Negative film scanner recommendations

[Taz777]

Many years ago I used to own a Nikon Coolscan V negative film scanner and over a period of about a year, I scanned hundreds of negative strips of film into TIFFs. The results were okay, but not outstanding. Unfortunately the scanner got destroyed during a house refurbishment.

Fast forward a decade or two later and I'm getting back into 35mm film photography.

Can anyone recommend a good quality negative film scanner that would work with a mac computer and produces high quality scans? Budget would be about 200 GBP (around 240 USD). Speed isn't an issue for me so it can be slow, provided the scans it produces are of high quality.

 

[etn]

Do you already own a digital camera? if yes, it can be a very good alternative. Your 200 GBP can buy a second-hand macro lens (e.g. Mikro Nikkor 60mm) if you don’t already have one. There are many posts about this technique here and over the ‘net, look for “DSLR scanning”. Good luck!

 

[Taz777]

Hi etn, I do have a digital camera but it's a compact, albeit a fairly good one. It's a Canon PowerShot G7X Mkii, so has a fixed lens. My aim is to pick out the nicer shots from my negatives and scan them into my computer.

 

[wahiba]

I use an Epson V300 and works well for me. I usually use 2400dpi. This model does 35mm only but as there is an option to scan the 6 frame strip in one go I also use it for 120 stitching the two scans in Photoshop Elements 7 panoramic facility. Cannot ever see joint. There is a bigger model that will do up to 4 X 5. Found cotton gloves are a useful aid with flat bed scanners.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What do you intend to do with the scans?

 

[Alan9940]

I use a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 II and it does a very nice job, but you won't find one within your budget. A lot depends on what you want to do with the scans, as already asked above. If you simply wish to archive the film or post online, then any inexpensive flatbed scanner will do the job. However, if you want to produce large prints, then you'll need a higher quality film scanner and use a high-megapixel digital camera with high quality macro lens.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I use a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 II and it does a very nice job, but you won't find one within your budget. A lot depends on what you want to do with the scans, as already asked above. If you simply wish to archive the film or post online, then any inexpensive flatbed scanner will do the job. However, if you want to produce large prints, then you'll need a higher quality film scanner and use a high-megapixel digital camera with high quality macro lens.

+1

 

[runswithsizzers]

Slides, b&w negatives, and color negatives each present a somewhat different challenge when scanning. Slides require better hardware to capture shadow detail. The dust removal system of many film scanners does not work with black and white negatives. Color negatives require better software to get acceptable color.

Will you be using one kind of film exclusively, or all three kinds?

I have an old film scanner (Minolta Dimage Elite f-2900), but more recently I have been using a digital camera to copy negatives with a closeup lens. If you already have a digital camera and a tripod, the closeup lens, extension rings / bellows, adapters, and light source can be purchased for less than your budgeted amount. I believe the digital camera method provides more versatility, and may give superior results to some other options in your price range. The downside to the digital camera method is that you have to figure out what you need and put all the pieces together. And also, I have not yet found the best way to get the color I want from my color negatives.
EDIT: Oops. I just read your digital camera has a fixed lens, so the camera copy idea is not going to work.

Looking at the US auction site, I do see several real film scanners (not flatbeds) from Nikon and others that are in your price range. Do be aware that one of the risks of buying an older scanner is the possibility that the software packaged with the scanner may or may not run on your modern operating system. There are third party software solutions (like VueScan and Silverfast), but you might need to budget for that.

 

[Frank53]

If you think that the results of the Nikon were ok, but not outstanding and now you are looking for high quality, so better than the Nikon, forget it with your budget. The above mentioned Minolta 5400 (ii) is in the same league and beyond that you are looking at Imacon.
So the cheapest solution would be to buy (or borrow) a second hand dslr with a macro lens.
Regards,
Frank

 

[Taz777]

The scans would be for online posting only.

 

[Frank53]

The scans would be for online posting only.

