• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Buying a film scanner...

Don Shreve

pro member
...And I didn't see a category for scanners.
I'm looking at getting the Nikon 5000 ED.
I need a scanner that will handle B&W negatives, as well as slides & color negs. My experience trying to scan BW negs has been disappointing.
Does anyone have this scanner & can tell me how the BW looks?
Alos, why does Silverfast scanning software cost so much?
 

Alain Briot

pro member
Steve,

I have no experience with the Nkn 5000. I use an Imacon personally.

I do have the answer however regarding "why silverfast costs so much" it is because you get what you pay for. The same question can be asked of many other top quality software, such as Image Print, Photoshop and many other.

There are cheap scanning software out there, but I don't think you want to use them. The Imacon software is in estimate better than silverscan, and because it is bundled with the scanners, is certainly an important factor in their pricing.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
A good place to read how the sub-Imacon scanners do, compared to each other, is to look at the British site:

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V750/page_5.htm

Here is a quote from the reivew of the new Epson flat bed scanner that appears to do a pretty good job with film using Silverfast.

It compares thew Epson V750 Pro with the Nikon LS9000 ED.

"The bottom line on the results is that the Nikon LS 9000 ED does produce a sharper scan, but after applying USM to the Epson scans the difference is not that great and I doubt very much that under normal viewing conditions you would see the difference. However, you will see the difference in your bank balance."

I'd look at that and also the price of a used Imacon. You might find that the Epson is perfect for your work.

Asher
 

Alain Briot

pro member
Yes, Asher is correct, the Epson flatbeds such as the 4990 and the new 750 Pro, are excellent. I have those as well, and for negs they do much better than Imacon (less graininess). But the resolution is lower. The 750 is interesting. It comes in 2 models, and the $750 model gives you the option of wet mounting on the flatbed.
 

Don Shreve

pro member
Thanks for the hints. In my search, I found this forum, which has a lot of traffic & useful scanning info-

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a?topic_id=1701&category=Scanning>Scanners>Film

Lots of reccomendations for Silverfast & Vuescan. Seems the Coolscan 5000 is a good choice if you want to stay under $1000. But there's always a compromise if you don't want to pay for the high-end gear.

This is like starting all over learning how to do darkroom work. It's taken me almost 10 years to get this digital thing perfected, now I'm going back to my old negs & slides from 30 years ago & learning all over again how to make nice prints without chemicals. Not cheaper, by any measure. Hardware, inks, papers. But the background of "real" film & printing is invaluable, and it gives an understanding of how the process truly works & how digital replicates what originated with silver gelatin on glass plates with a pinhole camera.
 

Jim Gilley

New member
While I have no experience with the Nikon you mention, I can speak as to the Imacon scanner and a few others. I presently own three scanners, and each has its own uses.

The king of my collection is a Howtek Scanmaster D4500, which although considered bottom of the barrel for drum scanners, really does put the CCD scanners I own to shame. For scanning underexposed Kodachromes, it's the only one that will dig out any shadow detail. However, the quality it gives comes at a huge price in terms of convenience, since you have to mount the film to a drum using oils and clear acetate. I can certainly praise Silverfast as a really nice scanning software. Without it, my Howtek would be pretty much useless, since the software that came with the scanner was terrible. Silverfast makes the scanning part pretty easy. And yes, the Howtek does a fine job with negatives as well, but it is so inconvenient to use, I greatly prefer my Imacon for negatives.

I have the low end Imacon 343, which I bought exclusively for scanning 6x7 negatives. It works really well for that task, since any problems the CCD might have with density in the film end up in the highlights, not the shadows. The Imacon is really easy to use, and their software is pretty nice, though I still think Silverfast is a bit nicer overall. I should mention that all my negatives are B&W, though I have scanned some color negatives, but was not happy with the color balance. The 343 is OK at 35mm chromes, but it really can't dig much detail out of the shadows. It's also a bit weak in the resolution department for 35mm, but it still makes nice scans if you don't care too much about extra-fine detail.

The oldest and least used scanner in my collection is a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000, which was all the rage many years ago. I still use it to scan 35mm slides if I'm in a big hurry and don't care much about the results. Once again, Silverfast really helps out, since it is far better than the Polaroid software. From what my friends tell me, the newer Nikon scanners are much nicer than this old Polaroid.

