A question for the photographers

[Guest bkelm18]

I've been an avid amateur photographer for about 10 yrs now and used to be a B&W fanatic (even had my own dark room), after which I went digital. Now I'm itching to get back into it, and still want to use 35mm film. Now, I can develop the film myself, and instead of making the prints myself, I'd like to scan the negatives into my computer. Does anyone know of a film scanner that provides good images yet doesn't cost an arm and a leg? Thanks.

(Yes I know how awesome digital photography is and I know Walmart and the like can give me a CD with my prints on it. I'm not looking for that. )

[Guest Gun Geek]

Not really a photographer just take a lot of pictures of my kid. You know walmart can just give you a CD of your prints.... j/k

There are a bunch of 35mm scanners out there. Dont know how good they are yet. I have been looking at some as well.

Amazon.com: 35mm scanners

[Guest bkelm18]

I'm liking the looks of this one:

Amazon.com: Canon CanoScan 8800F Color Film/Negative/Photo Scanner (2168B002): Electronics

I'm a big Canon fan, plus it can also replace my old antiquated document scanner.

[gnmwilliams]

Canon or Epson have always been good choices. Epson has something called digital ICE which can touch up any blemishes on damaged or old negatives. These scanners are generally around 200-300 dollars.

[Guest Gun Geek]

I'm liking the looks of this one:

Amazon.com: Canon CanoScan 8800F Color Film/Negative/Photo Scanner (2168B002): Electronics

I'm a big Canon fan, plus it can also replace my old antiquated document scanner.

Reviews look good, I was looking at one of the other ones, the Plusteck but the Cannon looks to have more features and better reviews. That and the fact that I have heard of Cannon. If by chance you do get it let me know how it goes.

[extremescene]

Epson 4490 is your best economical choice... I scan my negatives and slides with it and it is excellent. I didn't make my decision lightly and did much research before I made my purchase. Aside from this, you would be looking into getting a much more expensive dedicated film scanner.

Many of my scans are posted at:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/collinpeterson/tags/film/

On a side note... DO NOT USE DIGITAL ICE or any other correction, as it is unpredictable and can create funny things in your scans that you may not notice until later. The clone tool in photoshop is your friend here.

[Oh Shoot]

Nikon Coolscan is still the most affordable quality choice for 35mm, but as you probably already know, looking at about a grand. Consumer grade flatbeds of any kind are a far second as far as actual resolution, color depth, dynamic range, etc.

Depending on your printing system, though, you may not notice much difference.

Another option is to find an older Nikon LS 2000, but knowing that it's still up to snuff before buying it could be a crapshoot. Its 2700 ppi still beats consumer grade flat bed scanners that offer much higher claimed rez.

I actually have one, that I'm probably going to eBay soon; I'd offer it to you, but I have no idea what is a fair price.

All that being said, there are a pile of flatbed options out there now, and I haven't kept up with the actual reviews regarding claimed resolution and actual USABLE resolution.

Of course, for on screen use only, you can get by with significantly less capable hardware capability than for fine prints.

Regarding Digital ICE, and similar technologies like FARE and others: with the correct level of this algorithm, especially in a dedicated film scanner, you can get EXCELLENT results. However, it does NOT work well on actual silver halide based films, like most black and white, or even old Kodachrome slides (which have residual silver left in the emulsion, unlike Ektachrome, which has only dyes remaining). One exception to black and white films in this regard are the various chromogenic black and white films, such as Ilford XP and others, that are developed in C-41 like other color neg films. There is no silver left, only color dyes. Another option is to simply shoot color neg film and convert to black and white in digital post processing.

No matter how careful you are with dust control you will ALWAYS have significant dust spotting in scanning film, and ICE (and similar) can save you A LOT of time. Negs are much worse than positives, as dust shows as light specks instead of dark ones.

- OS

[Guest 70below]

I'm curious myself, I used to use an AGFA way back, it doesn't even look like they're in the game anymore

[Oh Shoot]

Technology, sigh...

I also have a Lasergraphics film recorder, top of the line. Paid $15,000 for it in '97 and made basic living off it for about 5 years.

