Can anyone reccomend a negative scanner (for putting images on the web)

[get_me_a_gun]

Hi,

Im looking for a negative scanner (flatbed or the kind you insert the negatives) it doesnt have to give great results but enough to have them posted on the web . Are there specific brands that are better than others? I am looking to spend less than $150. Thanks for all your help, guys and gals. : )

 

[firecracker]

Hi,

Im looking for a negative scanner (flatbed or the kind you insert the negatives) it doesnt have to give great results but enough to have them posted on the web . Are there specific brands that are better than others? I am looking to spend less than $150. Thanks for all your help, guys and gals. : )

Almost any flatbed scanner does a good job scanning documents and 8x10 prints. But scanning negs with it is a totally different thing. 35mm negs do poorly, and mid-formats may do okay if you place them flat enough.

The problem is usually the focusing before getting into resolutions and color adjustments.

 

[StephenS]

I think at that price its a pretty tall order to get anything decent. Your best bet may be to go the used/eBay route if cost is a concern. You can pick up a decent yet somewhat obsolete scanner at a fair price that way. But I would certainly try to find a neg scanner rather than a flatbed that does double duty - especially at the kinds of prices you are considering.

Even though you plan to only use the scans for screen resolution, you still need something capable of making a good capture. And you may find you want to be able to start doing some digital printing down the line too.

I see quite a few used Polaroid scanners around (might be Mac only) and they are decent for the cost.

 

[dmr]

The one I use and like has unfortunately been discontinued. It's the Konica-Minolta Scan Dual IV. Street price new was $200-ish when I got it last year about this time. You may be able to find them used in your price range.

I'm really impressed by this one. It really shows how mediocre the mini-lab scans are. I've had good luck with color negs (which I shoot most) and slides and B&W negs.

 

[bdial]

Epson and Canon have scanners in this $ realm, and generally can scan 35 and medium format. For 4x5 you'll need to part with around 400 or more. Epson also offers "refurbished" units from their website at a fair discount from "list" prices. Compusa also has marked down units from time to time that are returns, demos or soon to be discontinued. Plus, as stated, there is always ebay, which may well get you something better for the money.

 

[srs5694]

I'd expect that just about anything will do OK for screen-resolution scans, at least in terms of sharpness. Some may produce streaking in particularly dense parts of the image (shadows in slides, highlights in negatives). I've heard, but cannot verify from personal experience, that some of the latest Epson flatbeds are better than the average flatbed in film scanning.

My own experience is limited to three film scanners: An old Polaroid SprintScan 35 (2700 dpi top scan resolution, few additional features), a Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 (5400 dpi top scan resolution, digital ICE, etc.), and an Epson Stylus Photo RX500 (combination scanner/printer/media reader with a 2400 dpi top scan resolution). I've posted a short comparison. Note that this comparison is mostly about sharpness, but the scanners differ in other ways, too. Note that the Epson doesn't qualify as one of the better recent Epson designs. Even it would be adequate for producing scans for the Web, although as a multifunction unit, I think it'd be out of the specified $150 price range, if it's still available (it may be discontinued by now).

 

[roteague]

Sorry, but unless you are willing to settle for used, you aren't going to find much in that price range.

 

[Dave Parker]

How large of negatives are you looking to scan? I just replaced one of my scanners and have another here that needs to find a new home, it is a 35mm scanner and is actually very good, I used it for years to do my work. Another question, what type of computer do you have....

Dave

 

[Kobin]

After searching the web, I got mine (Epson 4490, has 35mm and 120 neg holders) from
buydig.com for $216 up front; there's a $50 mail-in rebate in effect til Sept 30, 2006 from Epson. When I receive the check, the scanner will have cost me $176. Don't know if this helps.

In part, I got the scanner so I could post pics to the gallery here that might image better than the digicam snaps I'd been taking of my prints, but I haven't been able to post anything. Sean and I are hoping the site upgrade will take care of that.

K.

 

[Jim Jones]

I use an old Epson Perfection 2450 Photo scanner with complete satisfaction for web photos, even from cropped 35mm slides and negatives. Comparable new scanners are available from Epson and others in your price range. The programs that come with a photo and negative scanner are an important consideration. Epson has the 4490 Photo model on sale for $200, including Digital ICE noise reduction. If you don't mind manually spotting your images with an image editor (even Photoshop Elements works well enough for this), less expensive scanners should do well.

 

[Nancy]

Another option if you're considering an Epson is to buy a refurbished model from their website. They list them under clearance. I just looked and they have the 4490 for $123 after the $50 rebate and free shipping.
I've bought a couple of printers that way and had no problems.
I've had the Epson 2450 for several years and it's still going strong.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

If you don't mind manually spotting your images with an image editor (even Photoshop Elements works well enough for this), less expensive scanners should do well.