It's worth mentioning that I bought the Polaroid new, and the Imacon and Howtek used. Used scanners are worth next to nothing these days, so you can really get some deals if you look around. And I agree that when it comes to software, you do get what you pay for. Most of the free software that comes with scanners is pretty bad compared to Silverfast. I'm still using the old versions that I bought several years ago, and they work just fine.

You can't go wrong by surfing the web for opinions on scanners, as there are thousands of them out there, but like all opinions, they are best taken with a grain of salt. Since you want to scan negatives, pay particular attention to that, because in my opinion, negatives are much harder to scan than chromes. I'm just so happy that digital imaging finally came of age, so I could abandon film altogether. Scanning is a very laborious and time consuming process, that even when done right, still doesn't produce as nice of results as capturing a digital original.
 

Don Lashier

New member
Silverfast came with an Epson scanner I bought a few years ago. I tried it and preferred the Epson software. A lot of the Silverfast features are pretty useless if you're scanning for further editing in Photoshop but might be more useful if you're producing final results from the scan software. The Nikon scan software is actually pretty decent, especially the more recent versions.

- DL
 

Chuck Fry

New member
I've had lots of experience with an older Nikon (CoolScan III, a.k.a. LS-30) and VueScan driver S/W. The combination works great for me on slides. I don't have any B&W experience, and I have had some challenges getting correct color balance on color negs, but I suspect I'd have trouble with that on any film scanner.

Bang for buck, I'd recommend the CoolScan V (LS-50) and VueScan. The big plus about VueScan is that it enables you to do multi-scanning on scanners whose drivers don't normally support it. This improves dynamic range in the shadows on slides, and highlights on negs.
 

David White

New member
You didn't really say what size film you will be scanning. If it is all 35mm, the 5000 ED would probably be fine. However, there is a third party wet mount adapter available for the 9000 ED which could improve your results even more.

I second the recommendation for SilverFast. It is very full-featured and will give you excellent results.
 

dseelig

New member
scanning

Teh nikon 5000 really pronounces dust or and any bw imperfections the coolscan 8000 or 9000 are much better. David
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I still think that for fiim scanning, the new Epson flat bed scanner, which can have a wet mount, is remarkable and deserves consideration.

None of the OD claims are valid in scanners below $10,000. There is no O.D. of 4.0 obtainable. In practice, like the dissing of certain lenses, we have disregarded the advances of inexpensive flatbed scanners which now make more sense than most popular dedicated scanners in the under $5,000 range.

For almost all purposes, the flatbed will perform perfectly. If once in a while a picture needs more, a commercial scan is the way to go.

My feeling now is that the Epson 750 Pro for under $800 is probably the best deal out there!

Asher
 
Asher Kelman said:
I still think that for fiim scanning, the new Epson flat bed scanner, which can have a wet mount, is remarkable and deserves consideration.

Asher, would you agree that a separate Scanner topic might be more justified than just an occasional thread in the Layback-Cafe? I do realise that it won't be the most frequented topic on OPF, but still I think it deserves a more dedicated space for those seeking feedback on the topic of scanning.

For a general purpose scanner, the Epson 750 seems to offer an attractive value/money ratio. I've not tested it personally yet, but I might purchase and evaluate one. That evaluation would involve basic criteria like actual (rather than advertized sampling density) resolution, and device color gamut determination.

On the subject of resolution, there are probably a few things that can be noted, like optimal sharpening/deconvolution approaches, that would justify some dedication/debate.

Bart
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Bart,

I'd love a scanner forum if it is supported.

It would not take me long to set it up. I have been thinking of combining certain fora. Still, scanning is an important subject that does not fit in with other fora very easily.

Who else wants a separate forum for discussion of scanners and technic?

Asher
 

Scott B. Hughes

New member
I hope to replace the old Polaroid 35 soon. It's been idle for five six years.

I will be active, reading and researching until I purchase a scanner, after that I will be beyond research and being a user.

This topic continues to be of interest to folks that realize that they have loads of processed film. This realization occurrs a few years after switching to digital capture. And lots of people are still shooting film.

Things change, so can section topics.

Personally, I want to scan/file some color and B&W 35mm/2 1/4 negs, and a load of KM25 slides. End result is photographic prints, 20" wide. Is that realistic from the scanners discussed here?

A flatbed would be an added bonus as I have a few boxes of 4x5 negs.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
If people were serious on scanning, we could make some standard 35mm negatives and chromes as a package which we could duplicate and people would scan the film and show the 100% crops of certain features.