I'll be lucky to get $500 for it now, should have sold it long ago, but still had a few folks sending me stuff for it until about a year ago.

- OS

[extremescene]

I've never used AGFA photographic film, but have had much experience with their audio recording tape they used to make. It was awful and deteriorates much faster than other brands of the era. Just this year I transferred some old John Hartford recordings that used this tape and we are lucky they survived at all.

Ilford is generally my chosen film for traditional black and white. I've had great results with the Kodak c-41 black and white as well, but you most likely won't be developing that at home.

Back to the scanner... the Epson 4490 is basically your "standard" for flatbed film scanning. Cost goes up very fast if you need higher speed or quality, but this machine will give you fantastic and very professional results. The resolution will surpass the resolution of the film grain in most cases.

[Oh Shoot]

Back to the scanner... the Epson 4490 is basically your "standard" for flatbed film scanning. Cost goes up very fast if you need higher speed or quality, but this machine will give you fantastic and very professional results. The resolution will surpass the resolution of the film grain in most cases.

Well, okay.

Just know that the "4800" ppi of say, that Epson, is spread over a much larger area than a 35mm frame, and will give actual resolving rez of much lower actual usable pixel samples, not due to interpolation. And of course, the other scale, 9600, is simply sensor stepping, and not a real measure of resolving power at all, but rather number of samples for final software interpolation. If it is exactly precise, more is better, but stepper motors in "consumer" grade scanners generally overlap some, so the number of steps possible in and of itself can just be a number, depending.

The fact that it can "resolve" film grain itself is really not particularly a measure of overall quality, but rather an indication of how it perceives contrast differences; grain itself is easier to resolve than subtle nuances of shading created BY the grain clumps or "clouds", or of, of course, dynamic range of color dyes, including chromgenic "black and white" films.

A film scanner's actual native resolution is measured only over the actual area of the film itself of only 24x36mm in the case of 35mm, while a flatbed's maximum possible native sensor rez is measured over the entire range of its array, in the case of flatbeds, usually the entire size of the platen it's capable of covering, usually 8x10 or larger. So the actual number of native (non software interpolated) pixels is much much less than the ballpark maximum resolution of most 35mm film itself, certainly somewhere around 4K pixels max. Of course, the larger the negative/transparency, the better the results as the same pixel resolution is now applied over a larger area, and beyond 35mm size, film scanners are prohibitively expensive. Indeed, at 4x5" film and larger, only minor gains would be made with film scanners over even a modest flatbed such as the Epson discussed.

Of course, printing output is the other biggest factor involved. It doesn't gain anything to use the highest quality scanner if the printer system isn't up to reproducing it. Printers have to interpolate, too, and the best you can do with even the best of them is to feed them the best sampling you can. Archival printing (how long will your prints last, how impervious to environmental conditions, etc) is a whole 'nother issue.

So in short, all that being said, the "eye of the beholder" principle applies -- if the final output meets your expectations, then it's plenty good enough.

And you ARE right for the most part, that no more than $500 bucks or less for a flatbed scanner/inkjet printer combo will give results, that with proper skill of scanning technique and software image manipulation, will produce output pleasing and acceptable to most.

- Oh "sorry for the lecture" Shoot

[extremescene]

The OP's original intent was "good images yet doesn't cost an arm and a leg."

I agree that resolution is mainly a marketing scam and doesn't do a thing to relate to sharpness, color depth, etc... But a 4490 for less than $200 will suit most photographer's needs whether printing the images or for online viewing.

Here is a refurbished one for $109...

Epson Perfection 4490 PHOTO - Refurbished, Overview - Product Information - Epson America, Inc.

A general search of flickr and you will find excellent scans made with the 4490... and a very loyal following.

epson 4490 - Flickr: Search

[Oh Shoot]

The OP's original intent was "good images yet doesn't cost an arm and a leg."

I agree that resolution is mainly a marketing scam and doesn't do a thing to relate to sharpness, color depth, etc... But a 4490 for less than $200 will suit most photographer's needs whether printing the images or for online viewing.

Here is a refurbished one for $109...

