1. Welcome to Photography Forum. Our photography community!

    Photography-forum is dedicated to those who have passion, desire and love of photography and want to improve their photographic technique. It doesn't matter what you photograph, landscapes, weddings, portraits or your photographic experience, it's about learning and loving what we do. Photography!

    If you want learn and expand your photography skills then there is one place to do it Photography Forum !!!

    You are viewing photography-forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most forums and enjoy other features. By joining our free community you will be able to post photographs for critique, join in the monthly photography competitions, respond to polls, upload content and enjoy many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please join Photography Forum.

    If you have any problems please contact us.

    The Photography-Forum Team
    Dismiss Notice
  2. PLEASE SEE RULES BEFORE POSTING LINKS
    Click here to see Forum Rules

Looking for 35mm Film Scanner

Discussion in 'Film and Vintage Forum' started by Fixit, Mar 8, 2018.

  1. Fixit

    Fixit Member

    Messages:
    8
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    I'm looking to buy a scanner for scanning 35 mm color negatives and slides. I probably have a thousand I'd like to convert to digital files. I like picture quality and sharpness but I doubt any of my old slides have more than 10 MP of information. It looks like I can go with a flat bed scanner that will scan film like the Epson V600, V550 or CanoScan 9000F MKII and those seem to get the most serious attention by reviewers. I've read that no matter what the dots per inch is on these scanners, they will only capture about 1800-2000 dpi which translates to 4 or 5 MP on 35 mm format. Then, there are the very inexpensive dedicated film scanners like the Ivation IVAFS22 found here:
    (Link deleted)
    This has a 14MP sensor.
    1. Do these dedicated, inexpensive film only scanners have a similar resolution limitation as the flat beds I mentioned?
    2. Will they really capture more clarity than the flatbeds?
    Thanks for reading. I hope someone can shed some lite on this as I'm at a loss as to which scanner type is better for me given that I only need to scan 35 mm film and not prints.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 8, 2018
  2. Newbandit

    Newbandit Always on

    Messages:
    1,005
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    This is the route I intend to use. Your DSLR is an ideal film scanner with pretty hi res available depending on your camera. Check out youtube, this is one example of how to do it.

    This is a 6x7 slide I took about 20 years ago that I copied with my D800. It looks better in PS than on here slide scan web.jpg
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2018
    Mike Singh likes this.
  3. BriPriUK

    BriPriUK Member

    Messages:
    23
    Edit my images ?:
    No
    I use the same DSLR method as the video, but I use an enlarger negative carrier on top of the lightbox. It's much easier to use and readily available on Ebay, it doesn't matter which enlarger it was made for.
    The cheap scanners you mention are not really good enough for serious work, but are fine for cataloging and sorting.

    Brian
     
    Newbandit likes this.
  4. gaelldew

    gaelldew Always on

    Messages:
    6,168
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    @BriPriUK I did mine the cheap way, cut a hole in a cereal box made a holder to fit the slides and glued to the box. Put a lamp behind with a daylight bulb in it and set the camera level and started shooting took a while as I had so many boxes, sorry cant remember which lens I used though.
     
  5. Jeff Worsnop

    Jeff Worsnop Member

    Messages:
    40
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    I use an enlarger with copy arm ( saved when film equipment ditched ) and Oly E M10 with Sigma 60mm with cheap extension tube from Ebay. The film is held in a simple home made wooden frame above an IPad with white light from an app called lightroom that provides an adjustable rectangle for consistent illumination. There needs to be seperation between the screen and film to avoid having the screen pixels in focus. Beware of dust on the film or slide which shows up very sharply. Something along these lines works well but is not a quick process.
    Jeff
    PS Beware light sources in the room that might show up on your images
     
    Mike Singh likes this.
  6. Tenorplayer

    Tenorplayer Always on Premium Member

    Messages:
    21,148
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    I used to have a slide copier lens ( now loaned out and subsequently lost ) which fitted to the cam Andy like a regular lens, with a white diffuser in front of the slide holder, which worked well with either daylight or a flash on a white wall. You could zoom and crop with it too.http://www.eos-magazine.com/articles/viewfinder/slidecopying.html
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2018
    Mike Singh likes this.
  7. mini_mad

    mini_mad Always on

    Messages:
    1,636
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    You cant go too far wrong with a good flatbed, Epson 4490, V500 - V650
     
  8. Fixit

    Fixit Member

    Messages:
    8
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    There is a class of inexpensive scanners that are pretty much dedicated to 35mm slides and negatives. An example is "Ivation IVAFS22" which you can do a search on. Anybody know if these are worth looking at? How will it compare to something such as the V600 for 35mm film?
     
  9. Phill104

    Phill104 Always on Premium Member

    Messages:
    1,406
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    I wish I hadn’t thrown out my canonscan film scanner.
     
  10. Andy 0

    Andy 0 Always on Premium Member

    Messages:
    2,383
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    Sh1te in a word.

    DSLR scanning is the best of bad bunch, but it's still pretty dire. It's far from acceptable for decent results though.

    I'm far from the sort of tedious member who writes pages about optics and technical minutae, but these Maplin type scanners are unacceptably poor.

    They are a cheap white-label POS Chinese digital camera in a box.

    Spend the proper money if you can, otherwise pay a lab to use industry gear. You can have a lot of drum scans run in a dust free lab for the price of a mediocre scanner.

    Scanning at home is not an easy process, you can bank on around 6 months of full time work to scan in a few thousand 35mm frames.

    I went down this route with the V850 and regretted every single penny I spent on it.

    If you have pets, forget scanning at home.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2018
  11. mini_mad

    mini_mad Always on

    Messages:
    1,636
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    Fixit, where abouts are you. I am waiting for a friend to accept or reject first refusal on a good scanner, if they dont go for it I will give you 2nd refusal.
     