Then we'd be talking apples and apples.

Asher
 

Ben Rubinstein

pro member
unfortunately the current state of affordable dedicated film scanners (i.e. not the imacons) leaves so much to be desired with only one manufacturer bothering with dedicated scanners (nikon) and rather unlikely to bring out newer models that I had to abandon my idea of a film street shooting rig (Contax G2-what a wonderful camera!) and was at a loss of what to do for an extensive 5 year projects that I'm about to embark on, until the advent of the Pentax K10D with the 3 pancake primes. I have to admit that I would still have loved that G2. The ability to program in the hyperfocal distance and change from AF to hyperfocal at the touch of a switch - pure genius!
 
Ben: I think a Lot of people are going to Love the Pentax K10D for many different reason, Myself Its Fully Weather sealed and cost less than My EOS20D did?[Grr] and even if Pentax Had Brought it for 1,200.00 dollars Its still a steal with that Feature.Let alone adding in the other features!
 

Erik DeBill

New member
If people were serious on scanning, we could make some standard 35mm negatives and chromes as a package which we could duplicate and people would scan the film and show the 100% crops of certain features.

Then we'd be talking apples and apples.

I think I'm going to be in the market for a scanner again soon, and this would be nice (subbing 4x5 film for the 35mm, of course). But also a lot of work.

You'd have to take into account scanner hardware, host computer system, scanner software and operator skill. At the very least I can attest to getting very different results with my Scanjet 4950 depending on whether I use the HP Scan Pro software or VueScan, scan at 1200dpi or 4800dpi, and in the case of VueScan even what area I select when I do the scan changes the results quite a bit - it seems to enforce an auto levels adjustment. And it's entirely possible that I could get better scans out of everything if I was more skilled (I effectively did my first scan 10 weeks ago).

In other words, I'd hesitate to take the results too seriously if all the tests weren't done by the same person or persons.
 
Bart,

I'd love a scanner forum if it is supported.

It would not take me long to set it up. I have been thinking of combining certain fora. Still, scanning is an important subject that does not fit in with other fora very easily.

Who else wants a separate forum for discussion of scanners and technic?

Asher


:: You have my vote!!! ::

There is a lot to do and plenty to learn regardless of Digital Cameras. Scanners will have their definite niche on the market for at least another 10 years or so, the problem is that they are getting more expensive although in my view they could be considered a long term investment, unlike the digital cameras.

My Choices: ICG Superb but very, very expensive, Hasselblad/Imacon X5 probably the one I will buy unless I find a partners to split the investment for the ICG.



Anyone interested?
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Ilija,

What's the economics for you that justifies some $20,000 for a film scanner when that's pretty well digital back prices and you are thinking of that anyway?

What's there about film that for you makes a scanner of such cost worth spending so much as opposed to a good $700 Epson flatbed or sending out the occaisional one for high res scans?

Do you have a business that supports this and work that demands film?

Asher
 

StuartRae

New member
If you're considering a transparency scanner (negative and slide) it may be worth looking at one which implements ICE.
ICE is a hardware/software solution to dust and scratch, which works by doing a scan pass in infra-red which passes through the film emulsion but identifies the dust and scratches. Software in the driver can then remove them.

Here is an example using an old negative I found loose in the bottom of a box. No merit in the photo, but a good demonstration of ICE.

Regards,

Stuart
 
Last edited:
Hi Ilija,

What's the economics for you that justifies some $20,000 for a film scanner when that's pretty well digital back prices and you are thinking of that anyway?

What's there about film that for you makes a scanner of such cost worth spending so much as opposed to a good $700 Epson flatbed or sending out the occaisional one for high res scans?

Do you have a business that supports this and work that demands film?

Asher

Well, pretty easy. I can spend 20,000 to 30,000 on Digital Back and happily never worry
about the business part of it, but optionally with the scanner I could continue to shoot 6x17, 4x5, 8x10,
plus share the scanner among ourselves/partners with similar ideas/equipment/needs
and together support the investment entirely without a drop of any pressure.

Bottom line is this, there are photographers spending/waisting money on scanning services including myself. I can't
tell you number of times I thought about purchasing the scanner, but I have to admit I can't do it my self
for many reasons and I'm sure I'm not alone. However, if there was a number of people interested, then
it becomes like a Photographers Cafe where we can socialize, share ideas, view all the DVD video instructions, share tips, even
create our own episodes based on our experience. It depends if you are Mr.Digital or Mr. Photographer first. I can only speak
for my self & as long as it's about pushing photography to it's limits, I'm IN.

