Help me find a good film scanner.

September 6, 2009 5:09 AM

I'm one of those film hold-outs. I want a film scanner for for my old and new negatives and slides. But I'm confused.

My Lumix digital is great for my newspaper work, but doesn't cut it for my personal (landscapes, sorta) work. Kodak films keep getting better and my old Pentax gear works great, so I want to continue using film and I want to scan my old slides and negs into my iMac.

But I am only confused by my research into scanners. Some say film scanners are obsolete and flat beds will do it all. There are confusing claims about resolution, bits, and dynamic range. For example, Nikon wants $1200 - $2200 for for its CoolScan film scanners, while Canon claims comparable specs with its $200 CanoScan flatbed.

Mainly I want high resolution, accurate color and high dynamic range (which used to be called contrast range?). Features to handle dust and scratches would be a plus, as long as it doesn't mush up the resolution. Speed is not that important.

I'm a cheap sumbitch, but would be willing to save up for a four-figure machine if that's what it takes.

posted by tommyD to Media & Arts (16 answers total)

You cannot get good dynamic range with a cheap flatbed scanner. (or a cheap slide scanner either). Greater bit depth may compensate for a lack of DR in some instances. Silverfast (if it works with your chosen scanner) allegedly increases DR using a multiscan approach.
posted by Gungho at 5:22 AM on September 6, 2009

Best answer: Gungho has it right. The people who claim flatbeds are good enough are not film buffs like you. They have albums full of family snapshots/etc and a good-looking JPG is enough for them. The other problem is that many film freaks and n00bs alike do not understand digital technology at all and take the marketing claims at face value, or take subjective experience as a quality metric. All that, times the internet, equals a horrid morass of BS.

If you're scanning negatives, you want a dedicated film scanner, and those cost money. Get one with Digital ICE. It scans once with visible light and once with IR, and automagically subtracts out the dust, which your slides/negs will be totally covered with no matter how meticulous you are. That time savings is not to be overlooked.

The nice thing about film scanners is that they hold value. Get a high-end one, scan your whole collection, sell it, and then for chrissakes convert to digital with the rest of us.
posted by fake at 6:07 AM on September 6, 2009 [1 favorite]

I'm no expert on film scanning, but a friend bought the Epson v700 for his iMac and has been very happy with it. I've helped him with scanning both film and slides, so I've seen the results firsthand and I have been impressed. (Running the dust removal software slows things down considerably, so I think he usually does his own retouching in PS Elements.)
posted by The Deej at 6:08 AM on September 6, 2009

I tried a flatbed with what they called a 'film tray' (as I recall), then a Minolta negative scanner (I forget the model), which was a vast improvement, and around 2002 I got a Nikon Coolscan IV ED with Digital ICE (can't recommend that highly enough - it'll make you think you're working in a cleanroom) and never looked back. If you have the money, by all means go for a new model, they're probably even better now, but right now for instance there's a Coolscan IV unused in box on EBay for $300. (No, it's not mine.)

I haven't used it in awhile, but the software also had filters that 'repair' scratches and restore colors to faded negs, and although they didn't work all the time, when they did the results were nothing short of miraculous.
posted by Devoidoid at 7:25 AM on September 6, 2009

Keep in mind that Digital ICE (while awesome) doesn't work with certain types of B&W film, so if that's what you shoot primarily, then don't worry about it.

http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/008YJd
posted by Brian Puccio at 7:28 AM on September 6, 2009

I've got the Epson V700 and use it for 4x5 negs but wouldn't use it regularly for top quality 35mm scanning. If you aren't doing pro-work or huge enlargements then it should be fine. For pro/very high quality scans I use my trusty Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro. The only reason I bought that was to scan medium format, so it is probably more than you need.

Decide what your end need will be and work from there. If all you want is to scan film to post to Flickr or email to relatives then a dedicated film scanner is a bad investment. If you are going to be scanning film to make the best Super B sized prints for gallery work then a good film scanner is a must.
posted by JJ86 at 7:33 AM on September 6, 2009

Seconding the post above. It depends on the end use -- for scanning for the web or small prints, a flatbed (Epson v500 is what I have, I've heard great things about the V700 models too) will be sufficient. Then, if you have a few frames that you want scanned for large prints, you can go to a pro shop get them professionally scanned. But, if require the best quality out of every single frame, then a film scanner might be the way to go. If you search the Flickr "I Shoot Film" group posts, there have been many discussions about this topic that might be helpful.
posted by statolith at 8:33 AM on September 6, 2009

For dynamic range, your only option is a dedicated film scanner. I have the Nikon Coolscan V, which is excellent. Note that Digital ICE (and any other dust/scratch removal feature) will not work on silver gelatin black and white negatives.
posted by nihraguk at 9:46 AM on September 6, 2009

Response by poster: I thank you all for the info and suggestions - though that's doesn't mean you should stop.

Looks like I might spring for a Nikon CoolScan 5000, or maybe an Epson 750 or something in that range.

I am disappointed in hearing the ICE system doesn't work on silver images. I have a ton of old Tri-X and T-Max negs. Is there any other solution?

