Scanner for 35mm film - any experience?

[TonyW]

I am looking for advice/opinions about 35mm negative film scanning as an option instead of buying a new DSLR. Currently I use a Fuji Finepix E550 compact which is IMO pretty good for most 'holiday snaps' but is somewhat limited in features, flexibility and functionality compared to my 35mm Minolta Dynax 600Si.

I have a "hankering" to process my own 35mm film and scan the resulting negatives then either printing to A4 on my own printer or getting commercial lab to do the job for me at this and larger sizes.

In theory it should be possible to scan a 35mm negative with a dedicated scanner and achieve a better pixel resolution than most of the current crop of DSLR's. Of course I do appreciate that pixel resolution is only one of the factors to consider
Whilst the theory may be sound I would like to know about limitations of the scanning process and hope that someone here will have the knowledge.

I have been considering a scanner from the Plustek range (£150-£170) which achieve a scan of up to 7200 dpi. I would prefer a Nikon scanner but feel that they are too expensive to justify.

Cheers
Tony

 

[Charlotte]

The plusteks's are gash - Nikon's best with Siverfast. I use the 9000 at my friend's uni and get great results - check www.charlyburnett.com - all the B&W has been though them! Email if you want a full rez tiff example.

The 5000 is a 9000 that doesn't take MF film. The difference between the V and the 5000 (other than a lot of ££) is it takes a bulk loader (tends to jam, breaks the bank anyhow as it's about £400 on top of the scanner) and crucially, has a higher (12 v's 8 I think) A-D convertor. Is it worth it? Depends - you can see the difference in tonality - but frankly, if it's not for exhibition work, I don't think it is.

I'll be picking up a Coolscan V when Sarah finishes uni.

The Minolta scanners are excellent too - I've used a Scan Multi and honestly preferred it to the Nikon - I would get one second hand but for lack of parts availability - and the fact that I shoot film only.

I would recommend an Epson V700 over the Plustek - they are perfectly good for A4 once you have a sharpening workflow sorted. Above that, you want to be looking at higher end gear - but pushing 35mm beyond A4 requires the skill, the lenses and the right film......says she who will be printing a bunch of hand held Tri X negs to 16x20 next week (but I do shoot Leica M!)

 

[MikeG.]

I understood some of those words, so I know it's in English, but...........

 

[Shultzy]

If you only have 35mm negs then a dedicated film scanner is the way to go. I have a CanoScan 9950F A4 scanner as I have 35mm negs, slides and other sizes negs which this scanner can cope with.

 

[TonyW]

I am going to consider the best way forward with this and look at the options closely before making any buying decisions. Initially I think I may process my own film and send to a lab that uses a high resolution dedicated film scanner then print my own up to A4 and use a commercial printer if larger prints required.

Charlotte, I am sure you are correct and the Nikon's are a far superior piece of kit to the plustek - unfortunately like everything else there is a premium to pay for such systems which currently I cannot justify e.g.
Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED
Optical resolution up to 4000dpi
Max scan size for 35mm negs 4000x5904 = 23.6 Mpixel image. This is about the correct pixel count/digital information to equate to a 35mm film.
Cost around £2000

Nikon Coolscan V ED same optical resolution therefore assume same size image - cost around £500. Still quite a lot to pay - I bet that would buy quite a few images scanned by a commercial company

Perhaps I will wait until the current 24Mp cameras drop in price - like the Nikon D3x at £5,500 for the body only :shock:

Thanks for your comments

Cheers
Tony

 

[bugbear]

I am looking for advice/opinions about 35mm negative film scanning as an option instead of buying a new DSLR. Currently I use a Fuji Finepix E550 compact which is IMO pretty good for most 'holiday snaps' but is somewhat limited in features, flexibility and functionality compared to my 35mm Minolta Dynax 600Si.

I have a "hankering" to process my own 35mm film and scan the resulting negatives then either printing to A4 on my own printer or getting commercial lab to do the job for me at this and larger sizes.

In theory it should be possible to scan a 35mm negative with a dedicated scanner and achieve a better pixel resolution than most of the current crop of DSLR's. Of course I do appreciate that pixel resolution is only one of the factors to consider
Whilst the theory may be sound I would like to know about limitations of the scanning process and hope that someone here will have the knowledge.

I have been considering a scanner from the Plustek range (£150-£170) which achieve a scan of up to 7200 dpi. I would prefer a Nikon scanner but feel that they are too expensive to justify.

Cheers
Tony

IMHO a DSLR would be cheaper and more versatile in all but the shortest of terms.

BugBear

 

[Paul Chapman]

Tony,

Are you thinking of B&W or colour photography? If B&W, why not buy yourself a second-hand Leitz Valoy enlarger (or Reid & Sigrist like I use but they are few and far between), a decent enlarging lens (Taylor Hobson Ental or EL Nikkor for example) and make your own prints. You can pick up this stuff for peanuts these days and you will get the very best quality prints. And it's so much cheaper than all this digital stuff.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[RogerM]

I would recommend an Epson V700 over the Plustek - they are perfectly good for A4 once you have a sharpening workflow sorted.

