Good cheap scanner for B&W prints?

andrew.roos · Dec 28, 2012

I'm a regular at APUG and print 8x10" B&W prints on FB and RC paper. I would like to scan them for upload to the galleries but unsurprisingly haven't been able to get anything like satisfactory results with my wife's old Brother MFC-215C low-end multifunction office peripheral (!). Re-photographing with my Nikon D5000 DSLR has also not yielded good results (poor tonality) so I'm looking for a cheap (sub US$ 100) dedicated scanner option if possible. I shoot medium format but expect that at this price point I won't be able to get a negative scanner that would give me useful results, so am happy to stick with print scanning (I enjoy darkroom printing in any case).

I guess I'm looking for a scanner with good Dmax and good gradation of tones. Scanning speed and high resolution are not really important to me.

What do you guys recommend? Locally available scanners in this price bracket include the Canon LiDE 110, 210 and 200; the Epson V33 and V330; and the HP G2710 and G2410. If they're all rubbish and I need to up my price point then please suggest a good entry-level model at a higher price.

I'm sure this question has been posted before, but thought it worth asking again as I'm sure scanning technology is continually changing. Thanks for your indulgence!

Thanks
Andrew

pschwart · Dec 28, 2012

I don't think you are going to find a new scanner for $100 that is going to meet your requirements. Take a look at the Epson V500 which ought to be sufficient for scanning both prints and medium format negatives for the web and is still very inexpensive. You might be able to find something used ...

Herzeleid · Dec 28, 2012

I used an older version of epson V330 (3490) for both 35mm film scan and print scan. It would definitely satisfy your needs to digitize images for web galleries.
I now have both epson V500 and the old epson scanner. When it comes to scanning prints both are satisfying enough, but if you can find used or refurbished v500 that would be better.

andrew.roos · Dec 29, 2012

Thanks for your advice Philip and Herzeleid. Much appreciated. I think I'll look out for a good offer on a V500.

Andrew

bdial · Dec 30, 2012

Scanning prints for web posting isn't a very demanding task for most scanners. The cheap cannon scanners can do the trick, and the Brother you have now likely could.
What sort of controls does the scanning app associated with your Brother MF scanner have, and in what ways do you find it inadequate?

andrew.roos · Dec 30, 2012

Hi bdial, thanks for your reply. I've attached the scan I made on the Brother that precipitated my post. The only controls I have are dpi, brightness and contrast, and output file format. This scan was made at 300 dpi with the contrast reduced slightly to match the original print.

The biggest problem I have is the poor tonal gradation - it looks posterised. The original is an 8 x 10" print from a MF negative and has a lovely subtle tonal range, with gradual shifts in tone. The scan appears posterised, with harsh transitions and a limited number of intermediate values.

I scanned to tiff and to bmp as well as the jpeg. They all look similar.

Thanks for your help,
Andrew

StoneNYC · Dec 31, 2012

Yea that does seen really bad....

I agree go for a v500

Spend a little extra, you get what you pay for...

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

andrew.roos · Dec 31, 2012

Thanks StoneNYC.

I've been looking at local prices, and the V500 is very expensive compared to the US market. In the US the V330 costs around $100 and the V500 around $150. Here, the V330 costs around $ 115, but the V500 is way more expensive at about $ 300. I suspect it's volume related - the V330 is probably a volume seller for consumers, while the V500 is typically used by professionals so volumes are lower and the cost is substantially more. Given the price difference, I think I may just end up with the V330 after all!

Herzeleid · Dec 31, 2012

The pricing policies outside US is really bothering. I bought my V500 around 200euros. Unnecessarily expensive IMO.
V330 would satisfy your needs adequately I believe.

pschwart · Dec 31, 2012

You said you shoot medium format so you will want a scanner that can handle 120. The V330 specs say it is 35mm only.

andrew.roos · Dec 31, 2012

Thanks I saw that in the spec. However my main requirement at present is to scan prints and although I would also love to be able to scan negs I'm not sure it's worth paying more than double!

Happy new year,
Andrew

pschwart · Dec 31, 2012

My opinion: yes, it is. Even an inexpensive flatbed can generate scans of sufficient quality from medium format for 11x14 prints. The only caveat is that you will have to replace the OEM film holders with something better.

andrew.roos · Jan 1, 2013

Thanks guys, I really appreciate all the advice.

If I want a scanner that supports MF film, would the Canon 9000F be worth considering? The reason I ask is that although the 9000F is more expensive than the V500 in the US, it's actually somewhat less expensive here ($235 for the 9000F compared to $300 for the V500) and supports 9600 dpi for film scans.

Also, what's the issue with the OEM film holders?

Thanks again for your help,
Andrew

StoneNYC · Jan 1, 2013

andrew.roos said:
Thanks guys, I really appreciate all the advice.

If I want a scanner that supports MF film, would the Canon 9000F be worth considering? The reason I ask is that although the 9000F is more expensive than the V500 in the US, it's actually somewhat less expensive here ($235 for the 9000F compared to $300 for the V500) and supports 9600 dpi for film scans.

