Not going digital, but...
May 5, 2010 8:58 AM Subscribe
Considering buying a negative scanner, and looking for recommendations.
I saw this previous question, but I've got slightly different requirements and I'm hoping that prices have come down. I need to scan B&W and color 35mm as well as B&W and color 120 mm. If it can handle oddball sizes (110 anyone?) so much the better.
I'm quite dedicated to the idea of film and chemical photography though, and would just be using these as reference to decide what to print myself (B&W) or what to have printed in color. I might try to restore some old family photos from negatives, but it wouldn't have to be super-professional quality.
I have an old copy of Photoshop that I know my way around OK. I want to spend around $200. And there's no room near my computer to permanently set anything up, so small would be nice. Any ideas? Or am I totally going down the wrong road here? I already have an all-in-one flatbed scanner, maybe there's a way to make that work for negatives?
I saw this previous question, but I've got slightly different requirements and I'm hoping that prices have come down. I need to scan B&W and color 35mm as well as B&W and color 120 mm. If it can handle oddball sizes (110 anyone?) so much the better.
I'm quite dedicated to the idea of film and chemical photography though, and would just be using these as reference to decide what to print myself (B&W) or what to have printed in color. I might try to restore some old family photos from negatives, but it wouldn't have to be super-professional quality.
I have an old copy of Photoshop that I know my way around OK. I want to spend around $200. And there's no room near my computer to permanently set anything up, so small would be nice. Any ideas? Or am I totally going down the wrong road here? I already have an all-in-one flatbed scanner, maybe there's a way to make that work for negatives?
Best answer: i shoot in medium format and some weird random formats (including 110) and i use this epson negative scanner. it is excellent.
posted by raw sugar at 10:00 AM on May 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by raw sugar at 10:00 AM on May 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
At that price, the Epson V500 (or the older 4490) is your best bet, with a pretty good DMAX, Digital Ice and, high resolution rates similar to the pricier V700, but it isn't that small at roughly 12x20 inches.
posted by squeak at 10:39 AM on May 5, 2010
posted by squeak at 10:39 AM on May 5, 2010
Response by poster: Thanks! Going to keep looking to see if there's a smaller one, but I might be able to make that work. I wouldn't be using it every day.
posted by JoanArkham at 11:17 AM on May 5, 2010
posted by JoanArkham at 11:17 AM on May 5, 2010
I had a similar question a bit back that was Mac specific, but it may help you.
posted by GJSchaller at 1:26 PM on May 5, 2010
posted by GJSchaller at 1:26 PM on May 5, 2010
Response by poster: Also: why can't I just slap down some negatives on my cheapie scanner? (I tried it and it was too dark.) What's the difference? Is there some way to tweak it to work?
posted by JoanArkham at 2:23 PM on May 5, 2010
posted by JoanArkham at 2:23 PM on May 5, 2010
What's the difference?
Scanners that can accommodate film have two lighting units; one in the lid and, one in the base.
posted by squeak at 2:43 PM on May 5, 2010
Scanners that can accommodate film have two lighting units; one in the lid and, one in the base.
posted by squeak at 2:43 PM on May 5, 2010
I've got a Coolscan and got it for a nice price, but if I couldn't get one, a top of the line Epson flatbed would be next on my list.
posted by Brian Puccio at 8:07 PM on May 5, 2010
posted by Brian Puccio at 8:07 PM on May 5, 2010
I have a Pacific Image PrimeFilm3650 Pro3. I don't think it's made anymore but you could probably pick one up used for under $200. It was only about a $350 scanner when new.
It would not satisfy your desires to scan 120s, but it is very good for scanning large amounts of 35mm. It has an integrated batch feeder so you can put up to an entire uncut 36-exp roll of 135 in, and it will go through and scan the whole thing in one operation. (You can get strip feeders for the Coolscans but my understanding is that they only do 5 or 7 exp strips, not entire rolls.)
Unfortunately if you want to scan 120s then you are probably talking about a flatbed, and scanning 35mm on a flatbed is obnoxious. I also don't like the idea of my negs lying directly on the glass.
The best way to go may depend on your percentage of 135 versus 120; if it's only the occasional roll of medium, it might make sense to own a dedicated/specialized 35mm scanner with autofeed, just for the time savings. If you're about even, then maybe a flatbed.
A few years ago there were a couple of 'true' (non-flatbed) film scanners that did both 135 and 120 equally well — Minolta made a few that got great reviews. But I think they're all out of production and might be hard to use/maintain at this point. (I have no idea who got Minolta's scanner division when they went belly-up; I always lusted after one of their high-end ones but couldn't afford them when they were being made.)
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:22 AM on May 6, 2010
It would not satisfy your desires to scan 120s, but it is very good for scanning large amounts of 35mm. It has an integrated batch feeder so you can put up to an entire uncut 36-exp roll of 135 in, and it will go through and scan the whole thing in one operation. (You can get strip feeders for the Coolscans but my understanding is that they only do 5 or 7 exp strips, not entire rolls.)
