Affordable quality scans of film?

[George Mann]

Does such a service exist that provides better, more naturally rendered scans of film affordably than the images produced by my Nikon D1x?

 

[George Mann]

Should I just give up and stick to shooting slide film?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Does such a service exist that provides better, more naturally rendered scans of film affordably than the images produced by my Nikon D1x?

Define "affordable" - there are plenty of people who make excellent scans & do first rate colour corrections, but are you willing to pay the rates of high end custom labs?

 

[George Mann]

but are you willing to pay the rates of high end custom labs?

Throw some prices at me (35MM).

 

[Lachlan Young]

Throw some prices at me (35MM).

Starting point would likely be in the USD 15-25 range per frame & rising from there. This would be for files that can support big exhibition prints/ publication on very fine linescreens etc. Negs would be scanned on high end CCD machines or drum scanners. Should squeeze out pretty much everything the material has to offer & might startle you as to the accuracy & quality of colour that neg film delivers.

If that's not what you're after, you're probably better off with one of the places that runs Noritsu or Frontier scanners well (Richard Photo Lab and others like them) - that 15-25 dollars will net you C-41 process & a decent resolution scan of the entire roll. It generally won't be as all-out in resolution or potential ultimate gamut as higher end scanners, but the results can be very very good indeed. Some places are willing to customise colour balances/ settings/ presets etc to create your own aesthetic.

 

[George Mann]

Spending that kind of money per frame would only make sense as a commercial venture. It is mostly just a hobby for me these days, and I really enjoy the pure analog nature of slides.

So I guess that pretty much sums things up.

 

[shutterfinger]

At 2.7megapixels a newer body with 10+ megapixels or a dedicated 35mm film scanner should pay for itself fairly quickly.
A Optifcilm 8100 or 8200 should fit the bill well. https://plustek.com/usa/products/film-and-photo-scanners/
A Opticfilm 7600 will run on newer OS with Vuscan while older models will not. AI and SE are the version of Silverfast scanning software bundled with the scanner.

 

[George Mann]

At 2.7megapixels a newer body with 10+ megapixels or a dedicated 35mm film scanner should pay for itself fairly quickly.

Actually, none of this is correct. The D1x produces 5.74 megapixels from a 10.8 mp sensor, which produces nearly identical results to a Noritsu drum scanner! I have yet to see a 10 megapixel camera that can out-resolve it.

Even my 2.7 megapixel D1h (same sensor) is easily as good as the best home scanner.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Actually, none of this is correct. The D1x produces 5.74 megapixels from a 10.8 mp sensor, which produces nearly identical results to a Noritsu drum scanner! I have yet to see a 10 megapixel camera that can out-resolve it.

Even my 2.7 megapixel D1h (same sensor) is easily as good as the best home scanner.

The Noritsu scanners are many things, but drum scanners they are not. And which Noritsu are you referring to anyway (there are several for 135 only & the HS1800 for 120 &135)?

 

[George Mann]

The Noritsu scanners are many things, but drum scanners they are not.

That's good to know, as I have never actually seen one.

And which Noritsu are you referring to anyway (there are several for 135 only & the HS1800 for 120 &135)?

I have only seen the scans online (35MM). I think that both the Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED (used properly) and Fuji Frontier SP series tend to yield better results than any other type of scanner from 135.

 

[Lachlan Young]

That's good to know, as I have never actually seen one.



I have only seen the scans online (35MM). I think that both the Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED (used properly) and Fuji Frontier SP series tend to yield better results than any other type of scanner from 135.

Essentially the Frontier & Noritsu are very similar machines, at least in the SP3000/ HS-1800 forms, both use shift & stitch technology with a CCD sensor to get good resolution relative to noise. They were designed to deliver up to about a 12x18" print on a minilab RA4 printer & that rather defines their software limitations (though some have attempted to persuade them to deliver more steps & thus higher resolution with varying degrees of success).

The Coolscan is ok until you compare its output with the genuinely high end machines (Imacon/ Hasselblad, Eversmart, iQSmart, Screen etc) or drum scanners (Heidelberg, Aztek/ Howtek, Scanmate etc), then you really see the price differential. The level of operator competence needed with the high end machines is also significantly higher, as is a tolerance for cranky software (and hardware) & the potential need to stockpile Apple G4's!

On the other hand, one of the best compromises as a scanner might well be a D800 (especially given how much the prices have come down secondhand), a macro lens, a good light table & a strong copy stand...

 

[George Mann]

Essentially the Frontier & Noritsu are very similar machines, at least in the SP3000/ HS-1800 forms.

I am aware of that now. The Noritsu produces rougher, noisier images with poorer highlight handling than the Fuji.