I have the V500 and am very pleased with that. That scans 4 slides or 12 negatives at a time. I believe the V700 does 12 slides and up to 36 negatives at a time. The challenge here would be getting 36 negatives completely free of dust/hairs etc simultaneously - it's bad enough getting 4 slides completely clean at the same time.

Personally I would go down the DSLR route if you want that sort of quality - and the prosumer models have plummeted in price so that they are now available to mere mortals.

 

[gidon]

Tony
If you want to go the scanner route for fun then I can understand perfectly, but if you're thinking of it as a cheaper / better option I would not bother and go with a DSLR. Even the cheapest DSLR will give you way better results then a cheap scanner. Have a look at an image from a Canon DSLR at 100 ISO at 100% viewing - you will be blown away by just how clean the image is. You'll struggle to achieve anything like this with a scanner.
Even with the DSLR route there's lots of fun to be had home printing your photos (and editing if you so choose). I have a colour calibrated printing workflow at home which can be had pretty cheaply.
Cheers
Gidon

 

[TonyW]

Thanks to all for your thoughts and advice

IMHO a DSLR would be cheaper and more versatile in all but the shortest of terms.

I am pretty sure you are correct here, but I am still hanging on to the notion that my current 35mm SLR potentially has the ability to produce stunning digital images after converting film to high resolution digital scan. Consequently saving me the expense of buying a decent DSLR - or perhaps more correctly putting off the inevitable decision to fully embrace digital photography until such time as the cost for high quality equipment drops to what I consider to be ok.

Are you thinking of B&W or colour photography? If B&W, why not buy yourself a second-hand Leitz Valoy enlarger (or Reid & Sigrist like I use but they are few and far between), a decent enlarging lens (Taylor Hobson Ental or EL Nikkor for example) and make your own prints. You can pick up this stuff for peanuts these days and you will get the very best quality prints. And it's so much cheaper than all this digital stuff.

Mainly B&W with occasional colour. I actually have a Durst colour enlarger with a good Componon lens which covers up to 6x6cm - the problem is finding the space and time for analogue printing - I hate temporary darkroom setups. Have even tried to sell it in the past with no luck as they are only seen to be worth peanuts :lol: and I just cannot bear to part with it at such low expected prices.

At this stage I think I should make a confession - In a past life I was employed as a professional photographer specialising in Industrial, Commercial and Advertising photography. Most imaging done via large format, mainly 5"x4", occasionally up to 10"x8" format. Small format for me meant nothing below 6x6cm on either Rollie TLR, Hasselblad, or Bronica. 35mm always seen as the reserve of the "happy snapper" or paparazzi (not sure that term exisited then ). My experience of digital photography though I have to admit is not very extensive (in the "happy snapper" club) - quite difficult to keep up as things change so quickly.
Like you I am still convinced that the very best quality prints still come from using analogue systems. Although if you have the money you can always go for the new 24MP Nikon (£5,000 + Lens) or even better the new 60MP Hasselblad (£15,000+) or even better still a scanning back for 5"x4" - with any of these I believe that the potential image quality to be equal to respective film sizes. Going this route you still need to spend money on a high quality printer though

Personally I would go down the DSLR route if you want that sort of quality - and the prosumer models have plummeted in price so that they are now available to mere mortals.

I am waiting for them to plumet some more before diving in :wink:

GidonI fear you have hit the nail on the head, a cheap scanner is just not going to do the job to my satisfaction. Therefore I am going to experiment with conventional film scanned professionally to high resolution and also as you suggest investigate the current crop of DSLR - and consider upgrading my existing A4 Cannon printer to a better quality A3 printer - sounds like this is going to hurt financially :lol:
Could you expand a little on your comment "I have a colour calibrated printing workflow at home which can be had pretty cheaply", or point me in the right direction? You got my interest in particular with "pretty cheaply"

Charlotte, have sent email

Cheers
Tony

 

[Paul Chapman]

I actually have a Durst colour enlarger with a good Componon lens which covers up to 6x6cm - the problem is finding the space and time for analogue printing - I hate temporary darkroom setups. Have even tried to sell it in the past with no luck as they are only seen to be worth peanuts :lol: and I just cannot bear to part with it at such low expected prices.

I agree, you need a permanent set-up otherwise you spend all your time setting up and clearing up and have no time for printing. That's the problem I have at the moment Hang on to your stuff - your circumstances might change and you'd regret selling it :wink:

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[bugbear]

Most imaging done via large format, mainly 5"x4", occasionally up to 10"x8" format. Small format for me meant nothing below 6x6cm on either Rollie TLR, Hasselblad, or Bronica. 35mm always seen as the reserve of the "happy snapper" or paparazzi (not sure that term exisited then ).

