Scanning, is it worth it?

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I spend about $1,000 a year on scanning (digital keeps costs down, but I still like film.) Is it worth getting a scanner and doing it myself? There's not just the cost saving, but the time factor to consider, and I have found it easier to get scanning done professionally (the cost is tax deductible).

 

Most of the scans I have done are 18MB per image, which is good value and adequate for most purposes, but occasionally I need 50MB to 100MB.

 

It comes down to how fast and efficient home scanning is, and how easy scanners are to use. I don't want a zilliion features, just consistently reliable, high-quality results. One recommended model was the Epson V700. Canon has some more economical models, while Nikon's Coolscan still has a good reputation. And there's the Braun Multimag Slidescan 4000 which looks intriguing. Are any of the basic flatbed scanners with slide adapters worth considering? (as with printers, quality does keep improving while price keeps falling.)

 

Then again, perhaps I should just invest in an M8? Or a new lens?!

[NZDavid]

Apologies for double posting, Internet (even so-called Broadband) is s...l...o...w and came up with a false error message.

[carstenw]

You could remove the text of the message in the one thread?

 

The V700/V750 are meant to be good only for medium format and up. For 35mm they are not as good as something dedicated, like the Nikon or Minolta film scanners.

[bradreiman]

David-I have an earlier model Epson and I find the results better than most shop scans. Most here will disagree that a flatbed is any good but I find the results to be excellent if done properly....B

[mgcd]

Nikon CoolScan LS-5000 should indeed fulfill your needs if you still like to shot film and would like to scan your images. For about what you've been spending a year on commercial scanning, the LS-5000 can give you superb results that will be strenghtened by the cost savings you will have.

 

Cheers,

[NZDavid]

Carsten, please ignore that second comment, Jürgen must have kindly removed my extra post...very efficient.

 

Thanks for prompt replies. One thing I don't subscribe to (purely from exprince) is false economy. It's worth payng to get the right product. Making sure it's right in the first place is the hard thing!

[martinb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Scanning each and every shot you shoot would be very time consuming depending on how much you shoot. Get a Nikon Coolscan 5000. It costs about 1000 USD, has good iq and is the fastest 35mm scanner around.

[telewatt]

.. Most here will disagree that a flatbed is any good but I find the results to be excellent if done properly....B

 

..it depends on the scanner.....there are some great "Flatbeds"... ..but they cost 10 000$..

[Ted99]

Yes it is.

I bought a Nikon 5000 ED scanner and the SF-210 slidefeeder, 50 pictures at one batch.

I have made about 1000 pictures and will do about 10.000 pictures, it's easy.

 

The pictures turns out very good , in many cases better then from the Leica slideprojektor.

 

M8 is not upp to made pictures with high contrast, film is ok. Check the M8 clipping funktion and find out.

 

Film is great in many situations.

 

/Ted

[jaapv]

I found that scanning works fine, but life is too short....

[jaapv]

M8 is not upp to made pictures with high contrast, film is ok. Check the M8 clipping funktion and find out.

 

Film is great in many situations.

 

/Ted

 

Whilst I fully agree with the last statement, the first is simply incorrect. It is impossible to judge the dynamic range of any camera on its LCD. The DR of the M8 is over ten stops, far more than slide film and also more than catered for in the zone system. That means the contrast it can handle is higher than the contrast you can print. Try pulling up the shadows on the M8. Pretty much incredible.

[telewatt]

Yes it is.

 

...I have made about 1000 pictures and will do about 10.000 pictures, it's easy......

 

/Ted

 

... :eek: ...you need a lot of "cloudy Days"....

 

regards,

Jan

[Ted99]

About "clipping".

The clipping in digital picturemaking means the picture is white there is no information .Only white ... (black in other cases).

 

the film is below everey limit of good picture quality here in this "clipping"areas but there is still a' little information. That means the picture in most cases turns out very good. But there is important to use good lenses.... and of course good film.

 

 

/Ted

[Guest flatfour]

No doubt there have been improvements since the Polaroid scanner but I cannot see any visible difference between my 4800dpi scans on my Canon 9950F and the dedicated Polaroids. With A3 prints unless you are dotty about detail then a flatbed will suffice.

[jaapv]

About "clipping".

The clipping in digital picturemaking means the picture is white there is no information .Only white ... (black in other cases).

 

the film is below everey limit of good picture quality here in this "clipping"areas but there is still a' little information. That means the picture in most cases turns out very good. But there is important to use good lenses.... and of course good film.

 

 

/Ted

If you have clipping you have a wrong exposure. Like blown out highlights on overexposed film = no information.The dynamic range on the M8 is in the information contained in the shadows. That is like slide film. If you compare the negative process you must compare clipping to blocked shadows, where the negative is totally blank. I'll post an example later this weekend. No time tonight or tomorrow.

[Photoskeptic]

I have some gorgeous images I could not have made if it were not for film and my scanner. Digital loses out too much in DR and tone.

[jaapv]

I have nothing against film, quite the contrary. But the right arguments must be used. The way film looks is very hard to replicate, if at all, in digital - and the other way around. But the Dynamic Range argument is old hat and has been overtaken by technology. Not just by Leica, but by all high-end digital brands. With the added advantage for the M8 that the writing algorithm of the file favours the dark shades giving a shadow detail that cannot be captured on film. Not a value statement - a difference.

[telyt]

I have some gorgeous images I could not have made if it were not for film and my scanner. Digital loses out too much in DR and tone.

 

I'm not sure what digital camera you're comparing with film. I've gotten some gorgeous images with the DMR that I could not have made with film and a scanner. Film loses out too much in DR and tone.

[martinb]

jaap,

Allthough I love the M8, I have to say that the dynamic range was one of the biggest disappointments. It may match or be better than slide film, but it isn't close to negative or B&W film. I also came from a Fuji S3 Pro which was far superior. Fuji is the only camera that can match the dynamic range of negative or B&W film apart from mf digital backs.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AlanJW]

First, I agree on the film/digital DR discussion, which might have been answered differently 3 or 4 years ago. But digital has advanced considerably and what aI can get from my M8 (and also the Canon 5D by the way) is in my view a better image than can be caputured on film. Of course this is a subject on which the debate will continue to rage.

 

Second, on a scanner, if you do choose to use film, I have a Nikon LS4000 and the scans it produces are first rate. I still occassionally will want to make a new print of an old image that is on film, and I also am archiving to digital thousands of slides. I also use a flatbed -- to archive old family photos going back 50 years sometimes, and sometimes for quick batch scanning of slides to jpgs. I think you will be happier scanning and controlling the inage yourself -- and you will save money too.