Can one scanner be good for all film sizes?

[W K Longcor]

Beginning with the usual disclaimer - if this has already been discussed, sorry, but ----

I have been involved with "old fashioned" film photography for many years, but the electronic stuff is all new to me. I am looking at getting something in the way of a scanner - probably used or refurb. I would like to be able to do up to 5x7 size films. I would need a flat bed unit, since I have some old glass plates I would like to scan.

I also have a HUGE collection of 35mm slides dating back to the 1950's that I would like to scan to give images to family members. I have heard some comment that a unit such as the Epson 4990 ( one of the models I have looked at) is NOT the best choice for the 35mm films, and that I should have a dedicated 35mm unit for those.

So, I am turning to those who really know -- any comments?:confused:

[memorris]

The Epson 700 and 750 are very good scanners that can handle different sizes of film. You might consider buying a new scanner that comes bundled with SilverFast AI. SilverFast is great software for scanning film or prints but the usual versions included with scanners is not so good and the Epson s/w is a waste of time.

With that scanner and s/w you should be able to produce some good quality scans.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I disagree with the disparagement of the epson software. But opinions differ.

There are scanning services which might be more appropriate for a "HUGE" collection of slides. Scanning is time consuming and if it is just snapshots, you may want to hand this off to someone else. As I understand it, places like scancafe will scan for about $0.30 a slide - but they do a first pass and let you select which ones you want. It can take about 5 minutes a scan to clean the film, scan, adjust and save then put the slide away. So that is about 12 slides an hour. If you have 5000 slides that could take you a month full-time sitting in front of the computer.

[Paul Kierstead]

I quite like my Epson V700, but its ability with 35mm is limited; you'll get ok 5x7's, maybe an 8x10, but no further IMO. The V700 tends to work well for larger sized negatives (up to a certain print size, of course, but pretty big).

Scanning is quite a bit of work, as pointed out. If I had a large back-catalog of 35mm to do, I'd farm it out. If you do use scancafe, it isn't that hard to come up with a coupon code for a discount off your first order.

[Heroique]

When I was in the market for a 4x5 scanner, I also had a need to scan 35mm film (color transparency slides and strips). My purposes were slightly different than yours – I didn’t have a “HUGE” collection of 35mm slides to scan for family & friends. Rather, my 4x5 scanner would be for an occasional 35mm scan. Nonetheless, I thought my comparisons below might be helpful for you…

Before my purchase, I was able to rent a few scanners for some rigorous, un-scientific testing. ;)

I rented the Epson 4990/v700/v750 and Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED.

(It was important for the test film to be properly exposed w/ excellent focus and fine detail. Otherwise, I noticed the scanning differences wouldn’t be as apparent. Besides, I didn’t have one of those fancy resolution charts. Also critical was the proper scanning height for each Epson scanner. The film was carefully dry mounted w/ “better scanning” holders, and Epson Scan or Nikon Scan was the software.)

Executive Summary: For 35mm transparencies, the Coolscan was the clear winner. No close-examined crops were needed to see the superiority. But I might add that if you weren’t being too critical, the 700/750 gave the Coolscan a run for its money – that is, up to their maximum “effective” resolution. Yes, they handled the 35mm film w/ pleasing-enough results w/ a careful scanning procedure to take advantage of their full abilities. Certainly fine-enough results for, say, a 5x7, or even an 8x10 print. And, the 700/750 seemed to enjoy the same level of improvement over the 4990, as the Coolscan enjoyed over them.

(For 4x5 film, the 4990 was, for my purposes, indistinguishable from the 700/750 – though the older 4990 rendered the image, esp. the colors, w/ an intangible, subtle quality that I liked better and seemed more “true” to the film. However, the newer models showed an ability to scan at a slightly higher resolution, which might become important for 11x14 or larger prints.)

:rolleyes:

[felix5616]

The IQ3 smart scanner does 5000DPI over the entire bed, has wet mount capability and can scan 40 35mm slides at once.

[Steven Barall]

The answer to your original question, as indicated by Felix, is yes but you have to spend enough money. There's no perfect $750 solution but that Epson scanner is a perfectly good. Good luck.

[Lenny Eiger]

I have been involved with "old fashioned" film photography for many years, but the electronic stuff is all new to me. I am looking at getting something in the way of a scanner - probably used or refurb. I would like to be able to do up to 5x7 size films. I would need a flat bed unit, since I have some old glass plates I would like to scan.

I also have a HUGE collection of 35mm slides dating back to the 1950's that I would like to scan to give images to family members. I have heard some comment that a unit such as the Epson 4990 ( one of the models I have looked at) is NOT the best choice for the 35mm films, and that I should have a dedicated 35mm unit for those.

So, I am turning to those who really know -- any comments?:confused:

This is predictable. I like good, actually great, scans. As far as I am concerned, the scanner is part of the camera, and I have invested in the best lenses, so why should I subject my film to a mediocre scanner like the 750. I would get a used drum scanner. If you have a few glass plates, then borrow or rent a flatbed from someone and get them done. It is unlikely you will do anything like this going forward.

Consumer flatbed scanners like the Epson are just that. Consumer grade. Not professional grade. They are useable. I wouldn't use them for any piece of film smaller than 4x5.

Just my 2 cents.

Lenny

[Lon Overacker]

I also have a HUGE collection of 35mm slides dating back to the 1950's that I would like to scan to give images to family members.

Considering your comment, an alternative to scanning that huge collection of 35mm, would be to project and take digital images of them. If the intent is for albums of small prints or web display, dvd's, etc., then you might consider skipping the whole scanning idea. Obviously this isn't the best option for quality and enlargements, but considering TIME, quantity and the output, it's a pretty good alternative.

I had the same situation and captured nearly 1500 slides from the 50's thru the 70's. It still took a looooonnnnng time to weed through, organize and then process the ones I wanted, but in the end I made a 4-CD set with music and captions to send out to family members and it was a great hit.

Have fun,
Lon

ps. We all have opinions and experience scanning 35mm, but I'm sure could probably agree that scanning 35mm on a flatbed would be grossly time consuming - even if you used low resolution settings and skipped things like ICE....

[W K Longcor]

Many thanks to all. Much good information to consider. At this point in my life, the used or refurb. units were looked at because of price. I look at the job of scanning as a labor of love - so having someone else do the work would spoil that. The IQ3 smart scanner that Felix mentioned sounded interesting, but when I looked it up I stopped breathing for a full two minutes when I saw the price! I guess I will check out a dedicated unit for the 35mm at this time. If a "deal" on something larger comes along -- then I'll work on those larger format photos. Again, thank to all.

[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.
http://ladewigs.com/Gallery/d/1826-1/nk_35_P160S_20090305_04-Edit1114.jpg

Crop from Epson 4990 file prepped for an 11X14 print - Fuji Pro 160S film
http://ladewigs.com/Gallery/d/1598-1/Epson_4990_print.jpg

Crop from Nikon LS-4000 file prepped for an 11X14 print - same frame
http://ladewigs.com/Gallery/d/1600-1/Nikon_4000_print.jpg

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