Can't quite agree here - a crucial difference between cheaper scanners and more expensive ones (but not the only difference) is the maximum density they can handle. If you want to scan b+w (silver-based) negatives or color transparencies, you're unlikely to be satisfied with a maximum density (Dmax) of less than 3.6 - anything lower and you just won't see detail in the densest parts of the film (highlights with b+w negs, shadows with trannies).

Regards,

David

 

[Kobin]

Web images are usually limited in the information they exhibit. Even large files offer reproductions worse than those printed in books.

Printing display images from scanned files is one thing. Uploading to a gallery that accepts only small files, or trucates files in the process, is another thing entirely. For the latter purpose, and for producing an electronic contact sheet, cheap scanners are more than adequate IMO.

K.

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . If you want to scan b+w (silver-based) negatives or color transparencies, you're unlikely to be satisfied with a maximum density (Dmax) of less than 3.6 - anything lower and you just won't see detail in the densest parts of the film (highlights with b+w negs, shadows with trannies).

Regards,

David

For quality scans of color transparancies, I agree. For B&W negatives, if a 3.6 Dmax scanner is needed, I'd rather reshoot the negative. My only scan from a silver negative that was really overexposed was poor, but I wouldn't even try to make a traditional print from it.

 

[donbga]

Can't quite agree here - a crucial difference between cheaper scanners and more expensive ones (but not the only difference) is the maximum density they can handle. If you want to scan b+w (silver-based) negatives or color transparencies, you're unlikely to be satisfied with a maximum density (Dmax) of less than 3.6 - anything lower and you just won't see detail in the densest parts of the film (highlights with b+w negs, shadows with trannies).

Regards,

David

So which scanner do you reccomend? I know of no desktop scanner on the market that have that capabilities.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

So which scanner do you reccomend? I know of no desktop scanner on the market that have that capabilities.

I have an Epson Expression 1680 Pro (flatbed with A4 transparency hood) which I use for rollfilm and sheet film scanning and which has a Dmax capability of 3.6 (not an exceptional figure, there are Imacon desktop scanners that handle up to 4.8). For 35 mm, I use a Nikon Coolscan IV. The Epson cost me £750 about 3 years ago, I believe (as so often with computers and peripherals) there are now other models available which offer the same spec for less money! I previously owned an HP scanner with Dmax 3.4, and this was just not able to do what I wanted - and I must emphasize, my b+w negs are certainly not overexposed. Don't have a densitometer, but subjectively it seems silver-based negs are harder to scan (denser) than color transparencies (conversely, if you are shooting b+w expressly to scan it, chromogenic film makes life easier).

Regards,

David

 

[John Bartley]

Hi,

Im looking for a negative scanner (flatbed or the kind you insert the negatives) it doesnt have to give great results but enough to have them posted on the web . Are there specific brands that are better than others? I am looking to spend less than $150. Thanks for all your help, guys and gals. : )

Because your requirements are only for basic image scanning and you have already accepted that you can do without "best" quality, then a used one will probably do just fine. You could look for older models or for upper end models with slight defects.

As an example,a couple of years ago, I bought a used MicroTek Scanmaker5 unit for $1.00 plus shipping. It works fine on the flatbed for both B&W and colour, and the 8x10 transparency scanner part does ok on B&W but doesn't work on colour - only shows red and blue channels. That's fine with me as I don't do colour and can't afford a new 8x10 transparency scanner.

cheers

 

[bdial]

For the original 150 $ budget, there are no scanners available new that will have a DMax > 3.5 or so. The Epson 4990 and it's recent replacement claim a DMAX of 4.0, and Microtek has a similar model. However these are $400 +.
Some of the Nikon film scanners spec. a DMAX of 4. Used ones may be available in the $150 range, though the older ones are SCSI, and will require an $80 or so interface card on most computers.
Whether any of them achive a DMAX of 4.0 may be a different matter, a test in the recent issue of View Camera magazine of the newest Epson reports the actual DMAX at considerably less than 4.0.
For web posting, the 150 - 200 $ Epsons and Canons should do fine.

 

[firecracker]

For the original Whether any of them achive a DMAX of 4.0 may be a different matter, a test in the recent issue of View Camera magazine of the newest Epson reports the actual DMAX at considerably less than 4.0.

The over-spec issue comes with some marketing hype especially for the digital gears that are still in progress. So, I don't even bother dealing with it.

I use a Nikon Coolscan V for my 35mm negs, and I've been pretty satisfied with the quality of the scans it produces. I just cannot go lower than that.

However, my flatbed scanner is old. It's a 5 year-old 1600 dpi Epson. I recently paid about 3,000 yen (around 28 USD) to replace the body which had started causing problems and showing lines all over my scans. For that old body and all the accessories as a complete package, I paid 10,000 yen a few years ago. It's been good as a document-and-print-scanning device.