Heh. You'd be amused (in that case) by the snobbery of 35mm DSLR users with regard to users to compacts.

Apparently (they say) DSLR users aren't prepared to compromise quality by having a small camera for the sake of convenience...

I have pointed out to them that "quality" and "small" are relative terms

BugBear

 

[RobertMP]

I moderate on a photography forum and this sort of topic comes up a lot.

There's no right or wrong. If you like messing with film then by all means carry on. Talkphotography has a section just for people that like using film. There are very few that look on film as more than an interesting diversion and use digital SLR as their normal means of capturing an image.

To me photography is about the picture and not the equipment. There probably are DSLR snobs that look down on compact camera owners but I don't come across them. I don't doubt there are a few people on here that would frown on the way I sharpen a chisel but it does the job I need it to which is all that matters really.

 

[TonyW]

Heh. You'd be amused (in that case) by the snobbery of 35mm DSLR users with regard to users to compacts.

Do you think it may go even deeper - for example compact users disdain for those that use throwaway cameras?

I have pointed out to them that "quality" and "small" are relative terms

Absolutely agree and we should all remember size isn't everything :lol:

To me photography is about the picture and not the equipment.

I share those sentiments

 

[Charlotte]

"Professional" scans - ie drum scans - run to about £50 each. Lab scans to CD vary enormously in quality depending on the op and image size. They are much cheaper - £5 for dev>CD and prob the same if you take an uncut roll of home developed. I've had lab scans I'd print and other's that are barely suitable for internet use. Finding a good lab isn't easy like the old days - though Snappy Snaps in Camden take far more care than most.

Digital v's analogue: To my mind, for colour, digital wins hands down. For black and white, it's with film still - though the FF cameras seem to compete. The sensible money certainly goes with a DSLR - but then, there's no point in owning a hand plane in these days of motors is there?!

Tony - given your previous background, your standards will be much higher than mine.....I've still not shot MF even after developing my own for over half my life (having seen Annie Lebowitz at the weekend, this will be changing soon!) Don't even consider anything less than a Coolscan 4000/V (the 4000 is prececessor to 5000 - it's a 5000 with a V processing pipeline). Seriously consider ebaying for a used drum scanner - Howtek's can come up for peanuts and if you can master the learning curve, well worth it.

Printing over A4 - labs use Noritsu's and Fuji Frontiers. Regardless of whether analogue or digital, a scan is used to project an exposure which is then chemically processed. If this all sounds like digital cibachrome, it doesn't look like it! Occasionally, you will find a lab that has bothered to calibrate it's equipment so black isn't green as it often is in Frontier prints. I recommended one above! All the same, pigment inkjet prints are the only competition to silver prints in B&W. Which is better? Depends who's printing!

 

[TonyW]

Charlotte,
Thanks again for a comprehensive view.

I know what you mean about lab scan quality I have seen (and had!) some very poorly processed film over the years - from professional labs!. So I suspect that lab scans to CD may also be variable. At least with home processed film you have the chance of scanning again somewhere else (if the lab does not loose your film!!).

Your comments on digital vs analogue strike a chord with me. I agree that colour digital must be the winner - AFAIK there is virtually no room for 'creative processing' with colour negative or transparency film and you are back again in the hands of the commercial labs or have to undertake colour processing yourself

I have had a look on fleabay and followed a Nikon V ED scanner - currently the bidding is standing at £469 with £22 postage. This model can be had for around £500 new - someone must be getting carried away .
I have not considered a used drum scanner so will be looking into this as a possibility.

Cheers
Tony

Edit: Just checked ebay the Nikon scanner sold for a massive £680+ £22 p&p. Buyer should have looked on the net found it new for £539.13 incl vat not sure of delivery cost !!

 

[Gower]

I've tried several over the years including Epsom FilmScan 200 (still gathering dust because Epsom stopped supporting it from XP onwards) and Minolta but Nikon Coolscan was out on it's own.
Cheers,
Jim

 

[HeathRobinson]

I use an Epson V500. Not sure how the other suggestions hold up but it's a bit fiddly to insert negatives into the holding framework. It scans once with infrared and again normally, allowing it to do a bit of touch up where any dirt was on the negative. This can be turned off if needed. The lid is hinged in such a way that it can easily take very thick books too.

Of course I am no pro and have hardly any negatives but the ones I've done I've managed to turn them into very high quality monster size images. I got it at half the RRP because someone had returned it to PC World Business. It was still unused. A bargain in my book.

Simon

 

[TonyW]

Thanks to all for your input here

Special thank you to Charlotte
Who has been very helpful in pointing me in the right direction and also went to considerable trouble sending me a scanned file of one of her excellent photographs. Very much appreciated

Cheers
Tony