Epson Perfection 4490 PHOTO - Refurbished, Overview - Product Information - Epson America, Inc.

A general search of flickr and you will find excellent scans made with the 4490... and a very loyal following.

epson 4490 - Flickr: Search

Yes, I guess my post was a long about way of agreeing with you, for general use.

Note that a screen image requires much less zap (tech term) than good printed image however.

edit: Oh, since Bkelm seems mostly interested in black and white photography, getting good print output from grayscale without a color cast can be quite touchy, too. You do want to work and send RGB images, even though they "look" black and white. If you change mode to "grayscale" or tell your printer to print in "black and white", you have gone from 16.7 million colors (or shades), though about half those are indistinguishable from each other by the human eye, to 256 shades of gray, each of which is distinguishable. And working beyond 24 bit isn't worth it, btw, you are just doubling file size with no real benefit unless you outputting BACK to film where you will gain a little.

And of course, never work in JPEG; JPEG condenses file size by throwing away similar colors, and each time a JPEG is manipulated and resaved, more image degradation happens. JPEG should be reserved a final output step primarly for onscreen use. Always work/resave and archive images you care about in uncompressed format like TIFF or PSD. Also also, any software sharpening should occur only as a last step when exact pixel dimensions are set. It's a truly irreversible process once file has been saved and closed. Sharpening DURING the scan should be avoided, too.

- OS

Edited November 23, 2009 by OhShoot

[Guest bkelm18]

Man. Haha. This is getting rough. Well, my intent, is to scan the negatives and keep most just for on-screen use, but if I find one I like enough I'll print it out myself on my photo quality printer, if I find one I really like, I'll send it out to be professionally printed, usually 5x7 or 8x10. I'll take a good look at the Epson. I do understand that quality costs money, but I'm not trying to be the next Ansel Adams, just a hobbyist doing this for the sake of photography. This camera I'm using is 60 yrs old, so I'm not expecting 15MP quality images out of this process.

[Oh Shoot]

Man. Haha. This is getting rough. Well, my intent, is to scan the negatives and keep most just for on-screen use, but if I find one I like enough I'll print it out myself on my photo quality printer, if I find one I really like, I'll send it out to be professionally printed, usually 5x7 or 8x10. I'll take a good look at the Epson. I do understand that quality costs money, but I'm not trying to be the next Ansel Adams, just a hobbyist doing this for the sake of photography. This camera I'm using is 60 yrs old, so I'm not expecting 15MP quality images out of this process.

Film is film, age of camera not really a factor unless optics are crummy, in which case why use it?

Note that images for print should be ~ 300ppi AT GIVEN OUTPUT SIZE; many claim that 220ppi will do to maximize Epson printers.

Don't confuse screen rez vs. print rez. You can't "upsample" pixels after the fact. (you can, but no silk purse from sow's ear).

Screen rez is in pixels only. An 800x600 pixel image is just that. Will appear different physical sizes on different size monitors, but is simply 480,000 pixels. The "dpi" or print rez, is determined by how x number of pixels are constrained to x amount of print space.

8x12" (full frame from 35mm) image at 220 ppi = 2640x1760 pixels) = apprx. 13 MB uncompressed

8x12" image at 300ppi = 3600x2400 pixels = apprx. 25 MB.

I recommend 300 ppi at biggest print size you ever expect to output as archival version.

Scanning effort is best maximized by scanning at highest rez you ever expect to output to print and keeping files stored that way, uncompressed. Then downsample to desired screen image size in JPEG. Always go back to original file to further manipulate or resize.

Data storage is the cheapest part of computers anymore.

- OS

[extremescene]

Data storage is the cheapest part of computers anymore.

- OS

and still I never have enough! it's like ammo.

[Guest bkelm18]

Film is film, age of camera not really a factor unless optics are crummy, in which case why use it?

- OS

Yes, trust me, I'm aware. I use it because it gives me the kind of photos that a brand new D/SLR can't even begin to approach without Photoshop and all that. So yes, the age of the camera can very much contribute to the image. The end result is what you aim for in photography and it is very much in the eye of the beholder, all these fancy scanners and various films are just steps in a process.