Unfortunately if you want to scan 120s then you are probably talking about a flatbed, and scanning 35mm on a flatbed is obnoxious. I also don't like the idea of my negs lying directly on the glass.
The best way to go may depend on your percentage of 135 versus 120; if it's only the occasional roll of medium, it might make sense to own a dedicated/specialized 35mm scanner with autofeed, just for the time savings. If you're about even, then maybe a flatbed.
A few years ago there were a couple of 'true' (non-flatbed) film scanners that did both 135 and 120 equally well — Minolta made a few that got great reviews. But I think they're all out of production and might be hard to use/maintain at this point. (I have no idea who got Minolta's scanner division when they went belly-up; I always lusted after one of their high-end ones but couldn't afford them when they were being made.)
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:22 AM on May 6, 2010
Second the Epson Perfection V500 / V700. They both come with film-holders so the negs aren't directly on the glass, in multiple sizes that will accommodate 35mm and 120 film. 110 might be tougher.
posted by DaveP at 8:17 AM on May 6, 2010
posted by DaveP at 8:17 AM on May 6, 2010
Response by poster: Ahh! Thanks, squeak. (Hey, that's one of my cat's nicknames.)
I don't see me doing huge batches of film, so I'm not too worried about any sort of bulk feeder.
Thanks again for all the info!
posted by JoanArkham at 8:24 AM on May 6, 2010
I don't see me doing huge batches of film, so I'm not too worried about any sort of bulk feeder.
Thanks again for all the info!
posted by JoanArkham at 8:24 AM on May 6, 2010
Just released: Canon CanoScan 9000F. Looks like it hits a great balance of features, quality and price.
Oh, and if you're leaning toward the Epson route, I'd suggest buying them via their refurb outlet site; the savings are significant and the warranty is the same.
I was planning on picking up a refurb 4490 myself but the new CanoScan looks pretty darn nice for the price.
posted by sprocket87 at 9:02 AM on May 6, 2010
Oh, and if you're leaning toward the Epson route, I'd suggest buying them via their refurb outlet site; the savings are significant and the warranty is the same.
I was planning on picking up a refurb 4490 myself but the new CanoScan looks pretty darn nice for the price.
posted by sprocket87 at 9:02 AM on May 6, 2010
I recommend the Epson V500 scanner for both 35mm and 120 negatives at the price you are looking.
I have tried both scanning using the holder and laying it on the glass, haven't had any problems with it.
posted by ssri at 11:07 PM on June 23, 2010
I have tried both scanning using the holder and laying it on the glass, haven't had any problems with it.
posted by ssri at 11:07 PM on June 23, 2010
Response by poster: Late update but...I bought the Epson, and am really impressed with how easy it was to set up and use. I wish it had a little more documentation with it though, the software is driving me crazy and I don't really have any idea what settings to use in the "professional" mode.
Here's the first batch I tried. I need to re-scan all the 35mm one, I did it at way too low a resolution.
posted by JoanArkham at 6:06 AM on January 17, 2011
Here's the first batch I tried. I need to re-scan all the 35mm one, I did it at way too low a resolution.
posted by JoanArkham at 6:06 AM on January 17, 2011
Every scanner I've ever bought has come with crummy software. Every. single. one.
While I guess it's possible that Epson's is the black-swan-type exception to the rule, I am doubtful.
You might want to look at VueScan. It's not free but it's worth every penny. (I actually think it compares pretty favorably to Silverfast, which is the true professional scanning software package.)
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:53 PM on January 17, 2011
While I guess it's possible that Epson's is the black-swan-type exception to the rule, I am doubtful.
You might want to look at VueScan. It's not free but it's worth every penny. (I actually think it compares pretty favorably to Silverfast, which is the true professional scanning software package.)
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:53 PM on January 17, 2011
« Older Kids, I can feel the spring coming up in my finger... | Is this place in Philadelphia safe? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
I have long assumed I'd have to get a Nikon Coolscan to make it through the 1000s of 35mm negatives I've accumulated (to say nothing of my parents', etc.). I know several professional commercial and fine art photographers. At a party, I asked one of the fine art photogs for her recommendation for a negative scanner, and she said that she actually did her work on a top of the line Canon flatbed scanner, and did not see much difference between the results she got from that versus the drum scanner available where she teaches. She shoots exclusively in large format. Her husband, also a fine art photographer, concurred (he shoots 35mm).
Again, just throwing this out there. I've seen jpg scans of their work, but no uncompressed images. Your mileage may vary. I have not taken their advice, and I'm probably still going to get a Coolscan unless someone can corroborate this. Tra la la.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 9:15 AM on May 5, 2010