As for "converting to digital like the rest of us," well, someday. I am not sticking to film for its own sake, and I appreciate the advantages of digital. In fact I was considering dropping a grand on a Pentax D200 body, but then I shot a couple rolls of Kodak's new Ektar 100 and was mightily impressed. My opinion, reasonably-priced digital equipment still has a way to go to catch up to the image quality of film.

Besides, I'm an old fart more comfortable and familiar with manual film cameras.
posted by tommyD at 10:12 AM on September 6, 2009

Nthing dedicated film scanner.
Also really consider your end use, as JJ86 pointed out. Although I would say if you want to put quality work on the web, or if you ever ever want to print from your scans you will disappointed with the flatbed. You might also consider machine scans - the Agfa D-lab scans negs up to 18mg (jpg) and I have made prints from these with success. I worked in a prolab on an Imacon 848 "virtual" drum scanner and I have to say it spoiled me, but the D-lab is good enough for my purposes these days.

I ended up finally saving up and getting a Pentax K10D because I stopped working at the prolab and it's just unrealistic to even try and work as a Photographer if you ONLY shoot film. Half the reason I stayed at that job so long was because of the "perks" - like all the free scans I could want as I was the scanning tech on the Imacon. Film is getting mighty pricey and I just can't afford to shoot too much film - unless I find another prolab to work at.
But it still costs money, to buy film and I don't have a lot, so....
Yeah.
Go digital! Where all you spend is time - which is a real minus for me. I hate having to process photos. Although I LOVE Photoshop, it sucks when it's manditory.

It's still a real internal struggle for me - I shoot 120 film on a beat up old plastic Holga and I can still never attain the random beauty of light and silver and all that with my new DSLR without time in Photoshop. And even then, it's never quite the same. There's something about film grain that digital just can't get right and that's why I will never completely stop shooting film.

That being said - I am quite happy with the Pentax K10D - I have a pretty ok K1000 kit, so the 10D was the natural choice as I can use all my lenses thus cutting a lot of expense. Also, the reviews of these cameras generally highlight the "problems" with these cameras as being "too much" like film, which is perfect for me.
posted by smartypantz at 11:30 AM on September 6, 2009

From what I've read, the Epson 700 and 750 are in a different class to just about all the other flat bed scanners on the market. I suspect those two models are the reason behind Nikon's recent decision to stop production of some of their lower-end scanners.

Just going on bare specifications can be misleading, a magnified example scan will tell you more than a page full of numbers: comparing the Epson V750 Vs Nikon CoolScan 9000

The hidden cost to consider with this is disc space, just one 36 exp film scanned at that quality will need about 18 GB of hard disc space, or 36 GB when you make a backup.
posted by Lanark at 12:50 PM on September 6, 2009

Several techniques for getting decent b&w scans are out there. Google appropriately with the name of your software. Here's one for VueScan.

Digital Ice doesn't work with silver halide films because the infrared sees the silver particles as dust.

If you are not looking to generate prints, but only to post online, then a flatbed may be sufficient.
posted by justcorbly at 12:51 PM on September 6, 2009

For your ongoing film shooting, I recommend Costco processing and digitizing. I can get 6 MP files on a CD from a roll of film for about $5, including developing. Much easier than do-it-yourself.
posted by The Deej at 1:41 PM on September 6, 2009

I bought a slide scanner maybe 5 years ago for $200, and it's sitting on my computer right now. It's a pain to use; you have to put each slide into the holder, wait for it to scan(a few minutes for the high-res scans), and then post-process. Mine isn't very fancy (Minolta Dimage 2) but I haven't used it much due to how much of a pain it is (and I love the Fuji slide films). I know 'a few minutes' doesn't sound that bad because one can spend much more tweaking a photo; however, in my experience, waiting for a slide to scan is one of the most annoying uses of time I know.

So, check out scancafe.com. It'll cost you 30 cents per slide, they'll use a nice $1k slide scanner that you won't have to buy, and someone else will be stuck waiting for the scanning to finish. And, you only have to pay for the slides you want anyways, so you're allowed to dump up to half as duds.
posted by bsdfish at 2:58 PM on September 6, 2009

There's a lot of good advice here: get a real film scanner not a flat bed, ICE is great for colour not B&W etc so I've not got much to add.

Buy a medium format film camera. They are so cheap now it's criminal, and they allow you to get so much more quality into the frame than you can with 35mm. Downside is that scanners cost more, but you can still get some great ones secondhand like the Minolta Scan Multi Pro.

Beware that some older scanners are SCSI only, so you may need to buy a SCSI card, but that's not hard. Many scanners work great on XP but do not work under Vista. Most manufacturer's scanning software is hellishly bad, so getting a scanner supported by VueScan is a good option. VueScan costs, but it's an indefinite license and it runs under linux too. It's pretty basic but it does actually work, which is a lot more than I can say for what came with my SprintScan or anything from HP.

I highly recommend getting a DSLR for the convenience factor but at the same time, don't stop shooting film.
posted by polyglot at 8:18 PM on September 6, 2009

The only other word of advice I would give that hasn't already been repeated here is cautioning against buying into a MF system because of the cost of lenses. I love my Bronica ETR system to death, but after using a Hassleblad or Mamiya system, the lenses look soft and old. A nice MF scanner is only going to make the difference that much clearer. Choose your path wisely!
posted by tmt at 4:04 PM on September 10, 2009