into DSLR scanning. Film scanner technology has been stagnant for years.



I thought about that but that sounds like, and I could be wrong, about the same level of work. I could set up my EM10 or my K7 but it seems like slapping them down on a flatbed would be about the same level?


----------



## cgw

mctb said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look into DSLR scanning. Film scanner technology has been stagnant for years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought about that but that sounds like, and I could be wrong, about the same level of work. I could set up my EM10 or my K7 but it seems like slapping them down on a flatbed would be about the same level?
Click to expand...


Just Google "DSLR Scanning" and see for yourself. The ability to focus precisely and scan speed matter--both sources of consistent complaint from flatbed users. Your call but I wouldn't spend a dime on a flatbed for 35mm/120 film materials if I already owned as DSLR+macro lens. The camera support and light source are easy to sort out.


----------



## 480sparky

cgw said:


> Just Google "DSLR Scanning" and see for yourself. The ability to focus precisely and scan speed matter--both sources of consistent complaint from flatbed users. Your call but I wouldn't spend a dime on a flatbed for 35mm/120 film materials if I already owned as DSLR+macro lens. The camera support and light source are easy to sort out.



My PlusTec Opticscan 8200i can extract the grain out of my old Kodachrome 25 slides.  Can a DSLR and macro lens do that?

And that's 35mm.  How much more detail are you surrendering to 'DSLR scanning' when you are working with medium and large format film?


----------



## cgw

480sparky said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just Google "DSLR Scanning" and see for yourself. The ability to focus precisely and scan speed matter--both sources of consistent complaint from flatbed users. Your call but I wouldn't spend a dime on a flatbed for 35mm/120 film materials if I already owned as DSLR+macro lens. The camera support and light source are easy to sort out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My PlusTec Opticscan 8200i can extract the grain out of my old Kodachrome 25 slides.  Can a DSLR and macro lens do that?
> 
> And that's 35mm.  How much more detail are you surrendering to 'DSLR scanning' when you are working with medium and large format film?
Click to expand...


I'm guessing you've not even tried it, right? Fill me in on all the upgrades Epson or any other scanner maker have made that involved sensors, OK? Seem to recall endless discussions about futzing around with film holders in hopes of finding where the scanner actually focused. Happy with results from a D7200 and my Micro Nikkors. Glad you like your Plustek but it's not the only club in the bag.


----------



## 480sparky

cgw said:


> I'm guessing you've not even tried it, right? Fill me in on all the upgrades Epson or any other scanner maker have made that involved sensors, OK? Seem to recall endless discussions about futzing around with film holders in hopes of finding where the scanner actually focused. Happy with results from a D7200 and my Micro Nikkors. Glad you like your Plustek but it's not the only club in the bag.



What's to try?  It's obvious a DSLR can't touch the resolution.


----------



## cgw

480sparky said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you've not even tried it, right? Fill me in on all the upgrades Epson or any other scanner maker have made that involved sensors, OK? Seem to recall endless discussions about futzing around with film holders in hopes of finding where the scanner actually focused. Happy with results from a D7200 and my Micro Nikkors. Glad you like your Plustek but it's not the only club in the bag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's to try?  It's obvious a DSLR can't touch the resolution.
Click to expand...

Resolution of what? Think you need to step out of the echo chamber.


----------



## 480sparky

cgw said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you've not even tried it, right? Fill me in on all the upgrades Epson or any other scanner maker have made that involved sensors, OK? Seem to recall endless discussions about futzing around with film holders in hopes of finding where the scanner actually focused. Happy with results from a D7200 and my Micro Nikkors. Glad you like your Plustek but it's not the only club in the bag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's to try?  It's obvious a DSLR can't touch the resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Resolution of what? Think you need to step out of the echo chamber.
Click to expand...


Of........... the............ original.............. film................... image.


----------



## cgw

480sparky said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you've not even tried it, right? Fill me in on all the upgrades Epson or any other scanner maker have made that involved sensors, OK? Seem to recall endless discussions about futzing around with film holders in hopes of finding where the scanner actually focused. Happy with results from a D7200 and my Micro Nikkors. Glad you like your Plustek but it's not the only club in the bag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's to try?  It's obvious a DSLR can't touch the resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Resolution of what? Think you need to step out of the echo chamber.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of........... the............ original.............. film................... image.
Click to expand...

Scanners. We're talking scanners. Scanner resolution. Remember?


----------



## 480sparky

cgw said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you've not even tried it, right? Fill me in on all the upgrades Epson or any other scanner maker have made that involved sensors, OK? Seem to recall endless discussions about futzing around with film holders in hopes of finding where the scanner actually focused. Happy with results from a D7200 and my Micro Nikkors. Glad you like your Plustek but it's not the only club in the bag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's to try?  It's obvious a DSLR can't touch the resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Resolution of what? Think you need to step out of the echo chamber.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of........... the............ original.............. film................... image.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scanners. We're talking scanners. Scanner resolution. Remember?
Click to expand...


Well, we _were_.  But then someone started a tangent about DSLRs.  

Hmmmm.  I wonder who that was?


----------



## cgw

I'd recommend revisiting the OP's concerns about scanning costs. He owns digital cameras. Get it? No matter if you don't. Point made.


----------



## mctb

Didn't mean to start an argument here. Both methods seem to be fraught with downsides. The dslr seems to require more post processing than the scanner. The scanner requires more time input than the DSLR fit initial conversion. No real answer here. Pretty sure I'm going to go with a scanner though. I do not have a 1:1 macro lens anyway.


----------



## limr

mctb said:


> Didn't mean to start an argument here. Both methods seem to be fraught with downsides. The scanner seems to require more post processing than the scanner. The scanner requires more time input than the DSLR fit initial conversion. No real answer here. Pretty sure I'm going to go with a scanner though. I do not have a 1:1 macro lens anyway.



You're right - it's really six of one and half a dozen of the other. There are issues with both methods and much of it will depend on how you prefer to work and what you want to get out of the scan. I personally have never had any issues focusing on the scan with my CanoScan. As for the time it takes - yes, at 2400 dpi, it can be slow, but it's not like you have to watch it or be involved in the process. Throw the strips into the holder, do any tweaking pre-scan that you'd like to do, start the scan, and then forget about it until it's done.


----------



## mctb

limr said:


> mctb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't mean to start an argument here. Both methods seem to be fraught with downsides. The scanner seems to require more post processing than the scanner. The scanner requires more time input than the DSLR fit initial conversion. No real answer here. Pretty sure I'm going to go with a scanner though. I do not have a 1:1 macro lens anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right - it's really six of one and half a dozen of the other. There are issues with both methods and much of it will depend on how you prefer to work and what you want to get out of the scan. I personally have never had any issues focusing on the scan with my CanoScan. As for the time it takes - yes, at 2400 dpi, it can be slow, but it's not like you have to watch it or be involved in the process. Throw the strips into the holder, do any tweaking pre-scan that you'd like to do, start the scan, and then forget about it until it's done.
Click to expand...

What are we talking, time wise, at 2400 per frame?


----------



## 480sparky

mctb said:


> What are we talking, time wise, at 2400 per frame?



It really depends on the scanner.


----------



## limr

480sparky said:


> mctb said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are we talking, time wise, at 2400 per frame?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really depends on the scanner.
Click to expand...


It also depends on size of the negative and if it's color or black and white. The longest I'd say is about half an hour for a full tray of color 35mm (12 frames). 120 goes faster simply because you are scanning fewer frames - the holders are only big enough for 3 frames of 6x6 or 4 frames of 6x4.5.


----------



## mctb

480sparky said:


> mctb said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are we talking, time wise, at 2400 per frame?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really depends on the scanner.
Click to expand...

Your CanoScan. It's either that or the Epson.


----------



## mctb

limr said:


> It also depends on size of the negative and if it's color or black and white. The longest I'd say is about half an hour for a full tray of color 35mm (12 frames). 120 goes faster simply because you are scanning fewer frames - the holders are only big enough for 3 frames of 6x6 or 4 frames of 6x4.5.



That's not bad really. The way it was being mentioned, I was expecting longer. I imagine the DSLR method might be a quicker capture but the post processing difference might even things up a bit.


----------



## 480sparky

mctb said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mctb said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are we talking, time wise, at 2400 per frame?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really depends on the scanner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your CanoScan. It's either that or the Epson.
Click to expand...


Mine is a PlusTek.


----------



## gsgary

I've had big prints no problem from my Epson  V500 and Plustek 7500

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## table1349

One thing I believe has not been mentioned is software.  OEM software with any device is generally good but not the best.  Personally I use Silverfast with my Epson V600.


----------



## gsgary

I use Vuescan

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## table1349

gsgary said:


> I use Vuescan
> 
> Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


We did too.  It's also a good piece of software.  Wife still does with an older HP scanner with document feeder.  I switched when I fell into a large negative and positive archive job with boxes full of negatives and old photos being organized for a digitized family tree.  

The archival feature in Silverfast saved me some time.


----------

