PDA

View Full Version : Flatbed or Film scanner



Larry Kalajainen
12-Apr-2007, 05:45
While I will continue to print my B&W work in a wet darkroom as long as I can get my preferred films and papers, I am going to move to digital for my color work. I'll continue to shoot color transparency or negative film, but will scan it for printing. I work almost exclusively in medium and large format now.

I also have a very large archive of 35mm slides from many years ago, which I want to scan, so that I can print them or have them available for digital slide shows.

Question is, which scanner would I be happiest with-- a flatbed like the Epson V-700 or a film scanner like the Nikon Coolscan 9000? I don't need the scanner for my 4X5 work, since I don't shoot 4X5 color, only B&W. I do need to be able to scan my medium format work, however.

Larry

Ron Marshall
12-Apr-2007, 06:14
Since you won't scan sheet film, go for a film scanner, the results with 35mm and roll film will be much better. I have an Epson 4990, for sharp high quality prints about a three times enlargement is all that is possible. Which is fine for me for 4x5 and 5x7, but obviously not so great for 35mm. From what others have said the 700/750 is about the same.

I have made 5x7 prints from 35mm using the 4990, but only with subjects where sharpness is not important, as they are noticably softer.

You might be able to find a good deal on a factory refurb film scanner.

Walter Calahan
12-Apr-2007, 06:28
For 35mm only, get the Nikon 5000. Less expensive than the 9000 which is designed to scan medium format, but gives the same results as the 5000 for 35mm. Plus you can add a stack loader to the 5000 to do volume scanning of you 35mm collection.

Eric Brody
12-Apr-2007, 06:34
I agree with Ron that flatbeds are inadequate for quality scans from 35mm film. I formerly used a Nikon LS-40, a 2900 dpi 35mm only film scanner that gave me quite excellent results to 11x14. I recently sold it because I now use a digital SLR for small format and a Nikon 9000 scanner for MF film.

In a word, if you do not need to scan 4x5, the Nikon 9000 gives the highest quality for the investment. It will easily surpass any consumer flatbed (the Epsons and Microteks) for 35mm and does a terrific job with MF. My scans with it look sharper, before any unsharp masking, than my best darkroom prints. I do use the glass carrier with the 9000.

Good luck with your decision.

Eric

Gene McCluney
12-Apr-2007, 17:47
I can highly recommend the Nikon Supercoolscan 9000ed, but get the glass film carrier. You must get a glass carrier with Nikon scanners for full potential.

Larry Kalajainen
13-Apr-2007, 07:34
I agree with Ron that flatbeds are inadequate for quality scans from 35mm film. I formerly used a Nikon LS-40, a 2900 dpi 35mm only film scanner that gave me quite excellent results to 11x14. I recently sold it because I now use a digital SLR for small format and a Nikon 9000 scanner for MF film.

In a word, if you do not need to scan 4x5, the Nikon 9000 gives the highest quality for the investment. It will easily surpass any consumer flatbed (the Epsons and Microteks) for 35mm and does a terrific job with MF. My scans with it look sharper, before any unsharp masking, than my best darkroom prints. I do use the glass carrier with the 9000.

Good luck with your decision.

Eric

Thanks everyone for the advice. Now all I have to do is convince my wife that we should sell her jewelry to buy the scanner. :D

Larry

Ben Chase
13-Apr-2007, 21:52
Question is, which scanner would I be happiest with-- a flatbed like the Epson V-700 or a film scanner like the Nikon Coolscan 9000? I don't need the scanner for my 4X5 work, since I don't shoot 4X5 color, only B&W. I do need to be able to scan my medium format work, however.

Larry

Before I made the jump (took the plunge?) into LF, I was an avid Mamiya RZ 67 shooter. I purchased the 9000 about 4-5 months after it was released for $1799 and I have to say that I was extremely happy with the scanner. I put hundreds of scans through it, and never had any real problem. This is probably the most affordable quality MF scanner short of an Imacon.

Here are some positives to keep in mind:

- If you feel like investing the time, there is a wet-mount kit for this scanner using Kami fluid. I haven't done this personally, but I would certainly have done this instead of purchasing the rotating glass holder if I had the chance to do this again.

- The resale on this scanner is outstanding if you keep all of the original packing materials. I sold mine for $1525 after over a year and a half of use. Sure beats renting :)

Now for the negatives:

- If you do multipass scanning at max resolution (which I always did at 2x-4x and recommend you do the same), the scanning will take a long time.
- Yep, it's expensive, but if quality is what your after - this gets you in that direction.

Cheers,

Ben C

neil poulsen
14-Apr-2007, 06:31
Thanks everyone for the advice. Now all I have to do is convince my wife that we should sell her jewelry to buy the scanner. :D
Larry

Take pictures of the jewelry, so that she'll have a good remembrance or it.

Ben Chase
15-Apr-2007, 11:15
Take pictures of the jewelry, so that she'll have a good remembrance or it.

Now THAT is funny. :)