Scanner for 8x10 Negatives

[markimark]

I have been searching for a scanner that can scan 8x10 negatives and color transparencies. I am an archivist and will be needing to transfer these old negatives to my computer. I have found the epson 750 as an option but hope to gain more insight and possibly find a cheaper alternative.
What scanners can scan 8x10 negatives and color transparencies?

[Regular Rod]

The EPSON V700 is less money than the V750 and scans 8x10 negatives and colour transparencies. I've had one for a couple of years and it is easy to use, producing good quality results.

RR

[wiggywag]

You can get a 8x10 kit for epson v700 from Scan Science to get the best out of you scanner.

http://scanscience.com/Pages/MyScanner/B-FlatBeds/1-V7-Std.html

[Ari]

The Epson 4990 is also a very cheap alternative, costing between $50-$100 used these days.

[Jim Noel]

I have never seen an Epson scaner which would do a decent job wtih negatives.
I use a Microtek i900 which scans film beneath the bed. There is no glass between the film and the scanner light, thus more accuracy and sharpness. These are not available any longer, but Microtek does sell an equivalent. I have forgotten the new name for the company. You might be able to find an i900 or its big brother the i1800 used.

[Jerry Bodine]

I'd send a PM (private message) to Lenny Eiger if I were you. I'm sure his experience would be a big help.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/member.php?5985-Lenny-Eiger

[Heroique]

The Epson 4990 is also a very cheap alternative, costing between $50-$100 used these days.

I’ve been working with a refurbished 4990 for many years now, and when it dies, I will get another if I see one appear on the Epson Clearance site. However, it’s rare they pop up there anymore. You have to keep an eye on the site, and click “purchase” the moment one appears, because they disappear so fast. To be sure, I’ve been so happy with my 4990 – all my scanned negatives & transparencies here are from this machine – that I might purchase another in advance of this one’s eventual demise.

[Lenny Eiger]

It all depends what you are trying to get out of it....

I'd be glad to help.

Lenny

[C_Remington]

I think someone is selling a nice used V700 here on the site.

:rolleyes:

[LF_rookie_to_be]

Scanmate 3000 drum scanner works well for me. Recently I did a four-section scan of 8x10 Efke @2800dpi/16-bit and it stitched pixel-perfect to a 3+ GB file.

[markimark]

It all depends what you are trying to get out of it....

I'd be glad to help.

Lenny

Well I am archiving color transparencies and negatives ranging from regular 35mm to 8x10. I need good quality and it must be easily transferred to portfolio. I will be scanning tens of thousands of photos, transparencies, and negtives.

[markimark]

It all depends what you are trying to get out of it....

I'd be glad to help.

Lenny

Also will getting a refurbished model be a trade off for quality and or longevity.

[vinny]

Any guy who owns/operates a drum scanner is going to recommend a drum scanner. Would it be affordable to drum scan all your stuff? No. Not sure how Lenny would help here.
I doubt any epson product (or any scanner) will perform thousands of scans without some sort of maintainance/ issue. You want "good" quality without spending $$$. The epson will give you that, not great quality. Save some money, you'll probably be replacing parts/bulbs too. Epson's are made of plastic.

[Jim Andrada]

Or just buy 2 or 3 scanners (or more)

Realistically I doubt you will be able to scan tens of thousands of images unless it is just rough scanning of reflective material like pages of text - I figure it takes about 30 minutes per image to get it reasonably close of which maybe 5 minutes is actual scanning time (8 x 10 is a lot more) - you have to mount the material and remove the material and clean up or otherwise edit the scan - color correction in the case of slides/negs - heck an hour isn't adequate in a lot of, or even most, cases.

So tens of thousands would be many thousands of hours - or maybe years of full time work.

[kgm]

I've been using a Microtek 1800f for about 7-8 years now. The model is discontinued, but there are current equivalents, and I suspect that you'll find 1800f's for sale occasionally. It doesn't have the resolution of an Epson 700 or 750, but 1800 ppi for an 8x10 is pretty good. As Jim Noel said, Microtek has its film scanning bed below the glass. For 8x10, the film needs to be taped to a glass carrier, but the scanner light is above the film and the glass. All other film formats have glassless carriers. I just scan 8x10 and 4x5 with it. It's capable of scanning medium and 35mm film, as well, but I use a dedicated film scanner for that. 1800 ppi is a little low for roll film.

I've used Microtek, SilverFast, and VueScan software with the scanner, and all worked well. Microtek and Silverfast have not updated their software for newer Windows OSs, but VueScan covers nearly all scanners for all of them, and that's what I'm using now. It's very simple to use and I'm happy with the quality of the scans.

[bob carnie]

Tens of thousands of scans , are you kidding me, you are quibbling on hundreds of dollars?

You are talking years of work, I can only think you are trolling or completely out to lunch.

If you are neither then I would suggest the highest quality of flat bed scanner with batch processing capablities.
I have an Epson 10000xl that has an 12inch by 17 inch template and it can batch scans. I do not use it for high end capture but for the purposes of archiving its the right type of unit.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Following up on Jim Andrada's good advice: with respect, presuming they are continuous tone and not just text, you won't be scanning tens of thousands of images. May I suggest a good analysis of the project. Include set-up, labeling, metadata, scanning time, storage time, storage management, cataloging and retrieval, and more indirect costs than I care to list. Try different scenarios such as a low-grade (facsimile) quality, then variations of quality.

