PJRiley Posted March 24, 2008 Share #1 Posted March 24, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello all: My budget doesn't quite stretch for a dedicated film scanner such as the coolscan. Am I wasting my $$ on a high quality flatbed scanner? I want them primarily for online use; if I wanted prints I'd be inclined to use a pro lab. Are there models you'd recommend? Thanks much. Mary Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 24, 2008 Posted March 24, 2008 Hi PJRiley, Take a look here Are flatbed scanners a waste of money? . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
andym911 Posted March 25, 2008 Share #2 Posted March 25, 2008 Mary for mainly online work a flatbed is fine...Epson do a good one for 35mm and 120 film-You can also scan from reflective copies and prints. I only have a flatbed, the 4990 and am very happy with it. regards andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted March 25, 2008 Share #3 Posted March 25, 2008 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/45573-first-neopan-400-a.html a couple of examples from this scanner on this thread. andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted March 25, 2008 Share #4 Posted March 25, 2008 I have an Epson 4870 and it produces excellent results, I bought it as I use 120 film as well as 35mm. I've produced perfectly good A3 prints from it. If you only use 35mm and already have a document scanner then I'd suggest a dedicated 35mm film scanner, however. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted March 25, 2008 Share #5 Posted March 25, 2008 I have a Canon scanner, which I like very much. It does a great job, and produces scans that compare very well with results from my local lab's Nikon dedicated film scanner. You would not waste your money, in my view. Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapp Posted March 25, 2008 Share #6 Posted March 25, 2008 Hello all:My budget doesn't quite stretch for a dedicated film scanner such as the coolscan. Am I wasting my $$ on a high quality flatbed scanner? I want them primarily for online use; if I wanted prints I'd be inclined to use a pro lab. Are there models you'd recommend? Thanks much. Mary If you use a scanner to scan film or slides, get a real scanner, not a flatbed scanner. At some point of time you will feel disappointed, because you want more than online publication of images, etc. If you want to use the flatbed scanner to scan other things as well, go for it otherwise get a film/slide scanner. You will not save any money going flatbed, as the cheap version from HP and Canon for instance will not produce decent results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomasw_ Posted March 26, 2008 Share #7 Posted March 26, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Depends what you mean by "decent". I think it depends more the application. If you are ONLY going to want the best print from a negative, then you are wasting your money on ANY scanner for printing if this is your aim; just wet print from your negatives, as it is the best. If you want to scan your negatives and put them online or print only 8x10 size images, then a good flatbed scanner like a Epson V700 will be excellent indeed. If you want to do more scanning and digital printing to larger sizes, then the dedicated nikon is your deal; but bear in mind that this will not be as sublime as wet printing, if you are after "the best" print. By the way, some of the best high end scanners -- short of the drums -- are in fact flat beds. But these are priced in the insane realm for the typical hobbyist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruiespanhol Posted March 26, 2008 Share #8 Posted March 26, 2008 Maryfor mainly online work a flatbed is fine...Epson do a good one for 35mm and 120 film-You can also scan from reflective copies and prints. I only have a flatbed, the 4990 and am very happy with it. regards andy I use the Epson V350 photo whit automatic film loader whit great results. Best Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
strick Posted March 27, 2008 Share #9 Posted March 27, 2008 If you are ONLY going to want the best print from a negative, then you are wasting your money on ANY scanner for printing if this is your aim; just wet print from your negatives, as it is the best. ...; but bear in mind that this will not be as sublime as wet printing, if you are after "the best" print. I think, this has been true ten years ago. But today you'll get better results by scanning, photoshopping and inkjet-high-end-printing your negatives. On being sublime, Photoshop has the edge; I think, this is obvious. But keep in mind that going the hybrid/digital way is more complicated than the analogue way - because you have to deal with al lot of hard- and software, learning curves and so on. As you know Best, Greg P. S. I'd recommend a film scanner. Gives better results than a flatbed and maybe inspires you to make larger prints, which can be big fun. (A pro lab is expensive, on the long run surely more expensive than a film scanner. And doing scans yourself means nothing less than doing them exactly as you want them to be.) A flatbed may be acceptable for middle-format negatives, but not for small format. Not really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photon42 Posted March 27, 2008 Share #10 Posted March 27, 2008 Mary, flatbed scanners obviously shine in their high versatility. If you really only plan to buy a scanner for 35 mm film in the foreseeable future, try to get hold of a (used) coolscan. If you only scan for small image sizes to be displayed on the web, the scanner does not matter so much in theory. Appetite however comes with dining ... There are other aspects maybe to consider: footprint and handling e.g. are different between