Need good scanning soluiton

[rjsphd]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have mostly been shooting with my m240, but I recently returned in Lightroom to some shots I made with my m6 and my Rolleiflex.  I realize now that 1) I love the look of the film and want to do more now, but 2) the scanning I had done locally (Boston, USA) is terrible.  Any recommendations for a US-based company that does a 1st rate job developing and scanning negatives?  Thanks in advance.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jim0266]

I'm pretty much in the same boat. I still like the idea of shooting with my film M's on occasion and I also have a Rolleiflex that's fun to take out a few times a year. Curious to hear what others like. In the past few years I've tried:

 

• Precision Camera in Texas (they used to offer deals for rangefinderforum.com members)
• North Coast Photo
• Dwayne's
• Richard's Photo Lab

 

As of late I'm using Dodd Camera. I have a Dodd in my town so I can drop off film and avoid mailing cost. I had pretty low expectation going in, but for around $8 per roll (35 or 6x6) for developing and scanning they are as good or better than others I have used.

 

Richard's was the most disappointing and expensive option I tried. Others rave about Richards. But at $13 to $19 a roll for dev/scan I was not sold.

 

If you are shipping film Precision Camera gets my vote. 

 

The scary part is you are at the mercy of the scanner tech monitoring the Noritsu or Frontier and some are better than others at their jobs.

 

 

 

 

 

[mrckdavies]

Hi

 

I like to D&P my own using Tetenal C41 and scan using the Plustek 8200i. It is a much more satisfying solution. I scan using Vuescan which is easily the most straightforward solution. I too shot with an M6 TTL and Nikon F3.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[philipus]

Just an alternative idea - why not digitise using your M? 

[mrckdavies]

Hi Philipus

 

Would you care to explain what you mean by digitise using your M. Thanks. Do mean photographing the negative with an dSLR?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jonathanccwong]

seems like digitizing with the M is meant to be taking a picture of the negative with your Digital M

effectively 'scanning' the film.

 

 

Anyway, another option would be to buy a Reflecta 35mm scanner. I have the Reflecta RPS 10M (which is called the Primefilm XA) and honestly i'm pretty satisfied with it.

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[A miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Guys, you are going waste a LOT of cash having your negs scanned.  Simple scans are quite cheap.  But anything that is of a quality that is going to extract the most out of your film is going to cost a fortune.

 

I'd highly suggest looking into a good consumer scanner.

[ShivaYash]

Pakon.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[corallus]

I think you'll find that scanning in your own negatives will yield a much more satisfying result.  Once you get familiar with your software of choice and have developed some preset scanning settings as a starting place, it's really quite simple.  

 

Now my assumption is that you're wanting to bring the scan into lightroom or photoshop for digital processing. If not, you should be fine with a scanning service.

 

The problem I've had with professional scanning services is that I'm not really sure what they're doing.  Are they giving me a straight flat scan of my neg?  Are they applying sharpening or other enhancements?  If I'm just shooting snapshots, that might be just fine.  But when I'm in a creative mode, I want that control for myself.

 

It really just depends on what you want to do with the output.

 

FWIW.....I use an Epson V750 Pro and use EpsonScan or Vuescan and am very happy with what it yields.

 

Regards.

 

 

[philipus]

Yes precisely. I don't know which M kit you have exactly but there are several ways of doing it. Here are two RFF threads (there are some in this forum too).

 

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154469

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148962

 

I fully agree with Adam that buying scans from a shop will be expensive. After not too many rolls you'll have paid the equivalent of a scanner or parts for a digitising setup. It comes down to money vs time/quality expectations. I prefer to scan myself to have full control over the results, but there is a bit of learning curve involved with that. 

 

Philip

 

Hi Philipus

Would you care to explain what you mean by digitise using your M. Thanks. Do mean photographing the negative with an dSLR?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mrckdavies]

Thanks for the links, interesting. Not sure the qualities of film colour gradation and soul are preserved this way. Food for thought though. The reason I use film is for the effect and colour which is unlike digital. There would appear to soul, or mood, to each of film types we are left with today that deserve exploitation just to be different and stand out from the crowd.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[erlingmm]

Just bought the Epson 850 scanner. Easy film and slides scanning with frames for film. Hopeless user interface for the Silverfish scanning software, but the basic Epson SW ok if you post process afterwards instead of doing adjustments in scan.

[mikemgb]

I have an Epson V600, not the best out there but perfectly capable and it produces better scans than I can get done locally.

 

I'm currently scanning several hundreds of old slides for my father in law, it doesn't take long to do and I actually enjoy the process.

 

1970's Kodachrome scanned at 2400dpi using the Epson software with just a touch of sharpening added.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[250swb]

Given the OP wants to scan medium format as well as 35mm I wonder how some of the scanner suggestions are supposed to work, perhaps fold the negatives to make them fit?

 

An Epson 700 or 800 series flatbed scanner scans all film sizes, up to 8x10 if you want. It isn't great for 35mm, the quality isn't as good as a cheap Plustek 8000, but it is doable. The only other practical home system would be a Plustek 120, this will scan up to 6x9cm film at high quality and it has no problem with 35mm either.

 

I think the point about having your own scanner is that it puts you in control, and you will also know you've scanned with maximum care at the highest settings. And it becomes a jumping off point for anybody who wants to try kitchen sink/bathroom film processing for the first time, or even return to it. Everything is readily available, 35mm and medium format film, chemicals, equipment, and doing the whole process cements the human link between pressing the shutter button and the final print.

 

 

Steve

[Trivette]

I have been doing my own scanning for many years using dedicated film scanners. It is not difficult, but it can be time consuming. However, I consider it time well spent. Consider also that except for the initial cost of the scanner, the scans are essentially free.