    Andy 0 likes this.
  12. Fixit

    Fixit Member

    Messages:
    8
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    I just added it to my profile so you can click on my screen name and see it.
     
  13. kelvinjouhar

    kelvinjouhar Member

    Messages:
    7
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    The best scanner for 35mm slides and negatives which is not a professional drum scanner is the Nikon Super Coolscan 5000. They can still be found occasionally second-hand. If you have a lot of slides to do then the attachment that allows consecutive scanning of up to 50 slides is worth getting as well.
     
  14. Bob Burns

    Bob Burns Member

    Messages:
    8
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    I use a CanoScan 9000F for converting negative film and, recently, several hundred slides I had stored away in a box. I was pretty satisfied with the results (using Canon's software). Of course, I'm working with snapshots of people, places, and things. Nothing particularly artistic in my photography. I just wanted to digitize stuff.

    The biggest drawback I've run into is the carriers which hold the film/slides. They're difficult to load and set up for a scan. There must be something better!! (Anyone know of one?)


    For me (a latent Luddite, I suppose), I still love shooting film, and I now have a pretty broad assortment of Takumar lenses for my old Vietnam era 35mm Pentax Spotmatic I used over there in the mid-1960's—lenses which I think are of great quality and which, because they are now old school, can be bought for a pittance. And, of course, dust is an ever present consideration. If you scan at high-res (like 1200 dpi), it takes time. Lots of it.

    I'm still learning how to use the scanner for film and I confess it's been a rocky process for this newbie but I'm willing to keep at it for now. In the end, I'm pretty sure that if you want really good quality positives, a lab should probably scan your film into TIFs or RAW files for future manipulation with PS and/or LR. YMMV.

    Bob
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2018
  15. Fixit

    Fixit Member

    Messages:
    8
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    Thanks for these great comments. How do you like the software with your 9000F?
    In an effort to get the biggest bang for the buck, this is my current thinking:
    Plustek 8100: This one goes on sale every now and then for about $260- Its dedicated 35mm film and is said to do a good job but takes time.
    Canoscan 9000F or Epson V600: These are flatbeds that are not dedicated to 35mm like the Plustek is. Not a big limitation for me since my interest is scanning my old 35mm slides and negatives. I've read in multiple places that these flatbeds are not optimized for the small format of 35mm and usable resolution is well below the claimed sensor resolution. That said, most users are happy with the 35mm results so who knows? The other thing that is unclear is which of the two is better for 35mm? Based on the number of user reviews it looks like the V600 is a bigger seller.

    Comments on the relative virtues of these three?
     
  16. Bob Burns

    Bob Burns Member

    Messages:
    8
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    I, like yourself, did the best research I could before I pulled the trigger on the CanoScan 9000F. BUT...my first purchase was an EPson V550 and for me, it stunk. I sold it on Ebay and given my budget, the CanoScan seemed right for me. It's been months since I bought the Canon but the truth of it is that you wind up holding you nose and just jump into the water.

    I did, and on a scale of 1-10, I'd say I'm at about a 6 or 7 in terms of satisfaction, but I quickly add that this is still a learning process for me. Yes, I'm having accuracy/resolution problems with 35mm film conversion but I'm hopeful that with more experience I can make it work for me. If not, well, it scans positives very well. [shrug!] The further truth iis that you can literally wear yourself out "researching" what to buy. As I said, as a last result having a lab convert the film to TIFs is an option.

    No matter what scanner, I knew dust would be a constant problem and with a can of compressed air, LR and/or PS it's easy to remove ad keep to a minimum.

    Software-wise, the Canon is easy to use. Lots of options with it.
     
  17. Fixit

    Fixit Member

    Messages:
    8
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    Thanks for the comments. What was the problem you had with the V550 relative to the CanoScan? I think the V550 shares the same scan engine as the V600 and the V600 seems to be a bit more popular based on the number of user reviews.
     
  18. Bob Burns

    Bob Burns Member

    Messages:
    8
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    Honestly can't remember specifically, but I can say that it was either because of the user friendliness or quality of the output. I just remember that I was hacked off from the beginning! :)
     
  19. Bob Burns

    Bob Burns Member

    Messages:
    8
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    Fixit....I just stumbled into this thing. Looks promising. No scanner needed....

     
    Fixit and Mike Singh like this.
  20. Fixit

    Fixit Member

    Messages:
    8
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    This is Wild!! Now I'm sure the only limit to the smart phone is our imagination! Thanks for posting this!
     
  21. Bob Burns

    Bob Burns Member

    Messages:
    8
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    I dropped in on my local lab a couple of days ago and chatted with them about the problem of getting good output from flat bed scanners generally. It came down to the fact, which I unaware of, that they offered a service to me in which they develop the film and scan it on some sort of hi-tech scanner (not flat bed) and them put the (positive) output into a TIF file and on to a disk. They scan (she said) at more than 3000 dpi, which is ridiculously high. I'd be more than satisfied at 1200 dpi. All the the price of $14.95 per roll of 24 exposures. They also do 120 film (medium format). I'm going to give them a try. My goal is to get high quality TIFs I can manipulate with LR and PS.

    Interesting stuff....
     
    Mike Singh likes this.
  22. Andy 0

    Andy 0 Always on Premium Member

    Messages:
    2,383
    Edit my images ?:
    Yes (recommended)
    As I always say, unless you really do desire ultimate control then getting a professional lab to do the grunt work is usually the way forward.

    I guess they'll be using a drum scanner, or one of the loading types where the film is fed through.

    To my UK brain that's £11.50 a roll, including development so that appears to be very good value.
     

Share This Page