The A3-sized model with the same spec is still around. Some pro labs in Japan still use it for general scanning services.

I've used a higher/newer model of a flatbed scanner once, but the results weren't that different. Oh, well...

 

[StephenS]

Get an Imacon Flextight. Tomorrow.

 

[donbga]

Hi,

Im looking for a negative scanner (flatbed or the kind you insert the negatives) it doesnt have to give great results but enough to have them posted on the web . Are there specific brands that are better than others? I am looking to spend less than $150. Thanks for all your help, guys and gals. : )

I'm sorry you have received so many irrelevant and somewhat erroneous suggestions. An Epson 4490 for about $160 will work just fine and comes with all of the scanning software you will need to produce files suitable for the web.

Good luck,

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I'm sorry you have received so many irrelevant and somewhat erroneous suggestions. An Epson 4490 for about $160 will work just fine and comes with all of the scanning software you will need to produce files suitable for the web.

Good luck,

Just who is erroneous here? If you are scanning for the web, OF COURSE you do not need massive resolution or huge files, you need a small low-res image, but one which gives a reasonably accurate impression of the actual "real" picture. There is no parallel with analog photography, where very cheap old cameras, even for $1 from the thrift store, will "do" if you only want a very small print. A scanner with a low Dmax will produce hideous artefacts in the shadows of transparencies and will totally fail to record the highlights of b+w negs - the result will be rubbish, even at 72 dpi on a monitor!

Just to make it absolutely clear that this is not some kind of techno-fetishism - the attached picture was reduced to a JPEG file 5 inches wide and 100 ppi. For this picture to work, I need smooth artefact-free tone even in the deepest black. Through a process of expensive experimentation, I found that a Nikon Coolscan would give me this, whereas my previous Canon film scanner (I think an FS2700), although it has the same nominal resolution, just couldn't hack it!

Short advice to get_me_a_gun: If you think a cheap scanner might do, be sure to try one out before you buy. If the results are acceptable to you, fine - just remember that cheap scanners have the (severe) limitations I have described!

Regards,

David

 

[donbga]

Just who is erroneous here? If you are scanning for the web, OF COURSE you do not need massive resolution or huge files, you need a small low-res image, but one which gives a reasonably accurate impression of the actual "real" picture. There is no parallel with analog photography, where very cheap old cameras, even for $1 from the thrift store, will "do" if you only want a very small print. A scanner with a low Dmax will produce hideous artefacts in the shadows of transparencies and will totally fail to record the highlights of b+w negs - the result will be rubbish, even at 72 dpi on a monitor!

Just to make it absolutely clear that this is not some kind of techno-fetishism - the attached picture was reduced to a JPEG file 5 inches wide and 100 ppi. For this picture to work, I need smooth artefact-free tone even in the deepest black. Through a process of expensive experimentation, I found that a Nikon Coolscan would give me this, whereas my previous Canon film scanner (I think an FS2700), although it has the same nominal resolution, just couldn't hack it!

Short advice to get_me_a_gun: If you think a cheap scanner might do, be sure to try one out before you buy. If the results are acceptable to you, fine - just remember that cheap scanners have the (severe) limitations I have described!

Regards,

David

David,

The 4490 will work just fine. End of story.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

David,

The 4490 will work just fine. End of story.

Actually, Don, I never said it wouldn't! - I can't judge because I have no experience of it. All I did say was that I had had an HP scanner with a claimed Dmax of 3.4 (about 4 years ago) and it wasn't good enough for me (as others have remarked, Dmax claims are sometimes exaggerated). If the 4490 delivers a genuine 3.4, this may well be enough.

Furthermore, I acknowledged quite openly that scanner prices have come down quite a lot in the last few years (much to my annoyance). In the case of get_me_a_gun, the 4490 would quite probably be a good choice - Epson seem to be closing it out (which of course does not make it any worse from the practical point of view), which brings it within get_me_a_gun's price range.

Regards,

David

 

[djklmnop]

Actually, I wouldnt recommend a Minolta Dual IV anymore. Their CCDs tend to go bad with purple and green banding across the image. I recently purchased one through ebay and I'm in the process of returning it to the seller. The one he sent me had a huge crack on the bottom of the scanner. Bastard is denying it ever had a crack.

Anyhow, I've been through quite a few scanners. I've had the Minolta Dual II, III, and IV. Sold the IV off due to the banding issue and bought a Coolscan 8000. After losing the 8000 a bunch of theives, thats when I revisited the Minolta IV with much regret. I should've stuck with the Dual III as it was the best of lineup of Minolta scanners. Granted its 2820 DPI vs 3200, but most of my images end up on the web, or is used for proofing. If you have the money to spare, definately consider the Coolscan 8000. It was the best scanner I have ever used before climbing the Imacon ladder for much more money.