[Andrew O'Neill]

There is an Epson V700 for sale on the Epson clearance site...

http://www.epson.ca/cgi-bin/ceStore/BuyEpson/ccProductCategory.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=-13369

[Light Guru]

Tens of thousands of scans , are you kidding me, you are quibbling on hundreds of dollars?

You are talking years of work, I can only think you are trolling or completely out to lunch.

If you are neither then I would suggest the highest quality of flat bed scanner with batch processing capablities.
I have an Epson 10000xl that has an 12inch by 17 inch template and it can batch scans. I do not use it for high end capture but for the purposes of archiving its the right type of unit.

The Epson 10000xl scanner itself does not have batch processing capabilities, processing of the image files takes place after the scanning. The Epson 10000xl does have batch scanning abilities though just like every other flatbed scanner I have ever used. Batch scanning is where you select multiple items on the scan bed and have the scanner scan them each to their own file.

The Epson 10000xl is EXTREMELY slow when it comes to scanning slides and negatives. I use both a Epson 10000xl and Epson v750 at work and I always use the v750 for slides and negatives.

If you truly do have tens of thousands of to scan it truly is going to take you years. A few weeks ago I scanned about 50 8x10 glass plate negatives and it took about 5-6 hours on the v750.

[Jon Shiu]

You might want to research having a service like scancafe.com do some of it for you.

Jon

[bob carnie]

The 10000xl can scan multiple image size , in fact as many as you can fit on the bed, you marquee each image , set the contrast density, colour , and filesize, you hit the ALL button and the machine will scan them all . This will take time but I can assure you this works.

If the OP is serious and has thousands of slides and negs, I would then recommend the Front end of a Fuji Frontier with all the format holders without the processor , and I can lead he/her to a source for about $5000.00
We use this as well when clients bring in carosels of slides or binders of film, very fast and efficient with decent file size and colour correction and density capabilities.

Are we talking the same language now re batch scanning?.




The Epson 10000xl scanner itself does not have batch processing capabilities, processing of the image files takes place after the scanning. The Epson 10000xl does have batch scanning abilities though just like every other flatbed scanner I have ever used. Batch scanning is where you select multiple items on the scan bed and have the scanner scan them each to their own file.

[Light Guru]

The 10000xl can scan multiple image size , in fact as many as you can fit on the bed, you marquee each image , set the contrast density, colour , and filesize, you hit the ALL button and the machine will scan them all . This will take time but I can assure you this works.

Are we talking the same language now re batch scanning?.

Yes that's what I was referring to for batch scanning.

I love the large scanning bed of the 10000xl it is just really slow.

[Lenny Eiger]

Any guy who owns/operates a drum scanner is going to recommend a drum scanner. Would it be affordable to drum scan all your stuff? No. Not sure how Lenny would help here.

I was offering to talk to this fellow and give him some advice. I am quite capable of suggesting something to someone that does not include my services. I do it often.

If there are tens of thousands of scans, you don't need just a scanner, you need a scanning department. I agree with Bob, you can't quibble on hundreds of dollars for a project like this. Frankly, I wouldn't use any scanner made by Epson, which are plastic and will not last to the end of the task - you might need ten of them. Aztek did make a scanner called a Plateau, which was a high end scanner with a 18x24 bed. This might be something that would work, and be a balance between quality and speed.

It is true that I often think a drum scanner is more worth it in the long run. It doesn't take that much longer and I don't like the scans that come from Epson scanners. You can load up a lot of 35mm's on a single drum, and if you had two scanners, and 3-4 drums (and 8 hands), you could rock... but it is still too large a project to knock off in a few months, no matter how you do it.

Of course, as has been discussed here many times before, there are also considerable storage (and backup) concerns.

I have a similar issue with a lot of photographers who want to convert their entire portfolio and want me to quote a price for 200-500 images. I always tell them to edit, and cut down the numbers so that they spend money only on the best images. 200 is a lot of pieces of film to do, and scanning is expensive, be it in time or hard-earned dollars. I have done 200 only once and it took me months...

Lenny

[Jim Andrada]

And as others have said and Lenny has emphasized, the scanning is just the beginning of the process. A digital archive is not a simple thing - little details arise such as how it can be accessed in say 50 or 100 years after all current technology is history.

[Brian Ellis]

I have never seen an Epson scaner which would do a decent job wtih negatives.
I use a Microtek i900 which scans film beneath the bed. There is no glass between the film and the scanner light, thus more accuracy and sharpness. These are not available any longer, but Microtek does sell an equivalent. I have forgotten the new name for the company. You might be able to find an i900 or its big brother the i1800 used.

If you've never seen an Epson scanner that does a decent job with negatives, and if you're ever in my area, I'll be glad to show you my Epson 4990 so you will have seen at least one.

[massimodec]

I was offering to talk to this fellow and give him some advice. .....

... Aztek did make a scanner called a Plateau, which was a high end scanner with a 18x24 bed. This might be something that would work, and be a balance between quality and speed....

Lenny


I appreciate your advice and the way you did it.

I am having the same problem, since labs are not working on film anymore.
BTW this Aztek Plateau seems not in production anymore...

But the problem is the "philosophy" behind scanning: if we need a digital substitute of the negative, we should scan it to highest level and resolution, to reach a good imaging of the single grain of the film: a hard copy of the object, to save it for posterity.

If we need some proof of the images, for reference and filing, even pretty good to have "magazine" prints, it could be done also at home, with good meta data setting, otherwise you will not find anything...

Any other pretty good semi-pro scanning machine ?

[cabbiinc]

HP makes the Scanjet G4050 which will scan up to 8x10, but it's not worth the effort if you want too good of quality out of it.