Can one scanner be good for all film sizes?

[Frank Petronio]

As you move up the scale....

Most people use the Nikon Coolscan V (~$600) or 5000 (!$1200) (or out of production Konica Minolta Dual-Scan IV ~$300) film scanners for their 35mm work. The 5000 is obviously the best but the $300 Minolta is quite good, a bargain.

And an Epson 4990 (~$300 old model) or the current 700 or 750 (~$500+) model flatbeds for scanning large format film and plates. The 700-series is better built but the 4990 will produce just as good a scan.

The best consumer scanner for medium format is the $2200 Nikon Coolscan 9000 but people will use the Epsons if that is all they can afford.

You can also get an Imacon (Hasselblad) that will do 35mm to 5x7 film (not glass) starting at a few grand for used, they've been made for over a decade in several versions. They are generally better than the Epsons and Nikons.

And then there are the older high-end flatbeds made by Kodak/Creo/Scitex or Screen or Fuji, etc. and of course older high-end drum scanners made by many manufacturers. They are the best but the investment reflects that. Most people send out to services for high-end scans, $60-$100 per scan is not unusual.

They all operate on the same principals so I'd start with the Epson flatbed myself, and then invest more time and money as you gain experience. Lenny is right that people are silly about spending thousands on camera gear only to scan on a cheap scanner is pretty dumb, but don't dismiss the fact that you can do fine work with the basic gear.

Frankly if I were confronted with thousands of family slides (which I am actually... I am just too lazy to even address the issue) I'd definitely consider using a place like ScanCafe (which has a good reputation). The Nikon and Minolta scanners do fine but they are slow to use, and even if you're retired it can be really tedious. It might also help you avoid having to buy a film scanner.

As for the operating software for the Epson/Nikon/Minoltas (and some others) the choices are VueScan, SilverFast, or the bundled Manufacturer's software. They all have their pluses and minuses. I like the Epson software fine and used VueScan for the film scanners myself. None are perfect solutions.

[Tom Monego]

I am also a fan of the Epson V700/750. I feel the Professional section of the Epson software is very useable, the home and auto sections are truly worthless. In fact I have turned off all auto settings on this scanner, I feel this helps with results. Calibration is essential when setting a V700/750 up since you don't have a focus setting for the scanner. I have used a V700 for 35mm to 4x5, I am a little disappointed with the 2 1/4 results, think it is a combination of thin film and a lousy film carrier, the film droops in the carrier.
The V700 is better than a Nikon LS2000 I had before, I had actually just had it refurbed and cleaned at Nikon when I bought the V700 as a flat bed. The scanners were equal sharpness wise and the V700 didn't block shadow detail like the Nikon did. The LS5000 is a generation and a half better. The V700 is viable with 35mm. I have a 16x20 made from a scan of a sharp b&w 35 neg, the sharpness and grain (Tri-X) is preserved in the print. Again i was very careful in the scanner's set up.

Tom

[mrladewig]

I picked up a Nikon LS-4000 for about $300 a couple years ago. I've owned a 4990 for a while longer. Both are good scanners, but the Nikon easily bests the 4990 in prints from 35mm.

Not a particularly great scan/image, but it shows the difference between the two scanners. Looks a little gritty, but its fine printed.

This is the whole frame.


Crop from Epson 4990 file prepped for an 11X14 print - Fuji Pro 160S film


Crop from Nikon LS-4000 file prepped for an 11X14 print - same frame


If I found a good price on a Nikon LS-8000 or 9000, I'd probably shoot more MF film.

A drum scanner can offer the best quality across all film formats, but it comes with some operational downsides too.
1 - it costs money for each scan. There are consumables such as tape, oil and mylar needed. The oil is flammable, slightly expensive and shipping can be a pain.
2 - repairs can be very costly. A used scanner may only cost $1000, but a single repair requiring a trip to Aztek could easily cost more than $1000.
3 - it takes longer to set up each scan than it takes to load dry holders for a flatbed. If you just need a quick scan, a flatbed or dedicated film scanner would be easier.

These issues can apply to consumer flatbeds too. It is certainly possible to wetmount on a consumer flatbed and there are advantages in doing so, but its not required. For that matter you can drymount with tape on a drum too, it just takes away from the advantages of drum scanning.

If you are not regularly printing above 4X enlargement, a consumer flatbed does an excellent job. 4X6 prints from 35mm work really well. 16X20 from 4X5 prints really well. But with 35mm I often want a larger print, and in that situation a dedicated 35mm scanner like the Nikon or Minolta examples does a better job.

[mrladewig]

I'd also like to reiterate Frank's point about the Nikon or Minolta. Its slow to scan on these machines. Not because the scanner is slow on a given frame, but because it is only able to work one frame at a time. On a 4990, V700, etc... you can load up 24 frames of 35mm in the holder at once. Then do the image adjustments on each frame you want and fire off the scan while you do something else. (You can do this on a drum scanner too).

That said, on the Nikon if you did not want to make adjustments, there is a bulk slide feeder and a holder for entire rolls of film. If you leave it all on auto, then you can just let it work. But if you don't get it right in the scan, some things cannot be fixed in photoshop, so I tend to adjust as needed on each frame.

[Lenny Eiger]

I'd also like to reiterate Frank's point about the Nikon or Minolta. Its slow to scan on these machines. Not because the scanner is slow on a given frame, but because it is only able to work one frame at a time. On a 4990, V700, etc... you can load up 24 frames of 35mm in the holder at once.

I think what you may be pointing out here is that there are different ways people scan. I, for one, don't have any interest in speed. My interest is in superb quality, no compromise. If i was just cataloging it might be different. I am trying to get to a level of print that will equal or surpass a darkroom print or an alternative process print in very specific ways. That isn't an easy thing to do.

I need the quality, in my opinion, and this is opinion we are talking about. Let's be clear about that. Expediency is not the thing. I don't print an image in a single day. I take a lot of time to study it. It's very different from the way some others work, and their methods are just as valid...

I don't think one scanner can do it all - certainly not with as many different ways of working as there are.

Lenny