flatbeds and dedicated film scanners. Regards Ivo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomasw_ Posted March 29, 2008 Share #11 Posted March 29, 2008 I think, this has been true ten years ago. But today you'll get better results by scanning, photoshopping and inkjet-high-end-printing your negatives. On being sublime, Photoshop has the edge; I think, this is obvious.... No, it is still true for many of us, not merely me. If you think that a photoshopped image from a nikon scanner is visually more stunning than the same image from a wet print, then I can have no dispute with you; I will merely point out that most would not agree with your perception I would extend this to even the pro-lab imacon scans. The wet print has certain intangible, ineffable qualities that you either see and discern or you do not. There's no doubt photoshop is great for polishing digital image files for posting to the web, and for that purpose a good flatbed like a V700 is excellent. Respectfully, Thomas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted March 29, 2008 Share #12 Posted March 29, 2008 If you check out the Epson scanner reviews here Untitled Document you will probably be pleasantly surprised ... Cheers dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
strick Posted March 30, 2008 Share #13 Posted March 30, 2008 The wet print has certain intangible, ineffable qualities that you either see and discern or you do not. Intangible, ineffable? That's mysticism. And mysticism is imho no matter of seeing, but of believing. Best, Greg (unbeliever) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoskeptic Posted March 30, 2008 Share #14 Posted March 30, 2008 All scanners are not created equal. You don't state which film type you intend to scan. If you are scanning negatives and want a high quality scan you should get a scanner which has a light source on both sides. If you shoot MF then a flatbed scanner is the economical choice. If you only shoot 35mm, then you should consider a dedicated 35mm scanner. An inexpensive flatbed (i.e. document scanner) is only (marginally) good for copying prints. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted April 2, 2008 Share #15 Posted April 2, 2008 I have a Canon 9950F which gives me good A3 prints - largest I currently print. I don't think there is any real advantage to a dedicated film scanner unless you intend printing larger than A3. The flatbed does of course offer many extra advantages over the deicated film scanner - Copying, OCR, emailing documents direct etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted April 2, 2008 Share #16 Posted April 2, 2008 I don't think there is any real advantage to a dedicated film scanner unless you intend printing larger than A3 Is that based on comparing scans from a film and flatbed scanner, or is it just an opinion arrived at from looking at the flatbed scans that you've made? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted April 2, 2008 Share #17 Posted April 2, 2008 IMO as mentioned above the flatbeds from epson are very good value and deliver very good results. I also own but never now use the Minolta 5400...the results I get from the Epson are much better.It has limitations but can do 95% of my needs. Maybe I am fortunate to have a good epson, or unfortunate to have a bad 5400..I really don't know. Back in the 80's & 90's I used to operate the BIG Drum scanners, Linotype, Screen, Crossfield etc. and then came Scitex with the first flatbed, no one took it seriously. Scitex made huge profits and Linotype, Crossfield are no more. Don't dismiss a flatbed because it is a flatbed. regards andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
odd Posted April 3, 2008 Share #18 Posted April 3, 2008 I use both Leica and MF. I only make my prints in classic darkroom. I have a coolscan and a cheap Canon multifunctional printer/scanner/copy. I use the coolscan for my 35 mm film and the Canon for scanning my “wetprint” when I want to use it on the internet. I don’t see any deferens on the net. LFI Gallery - Galerie > Fotografen-Galerie > OMU - OM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomasw_ Posted April 3, 2008 Share #19 Posted April 3, 2008 Intangible, ineffable? That's mysticism. And mysticism is imho no matter of seeing, but of believing. Best, Greg (unbeliever) Not sure if you mean mystical in a perjorative sense; as, intending nonsense. If you intended another sense, then read further:) But isn't the mystic just unable to communicate his experience in words? If so, then the mystic is cursed with knowing but being unable to transfer his experience without resorting to analogies. In a certain sense, then, anyone who knows that love exists has had a kind of mystic experience. For if one has never known love, then trying to convince such a person that love exists would be "mystical" in this sense. As, without the experience, the unloved and unloving man would have no means of comprehending the rather inadequate attempts of one who knows love exists but can't transfer the proof using our limited -- and limiting -- human language. Thus for the one without the experience, it seems a matter of belief or trust in another's experience. But what seems mystical and hard to believe is grounded in experience in such a case. It seems as though it would be the same with viewing and discerning a photograph, for some may take more from it than others. If so, then the 'mystical' in this sense is not based just in belief per se, but rather in experience. Respectfully, thomas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted April 5, 2008 Share #20 Posted April 5, 2008 Flatbed is fine to post images on the web. 100 ppi is all that shows and anything will do that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.