Need a scanner for 35mm color and B&W slides...

AutumnJazz · May 25, 2008

I shoot Kodachrome (unknown res), Velvia 50 (approximately 22mp or 85 lp/mm), Rollei ATP (35mp or 100 lp/mm), and Fomapan R100 ( 115 lp/mm). I'd also like to try Adox CMS 20 at one point, which is microfilm (112mp or 180 lp/mm).

I don't know their dynamic range, but Rollei ATP is very contrasty, it's the replacement for Technical Pan.

I don't necessarily want a scanner that can capture the film's full resolution, but I want a scanner that is good enough that I could have huge prints made, and have them look decent.

Am I stuck outside of sending select slides off to get roll-scanned? Are there any scanners around the $1000 mark that wouldn't suck?

Thanks to all.

Greg_E · May 26, 2008

Used Nikon 8000 can often be had for around $1000, and they do not suck. Drum scan will still be best, but the Nikon is no slouch for the price.

Greg_E · May 26, 2008

I forgot, you may only need a Nikon 5000 since you said 35mm only, much cheaper than an 8000 so you might be able to buy it new.

AutumnJazz · May 26, 2008

I was going to get a 5000 ED, but I read somewhere (I think on APUG) that it doesn't have a high enough dmax for black and white.

Greg_E · May 26, 2008

It lists a density range of up to 4.8. If that is true or even close to true, then it is better than most drum scanners! It would probably be safe to say that on average it can get to 3.8 or better.

I'm in the USA and have an 8000, would be happy to give a couple of you images a try so you can see approximately what a 5000 can do. The 5000 uses the same technology as the bigger 9000 so my 8000 would get you close. You should be able to get a used 5000 for well under $1000 which might leave enough left over for some of the roll or mounted slide feeders or maybe a wet mount kit.

lenny · May 27, 2008

OverlordXenu said:
I don't necessarily want a scanner that can capture the film's full resolution, but I want a scanner that is good enough that I could have huge prints made, and have them look decent.

What do you consider large?

What does decent mean?

Why not use a larger (med format, at least) camera? A 6x7 can be as light as a 35mm camera (Mamiya 7, for instance) and yet yield a neg that is 5 times the size as 35 mm, a much easier starting point. Depending on what you are shooting, large format cameras offer many benefits as well....

If large is over 30 inches, I would go with a drum scanner that can do 8,000 dpi. Find someone with an Aztek Premier or ICG 380.

Lenny

AutumnJazz · May 27, 2008

I don't have nearly enough money to get a medium format outfit that is comparable to my 35mm one. A 35mm camera, lens, etc. is much more inconspicuous than a Broncia or Mayima. I do plan to get into medium format eventually, but that will probably be in a few years, and there will probably be new (better, cheaper, etc.) scanners by then.

35mm is much more flexibile (for me) than medium format.

Large, would probably be around 30". Something I would love to do, however, would be printing up wall-sized "prints" and use photos as wallpaper, essentially. I suppose that will, however, have to wait until I sink my teeth into LF.

lenny · May 27, 2008

OverlordXenu said:
A 35mm camera, lens, etc. is much more inconspicuous than a Broncia or Mayima.

Coming for a formal art education - I don't think of inconspicuousness as a virtue. I think you get much less of a person than when they look you right in the eye and are willing to show you who they are. This is a gross generalization, of course. The portraits of Georgia O'Keefe by Stieglitz would be an example of non-inconspicuous portraiture. Catching people off-guard is just another gimmick to me - unless it isn't. Elliot Erwitt did pretty well, on occasion, but much more of the exception than the rule, I think.

OverlordXenu said:
I do plan to get into medium format eventually, but that will probably be in a few years, and there will probably be new (better, cheaper, etc.) scanners by then.

Doubt it. Given how fast that digital has been adopted, I don't think anyone would build a better film scanner, certainly they won't invest that much in doing so. There will be less and less film, as each day passes. I'm not happy about this, but it is reality.

OverlordXenu said:
35mm is much more flexibile (for me) than medium format.

Flexible - hmmmm, is that important?

OverlordXenu said:
Large, would probably be around 30". Something I would love to do, however, would be printing up wall-sized "prints" and use photos as wallpaper, essentially. I suppose that will, however, have to wait until I sink my teeth into LF.