Also, what's the issue with the OEM film holders?

Thanks again for your help,
Andrew

I looked at the 9000f and saw REALY good reviews, until I found the Epson V750 which I was told was the best flr multiple size films, and I've never seen anyone in the professional film forums mention the 9000f just amateurs in blogs. The pros all mention v500 or v700/750 so I would spend the extra money honestly, look for a used one? Do they have a Craigslist there?

I agree about the film holders but again you aren't as specific you might not care, I spent the extra $ on the betterscanning holders (no spaces) with ANR glass, the website is really jumbled but one 120 adjustable holder and two ANR glad for MF or one 35mm holder with 4 ANR glass would be your options. I only go the 120 setup but again I'm someone who spent way more than you on the scanner so perhaps for now the provided scanners will do....

I say get the v500 money be damned, work an extra shift and don't buy coffee outside of the supermarket for a month or two and you'll have it.

So

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

pschwart · Jan 1, 2013

OEM film holders typically are flimsy and incapable of holding film flat. Using a glass holder can significantly improve scan quality, even with a dedicated film scanner like the Nikon 9000. A Canon might be fine but I have never used one.

andrew.roos said:
Thanks guys, I really appreciate all the advice.

If I want a scanner that supports MF film, would the Canon 9000F be worth considering? The reason I ask is that although the 9000F is more expensive than the V500 in the US, it's actually somewhat less expensive here ($235 for the 9000F compared to $300 for the V500) and supports 9600 dpi for film scans.

Also, what's the issue with the OEM film holders?

Thanks again for your help,
Andrew

andrew.roos · Jan 2, 2013

Thanks for all the help and suggestions guys - much appreciated!

Andrew

Alan Klein · Jan 5, 2013

The V600 supports ICE on prints while the V500 does not.

andrew.roos · Jan 6, 2013

Alan Klein said:
The V600 supports ICE on prints while the V500 does not.

Thanks for the heads-up Alan - unfortunately it's a bit pricey for me at present. However perhaps I'll be lucky and find one second hand for a reasonable price - it's over $400 new here.

Andrew

tkamiya · Jan 6, 2013

One more vote for V500. I have one and use it for 35mm and 120. One problem with this scanner is how (NOT) well it handles 35mm negs that are curled. The film strip is supported by edge only. So if the film is curling, it will easy result in ugly newton rings. The result cannot compare to dedicated film scanners but I'm satisfied, especially considering the price.

I could be wrong but I don't think ICE works on B&W films anyway. I recall reading somewhere, it is for color negs only due to the technology used. I always "spot" my images in post processing.

StoneNYC · Jan 6, 2013

tkamiya said:
One more vote for V500. I have one and use it for 35mm and 120. One problem with this scanner is how (NOT) well it handles 35mm negs that are curled. The film strip is supported by edge only. So if the film is curling, it will easy result in ugly newton rings. The result cannot compare to dedicated film scanners but I'm satisfied, especially considering the price.

I could be wrong but I don't think ICE works on B&W films anyway. I recall reading somewhere, it is for color negs only due to the technology used. I always "spot" my images in post processing.

Prints, not film...

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

pschwart · Jan 7, 2013

Alessandro Serrao said:
I'd suggest looking for a Plustek 8100, cheap for what it offers.
It will win hands down every flatbed scanner no matter what.

It won't beat a flatbed if scanning prints and medium format are requirements

andrew.roos · Jan 8, 2013

Alessandro Serrao said:
But these weren't the requirements of the OP.

My original requirement was a good scanner for 8x10 B&W prints. If the scanner can also handle 120 format film, that would be an advantage. Unfortunately the PLustek 8100 wouldn't be suitable for this, but thanks for the suggestion anyway.

Andrew

Resoman · Jan 22, 2013

I'm shopping for a scanner myself, and I think my needs are very similar to the OP's.

After decades of black and white photography, I've moved to another state and had to leave my darkroom behind. I'm finally getting comfortable working in the digital realm but I regret my lack of access to my accumulated negatives. What I would hope to accomplish with a scanner would be to produce reasonably high quality scans of existing b/w prints, primarily for web uses but also for possible book making, a la Blurb. I made a Blurb book a few years ago with my Epson 3170 Perfection scanner which was marginally acceptable. I'd like to do better, though.
An issue for me is that most of my medium format prints are larger that 8.5 x 11, so most affordable flatbed scanners wouldn't work. The idea of scanning MF negatives has great appeal, especially since it would mean that I could continue using my beloved Rollei, which has sat sadly idle for several months.
After reading the posts on this thread, it would seem to me that the Epson V600 would be an affordable (>$200) option, and I'm inclined to make that move. I'd be pleased to hear any thoughts on my situation or other recommendations.

Gary

Alan Klein · Jan 22, 2013

For book size prints and web, the V600 should do very well with medium format negatives. My FLickr site 120 scans with the V600, color only though.

Resoman · Jan 22, 2013

Thanks, Alan -
I think I'll give it a shot!
Gary

Good cheap scanner for B&W prints?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency