I'm thinking about getting a negative scanner, but don't know what I should be looking for

December 18, 2004 3:55 PM

I'm thinking about getting a negative scanner, but don't know what I should be looking for (more inside).

I recently got rid of my (rarely-used) enlarger because I don't have space for a darkroom anymore. I'd still like to develop my own black and white film because I screw around a lot and waste so much film that it doesn't make sense to get stuff professionally developed and printed.

So I think I want to get a negative scanner. I'm not too, too worried about the resolution of the images -- I don't need anything high-end as I'll be printing most everything on my small 4x6 dye-sublimation printer. I'll be mostly 35mm film but if it could scan 120 film, that would be cool.

posted by MarkAnd to technology (8 comments total)

I have a Nikon Coolscan. The only issue I've had is that dust collects on the optics and degrades performance. (keep it in a ziplock) It doesn't do 120 but the Digital Ice feature (dust removal) is great.
posted by JohnR at 4:25 PM on December 18, 2004

If you want scans for the purposes of small prints or Web images, a flatbed scanner with both 35mm and 120 capability should do you well -- this recent thread has some suggestions.

And be sure to get some compressed air to blow away dust!

(For myself, I really want a dedicated film scanner that can do 120 film, for the purpose of excellent large scans. I've heard great things about the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro, but its price is daunting. And it's gone up since I bookmarked it! I can still use a color darkroom for big prints, but it'd be nice to have awesome big scans archived someplace.)
posted by lisa g at 4:46 PM on December 18, 2004

-- I don't need anything high-end

Unfortunately, this isn't a product segment with a very well-populated low-end. It's been a couple of years since I bought mine, but at the time it was the only option under $300 and it wound up sucking kinda hard. Hopefully, cost isn't a big issue for you here. If it is, familiarize yourself with what's out there. Budget-friendly options are slim. I don't recommend you try to get away with using a flatbed with a transparency adapter. They usually can't compete for resolution and imagine quality. You're better off scanning your prints on a flatbed.

My big complaint about the Canon model I bought was focusing. For one thing, the negative carrier didn't hold the negatives perfectly flat, and there would be sections of every image out of focus because of subtle bends in the negative. You should also invest in dust-managing brushes, cleaners, whatever, as dust becomes a serious issue when scanning at high res.

It was also slow as hell, with poor color/constrast management software, and SCSI-based, which makes it more or less a dinosaur to me now. It also had no batch-scanning capability, which became a bit of a drag. What's so hard about pulling the negative carrier through and scanning all 5 negs?

Ach. You can find yourself in > $1000 territory very rapidly if you're concerned about quality and features. Just be prepared. If you find yourself scratching your head and saying "I can't believe these things cost so much," you won't be the first!
posted by scarabic at 5:03 PM on December 18, 2004

These suggestions are great.

Unfortunately, this isn't a product segment with a very well-populated low-end.

I'm definitely not looking to spend $2,000 because then I'll have to go out and buy the camera I've told myself is out of my budget. Then there'll be an arms race and I'll end up having to spend my weekends photographing high school football games to pay off my habit.

I'd like to keep it under $500. If there's something in the $500-$1,000 range, I'd consider it if it was worth it for the extra money.
posted by MarkAnd at 5:12 PM on December 18, 2004

The most important quality you should look for in a scanner (flatbed or negative) is the optical scanning resolution, not the interpolated resolution. Interpolated resolution is what the resoltuion is after the software trickery takes place... you don't want anything to do with that, especially when you're scanning an area as small as a negative.

I'd prefer a scanner that did three passes to one, but you might not have that option without taking out another mortgage or selling off your family (hmm...) I'd also look at how many bits per channel the scanner is capable of. A good rule of thumb: more=better. Seriously.

Get something with a FireWire or USB 2.0 connection. None of this first gen USB stuff is going to work out very well for you... these images are being transmitted back to your machine via the software that you're scanning with, and USB 1.0 is not very fast. While you're out spending the money on this doo-dad, get yourself as much RAM as you can handle. Photoshop will thank you.

I'd take a look at the Real World Photoshop CS and Real World Scanning and Halftones next time you go to your neighborhood megabookstore.
posted by glyphlet at 5:18 PM on December 18, 2004

I got a Minolta Dimage Dual Scan III a few Christmases back. (I think, it might have been a II--but the graphic looks right). Anyway, I used a little and liked it--although I never printed my photos. Unfortunately it's in storage (I've been moving too much the past few years) and I can't verify the model. Also, I'm not much more than an off-and-on amateur (took a photography class in college & enjoyed it--but then time & money constraints put that hobby on the back-burner.)
posted by MikeKD at 5:25 PM on December 18, 2004

I really think the dynamic range is the most important feature for scanning film. Optical resolution is important, but if your scanner can't handle detail in the highlights and shadows, who cares if you have a high resolution scan? One of the things that makes film so beautiful is the range of tone and detail it can handle. There isn't any scanner (even drum scanners) that can replicate this, but if the integrity of the image is most important to you, look for the highest dynamic range (or dmax) you can find. The best is 4.0, 3.7 is pretty good.
posted by spaghetti at 10:18 PM on December 18, 2004

I've been scanning 35mm negs for a couple years, and did significant searching of the net before both of my scanner purchases.

It's a headache, but if you want to be satisfied, you have to put in the footwork up front. $500-1000 is a very comfortable range, and you will have a number of options, depending on what you want to prioritize.

I don't mean to confuse, but here are some differences to keep in mind:

film holder style / feed - Minolta Dimage holders crop a tiny bit lengthwise, batch scanning of 6 frames is possible. Nikon Coolscan 5000 can operate without a holder, is full frame, but sometimes has difficulty figuring out where the frames start and stop.

CCD sensor characteristics - bit depth, multiple samples, dMax.

Is it compatible with Silverfast or Vuescan? Many people swear by these two third party scanning software products, as vendor supplied software can be pretty poor.

I'm not a fan of digital ICE, GEM, or any post processing automation, as I shoot 99% b/w, and that stuff is for color.

Dynamic range is important, but the companies do their own testing, and often come up with numbers that seem a bit... optimistic.

I think Nikon has an edge on Canon in terms of scanner offerings these days. Minolta is a lot of bang for the buck. My $250 Minolta is 80% of my $1000 Nikon, for the features I use.

Peruse photo.net, imaging-resource, luminous landscape, and other places.

My top 4 criteria would be resolution, software/support, film feed, and speed. I'm pragmatic, I want it to work smoothly and consistently. I hope this is useful.
posted by Jack Karaoke at 12:04 AM on December 19, 2004 [1 favorite]