30 inches at 300 dpi is about 9000 pixels. 35 mm done at 8000 spi/dpi is 12,000. Totally do-able. Especially if you have a scanner that can resolve to 8,000 dpi, like a Premier or ICG 380. I'm not saying you won't see grain, everyone has their own sense of what quality is for them... and you get to make that choice as well... The flatbeds (Epson's etcc.) that most refer to here only resolve between 1000 and 2000 spi/dpi, depending on who you talk to. There are one or two more capable.

You can likely do what you want to.

Lenny
EigerStudios

donbga · May 27, 2008

lenny said:
Catching people off-guard is just another gimmick to me - unless it isn't. Elliot Erwitt did pretty well, on occasion, but much more of the exception than the rule, I think.

Lenny
EigerStudios

It worked pretty good for Walker Evans too!

Don Bryant

lenny · May 27, 2008

Don Bryant said:
It worked pretty good for Walker Evans too!

Don Bryant

I don't dispute it, but the ones I like most - personally - by Walker were the pictures of the sharecroppers from down south - especially they guy. I felt like you could know everything about him by looking at the photo. I also like the woman crying - that's powerful to me.

This is a philosophical/personal interest disctinction - I don't mean to suggest any right or wrong.

Lenny

AutumnJazz · May 27, 2008

So, uh, anything that isn't 5 grand?

keithwms · May 27, 2008

Pick a format, identify its strengths, and use it for those strengths.

You can get great results from 35mm; why not do some scanning as well as some traditional enlargements and decide for yourself what the limits are. If I had a penny for every thread I've seen in which people bicker over what is acceptable! If the print moves you then it is acceptable. Period.

Yes, there are dedicated scanners e.g. the Nikons that will do quite well at 35mm.

My favourite stuff gets Azteked, and it's actually not that expensive if you consider it as part of the cost of making a print. Bear in mind that at most places you pay by the megabyte, and 8-bit files are just fine from the Azteks. I have had one and only one slide that truly needed a 16 bit scan for a good print- that was a shot on velvia with some highlights on the ragged edge.

lenny · May 27, 2008

OverlordXenu said:
So, uh, anything that isn't 5 grand?

There are plenty of film scanners less than 5K. There are even some drum scanners there - but you may have to do more tinkering than you want at that price. It's great for some folks...

As Keith said, it depends on your idea of what is acceptable. I also agree with him on the idea that every once in a while you can have someone do a great scan for you - for that image that needs it. There are lots of types of photography and not all of them are about fine printing...

Lenny
EigerStudios

timbo10ca · Jun 4, 2008

I have a Nikon V ED for 35mm. I scan color trannies and B&W negs. I like it for both, although I wish I had the money to get the MF version for the few 6x6 films I occasionally shoot. I find it scans dark with the Nikon software- I don't know if the MF versions are any better. It looks bang-on with Vuescan though. Regardless of scan software, I've had some disappointment with focus on occasion. It may be the tranny/neg, but they've looked pinsharp under a loop and shot with Canon L glass. I don't imagine any scanner in that price range could do better though. When I finally get a flatbed for my LF, I guess I'll just do the MF on that. It all comes down to what you can afford vs your personal acceptable scan quality. If I had something in MF or LF that I wanted to really blow up, I'll simply get it scanned professionally. It happens seldom enough to not be an issue of inconvenience and price for me.

Tim

Donsta · Jun 4, 2008

OverlordXenu said:
So, uh, anything that isn't 5 grand?

Get a Konica Dimage Scan Elite 5400II - they are no longer manufactured, but I can assure you, having owned and tested many desktop scanners for 35mm, this is by far the best out there. Only the model I of the same scanner comes close but it is much slower. They change hands for around $700-$800 on Ebay.