[Steve Ash]

There is a good scanner on offer in the buy and sell section of the forum.

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[philipus]

I also have a V ED and it is a terrific scanner for 135 film. The scans are not far from what I get from my Coolscan 9000 (btw apparently the ad has expired, at least I get a 404 when I click the link). 

 

For film scanners a firm to be aware of is Ffordes in Scotland. They usually have lots of different ones and do not hike up the prices as most other dealers, not to mention private sellers, do.

 

 

There is a good scanner on offer in the buy and sell section of the forum.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[LorenzoLandini]

I'd suggest thinking what the ultimate goal of your scanning is and which kind of film you're going to use. 

 

In general, I second the comments above about the cost of outsourcing good quality scanning of your film. A scanner pays for itself in a relatively short term, depending on how may rolls of film you're going to shoot. It is also very time consuming, especially scanning 35mm, quite tedious after a while to be honest. 

 

I have been using an Epson 750 for years to scan primarily 4x5 and 35 film and the results are decent, pretty good actually on the 4x5 and ok on the 35mm. However, the scanner is only one piece of the puzzle within your workflow. The post processing is another part of the equation that can partially off-set a sub-optimal scan (particularly in terms of colors, contrasts, etc. less so in terms of resolution without sharpening). 

 

You will see that (i) dust control, (ii) the film used and (iii) having the right exposure in camera are probably the most critical items in your analog-to-digital workflow. Not all the films are scanner-friendly, E6 are much much better than negatives but at the cost of having a limited dynamic range, B&W is great but way more tricky from a dust and scratch control perspective. Even within a type of film (E6, C41, color, B&W, etc), different brands lead to different results because certain films are easier to be scanned than others. 

 

Additionally, if the purpose of scanning is to "have access" to your images, make adjustments for the purpose of seeing those images on a screen, website, etc. then a flat bed scan does a pretty good job. If your ultimate purpose is to print a photograph larger than 11x14 or 16x20 then you will find out that for those prints you will need a drum scan of the film. In my experience when printing an image taken with a 4x5 there is no significant difference between flatbed scan and drum scan up to 16x20, while for any prints greater than that a drum scan is beneficial and above a certain size is a must even for images taken with a 4x5. With 35mm there will always be a difference, even at 8x12 (I used primarily an M6 for 35mm and the difference is obvious). 

 

So, while the choice of the scanner is important you need to think your whole workflow process to achieve the results of your liking. Think also what your priorities are. Is the quality of the scan? the efficiency of the workflow? the cost saving? 

 

It's also a matter of volume. Do you expect to shoot a roll of film a month? one a week? or one a day? I think above a certain volume is not realistic to scan your own film unless you want to spend all your spare time scanning instead of shooting (or with your family, etc.). 

 

As a last comment, if you decide to go down the route of going back shooting and scanning film you will find out that there are two "schools of thoughts" when it comes to scanning. On one side there is the belief that an accurate scanning should be done by working and tweaking through scanning software and on the other side there is the belief of not doing any correction through the scanner software and then doing any of the adjustments through LR/photoshop. In my experience the latter approach leads to better results, partially because LR/PS are getting better and better while the scanning software are pretty basic and outdated. The only thing to be worry about in scanning is to make sure you're capturing the whole curve to maximize your dynamic range. 

 

Good luck, 

Lorenzo 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[A miller]

For kicks, I recently called my NYC lab and asked what it would cost to have them scan one of my 6x6 Velvia 50 slides from a recent trip in the HIGHEST possibly resolution in their super-duper drum scan.

The guy laughed and told me it would be $500 for a scan.  He then proceeded too tell me that I would get a TIFF file in the size of about 500MB.  I scratched my head and thought to myself, well, that's a bunch of bullshit, as I get 500MB TIFF files from my Coolscan 9000, so WTF?!@

Yes, yes, the file size doesn't indicate the quality of the information that is captured by the scanner; I know that lots of that information is pretty much extraneous.

But still. a full res scan from a coolscan, or Steve's Plustek, or an X1 can comes G-d awful close to what a drum scan would produce. 

For me, this is very validating that outsourcing full res scans is really cost prohibitive.

[LorenzoLandini]

For kicks, I recently called my NYC lab and asked what it would cost to have them scan one of my 6x6 Velvia 50 slides from a recent trip in the HIGHEST possibly resolution in their super-duper drum scan.

The guy laughed and told me it would be $500 for a scan.  He then proceeded too tell me that I would get a TIFF file in the size of about 500MB.  I scratched my head and thought to myself, well, that's a bunch of bullshit, as I get 500MB TIFF files from my Coolscan 9000, so WTF?!@

Yes, yes, the file size doesn't indicate the quality of the information that is captured by the scanner; I know that lots of that information is pretty much extraneous.

But still. a full res scan from a coolscan, or Steve's Plustek, or an X1 can comes G-d awful close to what a drum scan would produce. 

For me, this is very validating that outsourcing full res scans is really cost prohibitive.

 

What size of print are you scanning for? Wall size? :-)

 

I know NYC's lab are quite expensive (I lived there for years) and Denver's lab (where I currently live) are possibly more affordable. Though, I recently paid $60 or $80 for a drum scan of a 4x5 sheet (ok, different from 6x6) for a 60x30 inches print ... I don't disagree on the quality of flatbed scanners. However, I can see a difference in sharpness and quality of a 16x20 inches print when comparing a print done from a drum scanned 4x5 E6 slide and one done from a Epson 750 scanned 4x5 E6 slide... just another reference point. 

 

cheers