Any thoughts on Seitz 6x17 Digital? I love the idea of going Digital 6x17FF but even if I sold my Linhof 6x17, we are talking about 30,000
so unfortunately that is not the option, perhaps in future everybody will have one.

REGARDS
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
If you're considering a transparency scanner (negative and slide) it may be worth looking at one which implements ICE.
ICE is a hardware/software solution to dust and scratch, which works by doing a scan pass in infra-red which passes through the film emulsion but identifies the dust and scratches. Software in the driver can then remove them.

Here is an example using an old negative I found loose in the bottom of a box. No merit in the photo, but a good demonstration of ICE.

Regards,

Stuart

I like the demo so much that I am posting your images. I also am impressed by mouse over before and afters. I wonder whether we can have it here too?

No ice:

006-no-ICE.jpg



Now the ICE processwed shot with the IR having setected the damage to the plastic film:


006.jpg


Now the Imaccon really does this automatically too.

I wonder though whether or not there's loss of resolution with the subtraction so that ICE might not always be too good to use?

Very Impressive!

Now can one use a 6 X17 film on an Imacon?

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Oh, the Seitz,

Sure I'd love to have one.

For that money one can get a large format 4x5" camera with swings and tilts like the Ebony, a luxury, I know (Will Thompson chose the more economical Carbon Fiber (=plastic he says :) ) Toyo and loves it ).

One could add a sliding Digital Back.

However, if the Seitz was before me, I'd grab it, if I could carry it!

Asher
 
If you're considering a transparency scanner (negative and slide) it may be worth looking at one which implements ICE.
ICE is a hardware/software solution to dust and scratch, which works by doing a scan pass in infra-red which passes through the film emulsion but identifies the dust and scratches. Software in the driver can then remove them.

Here is an example using an old negative I found loose in the bottom of a box. No merit in the photo, but a good demonstration of ICE.

Regards,

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

Appreciate the info. I need the scanner for 4x5, 6x17 and Hasselblad/Imacon X5 does something similar, so I will see. Unfortunately X5 does not cover 8x10 according to the info I received.


REGARDS
 
Now the Imaccon really does this automatically too.

I wonder though whether or not there's loss of resolution with the subtraction so that ICE might not always be too good to use?

Very Impressive!

Now can one use a 6 X17 film on an Imacon?

Asher

Asher

Hasselblad/Imacon X5 does cover 6x17 according to the info I received.

REGARDS
 
Oh, the Seitz,

Sure I'd love to have one.

Asher

Now that's my friend.


Oh, the Seitz,

For that money one can get a large format 4x5" camera with swings and tilts like the Ebony, a luxury, I know (Will Thompson chose the more economical Carbon Fiber (=plastic he says :) ) Toyo and loves it ).

Asher

You read my mind.

Oh, the Seitz,

One could add a sliding Digital Back.

Asher

Already talking to a Kapture Group representative about the QuadStitch 4x5 View Camera Sliding Back Adapter which is really a great idea, I will see.
 
I wonder though whether or not there's loss of resolution with the subtraction so that ICE might not always be too good to use?

There are basically two types of ICE implementation. One uses an additional IR exposure, which is therefore unaffected by the RGB exposures, the other exposes RGB and RGBI, and the difference is taken as the IR defect mask.

Theoretically that would give the same result, except for noise. However, if a single scan pass and multiple exposure mode is used, then there will be hardly any effect on the undamaged areas. They will be ignored by the "inpainting" process, because the photon + electronic noise in both exposure sets is reduced by averaging the exposures in each set.

The character of the lightsource, collimated or diffuse, also has an effect on the visibility of defects (dirt/scratches) and graininess.

Bart
 

John Robson

New member
If you're considering a transparency scanner (negative and slide) it may be worth looking at one which implements ICE.
ICE is a hardware/software solution to dust and scratch, which works by doing a scan pass in infra-red which passes through the film emulsion but identifies the dust and scratches. Software in the driver can then remove them.

I definitely agree with the above poster, get a scanner with ICE. I have a Minolta Dual scan IV which doesn't have ICE and I spend a lot of time removing dust spots and scratches which I can't even see on the negatives, so much so that I hardly ever use it now. I just take what I want scanned to a friend who has a Nikon scanner 5000 and they come back spotless.
John
 
Top