I shoot a lot of Adox CMS and scan it on this scanner. I recently tested the resolution of it - on the tests I shot with CMS (negs measured around 150LP/mm), the scanner is capable of returning around 107LP/mm. When I worked out the theoretical maximum possible resolution of the scanner,... 107 LP/mm. So on this film, it's returning just about everything possible. From a good negative (and I mean very good - basically, everything has to be spot on) you can produce an excellent 20x30inch print at native 240PPI from a 35mm neg. I personally wouldn't consider doing it with anything other than CMS, but I have not tried the Rollei. If you want to go much bigger, you probably want to throw some money at a drum scan on an Aztek. However, consider this: ignoring the other benefits of the drum scan (which exist) - to max out the 5400DPI of the Konica, you already need to be putting 107LP/mm onto the film which is no easy feat. You probably cannot do it with any predictability off a tripod, you need extremely fine grained sharp film and simply the finest optics available together with a camera body built to extremely tight tolerances. I can get around 150 LP/MM with a Leica and the latest and greatest of their aspheric optics on Adox CMS shot at optimal apertures. In theory, you should be able to produce a 31x47inch print at 240PPI from a negative of that sort of resolution scanned on an Aztec at 8000DPI. It will be virtually grainless and most people will guess that it was shot with at least 4x5. I've made plenty of 16x24 inch prints on my Epson 3800 from the Konica scans and the same film/lens /camera combination which are as good as anything I have printed from drum scanned 4x5 at that size. The attached files are from a scan of Adox CMS scanned on the Konica 5400II - this was shot with a Leica MP on a tripod and a 35mm Summilux ASPH at f4.

Robert Budding · Jun 4, 2008

There isn't any real information below 4,000 dpi unless you use high resolution film and perfect technique. A scan at 8,000 dpi will give you a larger file, not additional detail.

Donsta · Jun 4, 2008

Robert Budding said:
There isn't any real information below 4,000 dpi unless you use high resolution film and perfect technique. A scan at 8,000 dpi will give you a larger file, not additional detail.

The OP is suggesting he uses high resolution film. In general, I'd agree on the technique though - it really does need to be spot on - as does your entire imaging chain.

Robert Budding · Jun 6, 2008

I'd be inclined to use medium or large format for large prints.

lenny · Jul 2, 2008

Robert Budding said:
There isn't any real information below 4,000 dpi unless you use high resolution film and perfect technique. A scan at 8,000 dpi will give you a larger file, not additional detail.

This is not necessarily true. Many of the tests that were done to suggest this were done with scanners that couldn't resolve past 4,000 (like a Tango). However, there are other scanners that can, and film that does.

There are lots of arguments that can be made, lines per mm on the lens, resolutions of different lenses, scan aperture limits and everything else. The math doesn't add up, one will hear. However, with all of that if there was nothing more on the film past 4,000 then a scanner that can do 4,000 optical would be identical in results to one that can resolve 8,000 (at this point only the Premier and the ICG). However, the results from scanners capable of 8,000 optical are clearly superior.

Lenny
EigerStudios
Scanning and Printing

Donsta · Jul 3, 2008

Lenny

The tests I have done suggest that the max possible resolution you could expect to put onto film with the best available optics (best Leica ASPH lenses) with the highest resolution film available (Adox CMS) would be around 150LP/MM - which just happens to be right at the theoretical maximum resolution your 8000SPI drum scanner could extract at 8000SPI...

lenny · Jul 3, 2008

Donsta said:
Lenny

The tests I have done suggest that the max possible resolution you could expect to put onto film with the best available optics (best Leica ASPH lenses) with the highest resolution film available (Adox CMS) would be around 150LP/MM - which just happens to be right at the theoretical maximum resolution your 8000SPI drum scanner could extract at 8000SPI...

Interesting....

I have been trying to figure out what this stuff is.... Is it made by Efke, the same stuff as Efke 25, for instance? I had ordered some CHS thinking it was ISO 25, but Freestyle sent me 100. I think this was my mistake. Do you know if CHS comes in sheets in 25?

Lenny

Donsta · Jul 3, 2008

Lenny

Not sure what CHS is, but CMS is the ultra high res stuff - only available in 35mm and clearly a microfilm derivative - needs special development for pictorial use.

lenny · Jul 4, 2008

Donsta said:
Lenny

Not sure what CHS is, but CMS is the ultra high res stuff - only available in 35mm and clearly a microfilm derivative - needs special development for pictorial use.

Donsta,

Thanks. CHS is their "Fine Art" and then there's an Ortho.... It would be nice if they made CMS in larger sizes. I'd like to try it...

I still would like to know if it's just Efke or not, and if CHS is made in an ISO 25 version - if anyone else knows...

Lenny

Need a scanner for 35mm color and B&W slides...

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency