cheapest way to scan negatives?

[marshallarts]

Not sure where the most appropriate place is for me to ask this. I've recently bought an old Graflex 4x5 and for cost reasons want to develop at home and scan the negatives. All I have is a Canon Pixma MP620 printer with flatbed scanner. I'm not about to go out and purchase an expensive film scanner. I realize this printer isn't ideal for making prints. I live in NYC and will send files to Adorama for quality prints. But for proofing and messing around I would like to save money simply scanning the prints vs making proofs -- maybe as I learn how to develop I'll try out making simple proofs but for now I need to learn before I can run.

Is it possible to scan negatives in this way? Does the light source need to come from the other side of the scanner? I've been trying to find the appropriate way to scan negatives on flatbeds but haven't found what I'm looking for.

What is the cheapest solution for getting negatives on the computer

[Bill Burk]

If you have a digital camera with a macro lens, put the film on a lightbox and shoot it.

[Gem Singer]

Do you have a cell phone with a built-in camera?

Place the negatives on a light box, or a piece of frosted glass with the light coming from behind, and photograph them with your cell phone.

Transfer the images to your computer and print with your printer.

You said "the cheapest way", not the "best" way.

Bite the bullet and purchase a flatbed photo scanner. To save money, look for a used Epson 4990.

[jnantz]

if the film is thin enough you can put it on the glass
and a white sheet of paper on top and make believe it is a print.
i have done this mainly with 5x7 film and it works OK in a pinch.

[marshallarts]

If you have a digital camera with a macro lens, put the film on a lightbox and shoot it.

Not a bad idea.

....photograph them with your cell phone....
look for a used Epson 4990.

I think Bill was a little more helpful in suggesting a digital camera (I own a 21MP 5DmkII) instead of a crappy ~2MP cell phone camera, unless you're emphasizing the impracticality of this method or feel this offers an interesting aesthetic. I guess I did say "cheapest method"--shoe in mouth. The Epson is a good suggestion, I see it's been replaced by the V700. Does taking photos of a negative with a digital camera offer comparable results to scanning with this Epson?

if the film is thin enough you can put it on the glass
and a white sheet of paper on top and make believe it is a print.
i have done this mainly with 5x7 film and it works OK in a pinch.

I've heard this method doesn't work but have no idea. The flatbed ceiling is white anyhow, wouldn't need a white sheet of paper. But I thought the idea was to prevent reflections from the underside of the film.

I honestly don't know what the difference is between these scanning methods. Should the light always come from the top? Why? Are modern flatbed scanners able to turn off the underlight to be used with a light source from the top?

I used to have a real old HP scanner that came with a transparancy lightbox type unit to put over negatives. It ended up breaking awhile back and never even used that feature. Is this the sort of device I need or could I make do with a typical flatbed scanner?

[Thebes]

Would you consider a CHEAP film scanner? I just picked up an Epson 4490, PITA to use because I have to arrange my neg on some small nylon washers I use for spacers, scan a 3" swath of it, then move it, scan again, and stitch it. I also place something in the top left to trick the scanner into scanning transparencies without a holder. My setup cost a bit over a hundred bucks, while it is not nice it works and I get plenty of resolution... just the workflow is slow and occasionally results in cussing. I'm stitching in photoshop cs3, but I imagine there is some way of doing it with the Gimp (free and goodstuff if you are poor).

A 4990 would be a lot better. I'm suggesting this as a good alternative to a lightbox and macro lens, not as an alternative to an Epson 700 or 4990 which I presume are out of your price range.

No, a dslr photo of your negative is nowhere close to the information you will get from a scanner.

[venchka]

The Epson V-700/V-750M twins are newer than the Epson 4990. The "improvement" is hard to see. If a complete, low mileage, cheap 4990 drops in your lap take it.

[Jon Shiu]

Other older (cheaper) Epson scanners with good film scanning capabilities are the 4870 model and the 3200.

Jon

[Frank Petronio]

The Epson 4990 sells refurbed or used for around $200 and it will scan 8x10 or you can do quick and dirty four 4x5s laid on the platen (no holder). It's more or less the same guts as the current 700-series.

If you go back in time with an older Epson, Microtek, or even an Agfa flatbed, besides basic functionality and compatibility (SCSI interfaces, older operating systems...) look for at least a 4x5 transparency area, ie the lightbox built into the top lid. 8x10 will always be better.

[twiztedtony]

if the film is thin enough you can put it on the glass
and a white sheet of paper on top and make believe it is a print.
i have done this mainly with 5x7 film and it works OK in a pinch.

This looks like the cheepest way here!
I usually use 5x7 but
i lke 8x11 because then u can use that foto and edit it without the worry of
distortion..