What scanner are you using for film to digital conversion?

[jack]

I just setup my new CanoScan 9000F Mark II scanner and plan to start scanning my slides and negative film. I've been playing around with the free Canon software, but decided to buy VueScan because there's more control over the preview and scanning processes. I was looking into the Epson V700 scanner, but couldn't get myself to part with $600 to get it. After doing a bit of research on different scanners, I finally decided on the 9000F Mark II.

So, what scanner or other method are you guys using to do film to digital conversion?

After playing around with the scanner for a short time, here's my first scan.

Cape Meares Lighthouse shot on Kodak Ektachrome film, scanned on the 9000F Mark II, using VueScan scanner software.

[hansz]

Jack,

For 6x6cm and larger I use the Epson 4990 Photo flatbed scanner with standard Epson software which is good enough.
Finetuning is done in Photoshop CS5.

For 24x36mm there is the Nikon Coolscan IV. Again standard software, ported to Windows 7.

Hans.

[Deleted]

I have an older Canoscan 9950F that can scan up to 8x10 film. When it came out it was supposed to be good enough to replace dedicated film scanners. It does a decent job but Canon almost immediately quit updating software for new versions of Windows. The best feature is I can select as many as 16 (I think) 35mm frames and the scanner will scan them with no further assistance. Also have a PrimeFilm 3650 for 35mm only. Always wanted a Coolscan but they seem to have become even more expensive since Nikon discontinued production. I think the 3650 does as good or better job on 35mm than the Canon and it's easier to do a quick scan.

W.

[nikonbob]

For 35mm film a Minolta 5400 and for larger format an Epson V500 both using their native software.

Bob

[Randy]

Ion slide & negative scanner

[SidW]

At first a Canoscan 2700F (35mm) acquired at least 10 years ago. It gave quite noisy scans and I eventually tired of it, Kodachromes weren't coming out anywhere as good as EOS digital images. So then I moved on to a Nikon Coolscan V.

[Wahoo]

I have an old Microtek 4000tf which still works okay, here's a Kiev 4AN 5cm Jupiter negative scan.





Danny

[one90guy]

I have a Canon 5600F, not bad but only scans 35mm. Had to buy new computer which came with Windows 8, the Canon totally refuses to run. Operates fine on wife's laptop which has 7. I am not impressed with Windows 8, also have problems with my email accounts.

David

[Deleted]

David:

Agree on Windows 8. Pretty much designed for smart phone users from what I can see. Windows 7 is a really solid platform. I think the main reason Windows 8 was introduced was to try to force people to spend money on a new OS and new computers to utilize the "touch" features. Canon did eventually come out with a 64-bit software version for my 9950F that works with Win 7. Apple is really not much better. They were famous for years for introducing new OS that wasn't backward compatible with earlier software. Adobe loves that, too. I have Indesign CS 5.0 (a layout program for publishing). They did a 5.5 update and the only way I can open a file made with 5.5 is to have the user saved it into a special file for importing. Most software makers will go a full number--like 5.0 to 6.0 before making those kinds of changes. But Adobe milks its users for every nickel it can get.

W.

[nikonbob]

Yea, finding drivers for older scanners that work with newer operating systems can be a PITA. Minolta discontinued the 5400 and there were never any driver updates for Win7. There was a work around that let you use the driver from Vue Scan I think it was. Now it works with Win7 using its native software. Sooner or latter I'll run out of cludges to keep it running on newer systems. That to me was a real push among others to go digital.

Bob

[Berndt]

I haven't been brave enough for buying a scanner yet. Main reason, my wife, who is working as a graphic designer for more than 20 years and always talking those flatbed scanner down. Waste of money, they can't match the quality of professional film scanners ( which her former company used for print works, catalogues and stuff ).

Still I feel uncertain and don't know, what to believe. Also some photographer friends are using flatbed scanners but mostly with medium or large format films and for some technical reasons, a lot of post production ( especially sharpening ) seems to be necessary.

The thing is, I use film for a certain reason ( among many others ). It's the brilliant tonality, which I believe is still better than on digital ( especially for portraits, skin but also sky pictures ). So, the goal is not just to preserve slides or negatives as memories from the past, I still use the workflow "film + scanning" for taking actual photos. Would a flatbed scanner be good enough for that and is it really capable of getting all the colors, shades and tonality out of the slide/negative ? What do you think ?

What I do until now is taking my films to a lab for scanning, but also here ... from my experience, the quality is quite random and wanting a really exact copy of a good slide for example, my expectations have been mostly disappointed yet.

[nikonbob]

Berndt

I think your wife is quite right about most flatbed scanners not matching a pro lab hi rez scan. OTH who can afford those pro lab high rez scans on a regular basis?

Flatbed scanners commonly available seem to do better with med and large format negs than 35mm as they don't have to be uprezed as much by software. Sharpening with software is just a product of the digital workflow regardless if you use a hybred film to digital or straight digital workflow. I forget the exact technical reason for that but simply take it as it just is. The other factor to consider besides what the flatbed scanner is able to do is how good is the software you are using to interpret the scanners output file on top of which is how good the person using the software is at using the software to its full potential. Lots of variables just as there is in traditional darkroom work. Lastly it greatly depends on what your end use is for a digital file is. If it is only for web display any flatbed scanner that is decent will do even for 35mm. If you want to make prints from them at an amateur level flatbeds may be OK for smaller sizes with 35mm. A dedicated 35mm film scanner, such as the discontinued Minolta 5400, will allow you to do nice 16x24 prints without up rezzing the original file from the scanner with software. For the really fussy nothing but the best will do commercial work then not much beats a pro lab high rez scan which darn few labs are capable of. Anyway I have rambled enough but you asked and that is what I think. There are a lot of variables.

Bob

[genazzano]

I bought a V600 several months ago and never unpacked the damn thing. I still use my old D70 attached to a PB6 setup with several different 50mm lenses. I suppose I prefer just restoring and fixing old cameras more than shooting with them these days. Any advice on the V600 (short of selling it) would be very much appreciated. I have a backlog of negatives from my 645 (120 and 220) and 127 films. Not sure anymore about the 35mm digitization on the flatbed.
David

[nikonbob]

I dunno about the V600 but I have and use a V500 that I bought to digitize med format negs the my wife had after her father died. Works just fine for what I wanted it for but never tried 35mm with it as I have a Minolta 5400 for that. I can't see it would be too bad for 35mm especially if you just wanted them for web display or even 8x10s. Sure is worth a try,just take the digital file from the V600 and work it in whatever program you use for processing the files from your D70.

Bob

[photax]

I still use a very old and heavy Agfa Duoscan with SCSI Interface. Bought it some years ago for about 75.- USD at an local internet platforn for used items. The processing is very slow, but it takes negatives from 24x36mm up to 8.5x12 inch, which is perfect for my collection of old glas plates :-)

MIK