Learner Posted March 23, 2008 Share #1 Posted March 23, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello, Let's say: 1. You have no old negatives or slides and 2. You don't develop your own film and 3. In the development stage, you take the option of getting images of your prints on CD ... why would you need to buy a film scanner? What's the advantage over the CD? Thanks, John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 23, 2008 Posted March 23, 2008 Hi Learner, Take a look here Why buy a film scanner". I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
kwpatlaw Posted March 23, 2008 Share #2 Posted March 23, 2008 John, thats a question that I also have been pondering. Lets see what the Pros have to say about this. If there is an advantage,I am ready to make a new purchase. If not, well then I will carry on as I have been. ken Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChadHahn Posted March 23, 2008 Share #3 Posted March 23, 2008 For most consumer use, the CD would probably be fine. However, they generally are small sized jpgs. If you scan a negative, you can make a very large file and save the scan in a non-lossy format or in some cases even raw. I post a lot of pictures on my kid's web-page and always get the CD from the shop. It is good for posting on the internet and if friends and family want to download and print the photos the size is right for 4x6s. Chad Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted March 23, 2008 Share #4 Posted March 23, 2008 I'm not a Pro, far from it, but IMHO, the quality of scans that you get from the processor is only just adequate for web use. They invariably come as jpgs, and at low resolution. Even if you pay more for high res scans, they are still only jpgs, and still nothing like "high resolution" in my book. It is not possible (in the UK at least) to get even tiff scans made without spending a fortune (I was quoted £60 [$120] per roll for tiff scans from a roll of slides about a year ago) I have a Nikon Coolscan V slide/negative scanner. It's their entry model and it's superb. This gives me full 16 bit (well 14 bit, saved as 16 bit) scans from slides and colour negatives that are around 124MB in size, and which print beautifully up to 20 x 30 inches - more than I normally need. I know others here have great results from the newish Epson V750 flat beds, which can be had for less money. IMHO, there is no comparison between using a decent full scan in a format that doesn't degredate every time it's saved and using low res jpgs. Just my 2 penny worth, of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted March 23, 2008 Share #5 Posted March 23, 2008 Hmmm. I'd suggest buying a decent digital camera for the price of a coolscan and avoiding film. My experience with home scanning was a bad one and pushed me into abandoning a brief return to film. Just my two cents. LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted March 23, 2008 Share #6 Posted March 23, 2008 A Coolscan is less than five hundred quid, Louis. Not cheap, but not that expensive and with a Leica film camera up front will give you results far superior to those obtainable from a less than five hundred quid digital. The results you get from scanned film are very different from those you get with digital, in my experience, even with lots of PS and software like Alien Skin Exposure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwpatlaw Posted March 23, 2008 Share #7 Posted March 23, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks Andy. I am very new to all of this. In the last 45 days, I have purchased an M7,a 35 cron asph, a 50 cron and a 75 lux. I am having an absolute BLAST taking pictures of everything and everybody.( It is starting to wear thin with family and friends.When one of my sons sees me with the camera in hand, he gets in his car and leaves!!! )....Anyway, I am not sure of the purpose and process of scanning. Do you get film developed,take the negatives, scan them to your computer and then use some type of post-processing program to ( visually speaking ) maximize them? It is a mystery to me just what this is all about. All responses will be sincerely appreciated. ken Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted March 23, 2008 Share #8 Posted March 23, 2008 That's a perfect set up you have. I picked up an M7 yesterday, to keep my M2 company and it's a great camera. I use both film and digital. When using film, I process all my own black & white negatives and, this year, have started processing my slides. Colour negatives still get done in a shop and I never bother with getting a CD done by them as it's a waste of a pound. My webpage Venice shows the results of some slide work from this month, for example. I scan all my negatives at low resolution, just to see what's what, then scan at full resolution those that I want to work on further. I use Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop CS3 for the digital work, and just Photoshop for the B&W. I have the ones I want printed done on-line, up to 20 x 30 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted March 23, 2008 Share #9 Posted March 23, 2008 A Coolscan is less than five hundred quid, Louis. Not cheap, but not that expensive and with a Leica film camera up front will give you results far superior to those obtainable from a less than five hundred quid digital. The results you get from scanned film are very different from those you get with digital, in my experience, even with lots of PS and software