The Coolscan is ok until you compare its output with the genuinely high end machines (Imacon/ Hasselblad, Eversmart, iQSmart, Screen etc) or drum scanners (Heidelberg, Aztek/ Howtek, Scanmate etc), then you really see the price differential. The level of operator competence needed with the high end machines is also significantly higher, as is a tolerance for cranky software (and hardware) & the potential need to stockpile Apple G4's!

This may be why I have never seen an agreeable scan from a drum scanner with 35MM.

 

[Lachlan Young]

This may be why I have never seen an agreeable scan from a drum scanner with 35MM.

You will have seen thousands of excellent drum scans from 35mm over the past 3 decades, it's just that you won't have been told how they were scanned. The coolscans are a drastic step up from the consumer flatbeds/ film scanners, but they are nowhere near as good as the much more expensive scanners in a variety of areas. BTDT.

 

[John51]

I've got a 35mm scanner that cost ~£30 new a few years ago. It's basically a 6MP box camera with neg/slide holders. Move the next neg/slide in place and press a button. Easily good enough for posting pics online and it does a good job with underexposed slides. Used models can be cheap as they often get bought to digitise the family photos and when that's done, it gets sold.

Another option is to find a lab with reasonable rates for scanning. In the UK, Ag Photographic offer scanning at the time of processing.

4MP = £5, ~18MP = £6 and ~80MP = £12. Plus processing of course.

I'd guess that there's far less handling needed when the entire film is scanned so the price per frame is much lower.

 

[Alan9940]

I have been very pleased with the scans I get from 35mm using a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 II, if you want to DIY. No clue as to used availability and, most likely, not inexpensive. How about using your D1x and stitching frames for higher resolution? If you want to look into an outside service, check this:

http://www.richardmanphoto.com/scanningservices/

I've never used Richard's scanning service, but his prices sure seem fair! Five bucks for a 35mm scan to 9000 x 6000.

 

[George Mann]

I found a few reasonably priced services online that use the SP3000. Color Services, and Indie Photo Lab. It would be nice if we had one in Denver as well.

 

[George Mann]

Check out this FAQ, and tell me what you see wrong with it.

 

[George Mann]

"The Noritsu produces rougher, noisier images with poorer highlight handling than the Fuji."

I realize that this statement is not shared by everyone, as there seems to be as much debate as there are sample variations produced by these machines. My own findings to date only concern 35MM color negatives.

 

[shutterfinger]

Uncorrected scans are scanned on the Noritsu scanner without custom adjustments. Basically, the scanner is set to “auto” and no frame-by-frame tweaks are made.

Many scanners clip the deep shadows and very bright highlights to give a set contrast which is fine for standard prints up to 8 x 10 but not optimal for larger or gallery quality prints.
A Nikon Coolscan might produce better results than the Plustek previously referenced but are not as good as a drum scan.
If all you want is a good proof the services you linked will likely be adequate. I would pick a few test negatives/positives, send them out for scanning and evaluate the results.
Good scanning is like good photography, it takes some time to learn the basics and experience improves on it.
Ask if they provide a RAW (auto everything off) scan. This type of scan usually provides all the detail available from the image but requires post processing to get a good to excellent image.

 

[Lachlan Young]

"The Noritsu produces rougher, noisier images with poorer highlight handling than the Fuji."

I realize that this statement is not shared by everyone, as there seems to be as much debate as there are sample variations produced by these machines. My own findings to date only concern 35MM color negatives.

They can both be horrible if someone overdoes the sharpening - & their abilities to handle higher Dmax can sometimes not be amazing (I've seen some not great results from pushed BW) - though I'm not sure how much of that is software or hardware or operator. The Frontier does make a bit of a song & dance about its highlight preservation algorithms, though my own experience with scans from it suggest it'll happily clip certain values to white to get a colour balance, then drop the L value of them to 95 for output, along with a LUT that seems to cut off certain bits of the gamut (presumably for more reliable output on certain papers without needing significant operator skills)... Which can make colour matching a subsequent unclipped high-res scan an entertaining exercise.

 

[jtk]

I use a Nikon V, which with Digital Ice is much better than having to post-process for dust after using a digital camera. I Nikon scanned much of what I've posted in Media: none involved dust spotting, even from slides shot in the 80s. However Nikon V cannot deal with Kodachrome "properly" because it sees Kodachrome as very weird B&W (see the corrugated steel wall and window in recent Media),

I have used https://www.scancafe.com/ to produce a digital slide show (click the frame, advance etc). I also had them scan the same slides for printing purposes, for which they were fine (tho I'd already Nikon scanned them).

Scan Cafe's price and service were surprisingly good. They're a good outfit. Without testing I certainly wouldn't patronize anybody who used Noritsu or Fuji.

 

[lecarp]

Should I just give up and stick to shooting slide film?

Yes!

 

[jtk]

NO. JUST CONFIRM THAT THE COMPANY IS USING A NIKON SCANNER, NOT NORITSU OR FUJI OR OTHER SIMILAR MINILAB SCANNERS.