Recommendations for a slide/negative scanner

[Graybeard]

I have quite an archive of 35mm slides and Kodachrome negatives that I'd like to convert to digital form.

I ask for recommendations for a digital scanner for 35mm only. I don't have (or an interested in acquiring) a digital camera so what I could use would be a stand alone unit for use directly with my computer.

There seem to be a number of these available; what has been your experience with them?

Thanks in advance.

[coa_lund]

I have used a Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED since 2007 and in my experience it scans Kodachrome very well. I guess the Nikon scanners for 35 mm only would also do a good job
Carl


I have quite an archive of 35mm slides and Kodachrome negatives that I'd like to convert to digital form.

I ask for recommendations for a digital scanner for 35mm only. I don't have (or an interested in acquiring) a digital camera so what I could use would be a stand alone unit for use directly with my computer.

There seem to be a number of these available; what has been your experience with them?

Thanks in advance.

[BetterSense]

I've given up on scanners because they are just too slow. I have tried a V500 but it's too labor entensive, and the quality isn't super steller anyway. I can't afford the thousands of dollars the Nikon and Minolta scanners cost used. I just bought some extension tubes for my DSLR and I'm going to try copying them with that.

[polyglot]

If you have a significant archive that needs digitising, I would recommend a professional service like scancafe.com. Otherwise, you're going to blow months of work doing this. Considering the time spent babysitting the scanner, you're effectively paying yourself a tiny fraction of minimum wage by avoiding the cost of sending the scans out.

[jose angel]

I have also given up the 35mm slide (and film) scanning for several reasons, speed and quality included as BetterSense says. My recomendation is not to spend on them, unless manufacturers pop up with a decent and updated scanner.
It all depends on the level of scaning quality you want. If for screen viewing, any good scanner will work. For versatility, a V750 Epson could be interesting. For printing at good sizes, you`ll need at least an expensive and outdated Nikon (or to send them for a professional service, as Polyglot says; be realistic with the number of slides you need to digitise, and reckon up).

[Stefaan VB]

I have used a Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED since 2007 and in my experience it scans Kodachrome very well. I guess the Nikon scanners for 35 mm only would also do a good job
Carl

I'm using a Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED for scanning Kadachrome slides. It's a very good scanner (and easy to use in combination with the 50 slide feeder SF-210), but I replaced the original Nikon software because I had a lot of trouble getting my Kadachrome scans right. To be more precise: the results were always too blue and I couldn't find a proper way to correct this. Since I installed the Silverfast software, it works very well.

[William Whitaker]

This thread doesn't seem to be large format related, but it touches closely on a subject that has been of interest to me. So let me add that I have a Nikon Coolscan 5000 that I acquired from a fellow forum member around three years ago. I've used it to scan some of my father's old Kodachrome slides and I've been quite happy with the results. So far the images I've scanned have been saved as JPEG's so I could share them via email with family members. Not a very critical application. At the same time there seems to be quite a learning curve to scanning and I'm not sure how much of my life I want to devote to learning how to use another piece of electronic equipment. A lot of it depends on what your ultimate intent is. Do you merely want to archive the images electronically or do you want to produce finished prints to hang? Or possibly something else?

I'd weigh the variables of how many images you have to scan, your final goal and the cost of a scanner in terms of both cash outlay and time investment. In the end, as someone mentioned above, it may make more sense to send the images to a lab or service bureau to have them scanned.

Therein lies another challenge. Recently I experimented with shooting both 120 and 35mm in color, having the film developed and scanned locally by a well-known and presumably reputable photo store. The 120 scans were garbage. Imagine an old Kodak disc camera on a bad day and that's about what the results were like. And these images were shot on a Hasselblad secured on a tripod. I only wanted the scans to review the images; I planned to send any keeper images out to a service bureau for drum scanning. But they were so bad that I felt I couldn't even use them to evaluate an image. That only leaves the option of having to ship the film to a lab out-of-state.

Then I sent them some 35mm Ektar 100 which I planned to scan on the Coolscan. I don't think they even washed the film. It came back with obvious developing defects and photographic afterbirth on the film. Completely unusable.

But I digress. The point I want to make is that finding a lab that can (and will) do quality work may take some effort. The world has been quickly moving toward digital "capture" and the support infrastructure for film whether home-based or lab-based is becoming frail. I don't say this to proclaim the end of the world or to incite riots. It's just what it is. And the fact is that depending on your ultimate goal, you may have some work to do to achieve the results you want. It's not really an A or B decision anymore.

[mmerig]

I have quite an archive of 35mm slides and Kodachrome negatives that I'd like to convert to digital form.

I ask for recommendations for a digital scanner for 35mm only. I don't have (or an interested in acquiring) a digital camera so what I could use would be a stand alone unit for use directly with my computer.

There seem to be a number of these available; what has been your experience with them?

Thanks in advance.

I use a Nikon Coolscan V ED for 35-mm slides and black & white negatives, using Vuescan, and am happy with the results. I use them for presentations/lectures and in printed scientific papers, and the usual sharing of casual shots with family and friends. I don't consider the scans as archives (even at 4000 dpi and max bit depth); I think the best archive is the film itself if stored properly.

As others say, it takes a lot of time. I have a work-related scanning job involving about 120 slides, and am dreading it.

There are scanning-to-archive threads on APUG that go into a lot of detail, and more on DPUG.

Good luck.