like Alien Skin Exposure. Andy I'm not disagreeing with you but you could produce a lot a good pictures from a D-LUX 3 which is less than the cost of a Coolscan, especially shooting in RAW and it would and benefit from a less complicated workflow. I did try film, I'm glad I did because there would always have been a question mark in my mind and now I'm grateful to be back in an all digital workflow. Mind you, different strokes for different folks. Louis Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted March 23, 2008 Share #10 Posted March 23, 2008 It sort of boils down to whether one has the do-it-yourself mindset or not. Plus time factors, quality vs. cost, etc. Since this is the film forum, I'll go with the film workflow first - yes, doing one's own scanning will give better results, and - fairly quickly - cheaper results (although not that fast - if one "pays" oneself for the time involved, in my case $30 per hour min.). The problem is that, commercially, there are cheap crummy scans or very good, very pricey scans - but not many places that do pretty good scans at a pretty good price. Doing one's own scans means one can work with just the images worth scanning, and get 20-megapixel files (although not the equivalent of 20-megapixel digital, unless one has an old stock of K25 and a scanner costing more than an M8). Pros who still use film, and have clients who appreciate film but need a digital file, can charge off the price of good outside scans (or give the film to the client and let them worry about it). Pros in the other 95% of the real world shoot digital because the client expects fast, clean images with no additional costs for film, processing, OR scanning. Amateurs (which means those who do something for love, not money - not a putdown) can choose any workflow that makes sense for themselves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkness30 Posted March 23, 2008 Share #11 Posted March 23, 2008 A scan from a dedicated negative scanner such as Nikon yet better an Imacon drum scanner will blow the CDs away. I wont spend a dime on those shop CDs. Best Mehmet Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwpatlaw Posted March 23, 2008 Share #12 Posted March 23, 2008 Thanks Guys. It looks like I am now in the market for a scanner and a post processing program for my computer. Any suggestions? Also, Andy, I checked out your Venice website and I like what I see.Hopefully soon I will post some of my own images. Take care, Ken Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTD Posted March 23, 2008 Share #13 Posted March 23, 2008 I use film and digital. Film is usually Ilford XP2 which can be processed by any colour lab. I use the enprints to decide which negs to scan. I hope to get one good shot per film. So scanning isn't quite as laborious as it might sound. I love digital workflow, but prefer film cameras. There's not many film scanners about, Nikon seem to be the fave choice. On a Mac Vuescan software is worth a look IMO. Post processing, PhotoShop is the benchmark, but it is a big, complex programme. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted March 23, 2008 Share #14 Posted March 23, 2008 I have a Nikon V, but whenever I shoot color, or am feeling lazy and shoot C41 B&W, I drop the film off at Target and just get development and the CD. It's like $3. I can scan the couple of frames that I choose later (the Nikon really does a better job), but very rarely do I do this - maybe one or two frames a roll. Really convenient for me. Don't get the prints. The prints are made from the files on the CD, so you can always just get the ones you want printed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted March 23, 2008 Share #15 Posted March 23, 2008 A good film scanner like the Nikon 5000/9000 series or similar will give you better scans. It really depends on how high a quality scan you need... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted March 23, 2008 Share #16 Posted March 23, 2008 Like DTD, I shoot XP2 almost exclusively. I bring it (3 minute walk) to my local 1 hr lab, they develop it with no prints, uncut, for $2.00. I then scan using my coolscan 5000, using Nikon Scan now, process in Photoshop. I get very large files that I downsize to around 3000X2000 pixels, and get quality that I prefer to top end digital cameras, like the M8, for B&W. Very happy with the process, and wouldn't shoot film without being able to scan myself. Hope you find this tempting to try it! best...Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted March 24, 2008 Share #17 Posted March 24, 2008 I scan. I exhibit .....I sell ....and I am not too concerned about my navel which I think is digital Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinb Posted March 24, 2008 Share #18 Posted March 24, 2008 The pro lab I send my films to can do 8-20mb scans. The scans are very good and I rarely need larger files. However they are not very cheap.. For large prints and lots of postprocessing work I would recommend a scanner and also if the lab scans are bad and/or expensive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwpatlaw Posted March 24, 2008 Share #19 Posted March 24, 2008 Hey" My Name Is Not Imants ", Is Your Naval A Digital Rangefinder Or A Point And Shoot ? Nek Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted March 24, 2008 Share #20 Posted March 24, 2008 The Point and Shoot Department is further down.....................it knows its range:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.