In that case almost any scanner will do.
Regards,
Frank

 

[Huss]

The scans would be for online posting only.

Get a led light pad ($20 Amazon), use your smartphone, take a pic of the film with it. This one took me seconds w zero effort



If you're only posting to the web you don't need to buy a scanner. FYI there is a negative film conversion app that you can use with your phone:
https://filmlabapp.com/

For real work that I print, I use the lightpad but a digicam with macro lens and negativelabpro.com software.

 

[Taz777]

Get a led light pad ($20 Amazon), use your smartphone, take a pic of the film with it. This one took me seconds w zero effort



If you're only posting to the web you don't need to buy a scanner. FYI there is a negative film conversion app that you can use with your phone:
https://filmlabapp.com/

For real work that I print, I use the lightpad but a digicam with macro lens and negativelabpro.com software.

That's a very interesting idea! I'll look into that.

I do have a decent scanner on my printer and I'll also try scanning a print using that. I may be able to get away with it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Last year I bought an Epson V850 Pro. The only thing that I do not like is that it will not scan a PrintFile page on one sheet, since it is smaller than 8.5" x 11".

 

[alanrockwood]

Canon FS4000us plus vuescan software (professional version). The FS4000us is a high quality (but slow) 35mm film scanner that can often be found on ebay for decent prices. Add vuescan, and depending on what your winning bid on the Canon would be, you could be roughly at your budget limit.

 

[John51]

The scans would be for online posting only.

The box camera type scanners are good enough for that. Can be had cheap from the well known site as people get them to digitise the family pics and then have no further use for it.

 

[jtk]

Minolta 5400 was one of the two last nails in Minolta's coffin.

I got one, it scanned beautifully (perhaps as well as Nikon Coolscan but infinitely slower)... it failed after a few scans. I returned it to Amazon, which instantly replaced it with another...which also failed. Amazon took it back, offered full refund or Nikon V. I chose Nikon and have had zero grief with it.

Amazon explained (telephone) that so many 5400s had been returned that they would accept no more orders for it. Simultaneously, many of Minolta's first DSLRs failed and were returned. Minolta's service operation in New Jersey told me (telephone) that they were swamped with failed scanners and dslrs.

BTW Nikon V works perfectly with B&W negative film...that's the only reason I still shoot B&W (FP4 etc). My only complaint is that it won't scan my 35mm Kodaliths

 

[mgb74]

If you're just scanning for online use, you don't need a "high" quality scan. Which is good since your budget won't permit a high quality scanner.

You didn't say how many negatives you have to scan. The throughput of a flat bed scanner is slow due to the need to fiddle with negatives in the holder. But, quality wise for your intended purpose, a flatbed Epson like the v600 will do just fine IF your negs are flat. Personally, I don't care much about the actual scanning speed as long as I can multitask while scanning. If I can load 12 negatives (2 strips of 6) in a holder and walk away for 6-8 minutes, I'm ok.

I've heard positive things about the older Pacific Image scanners, like the 3650 model, that would be OK for scanning for online us. But they do appear slow. However, I have no personal experience. I may try one this winter when I won't have access to my Nikon Coolscan.

 

[Les Sarile]

I do have a decent scanner on my printer and I'll also try scanning a print using that. I may be able to get away with it.

Only if it has a "film" option. Otherwise, it won't scan film satisfactorily.

 

[runswithsizzers]

[...]
I do have a decent scanner on my printer and I'll also try scanning a print using that. I may be able to get away with it.

To expand on what Les Sarile said in post #19, the "film" option means the scanner has a light source ABOVE the glass, in addition to the one below the glass. For film, it's no good just reflecting light off of the surface from below; the light must pass through the film. There may be some all-in-one printer/scanner combos that have this feature, but I've not seen one.

Going back to your digital camera, the Canon PowerShot G7X Mkii. That has a 1" sensor which is much bigger than a phone. Specifications say the PowerShot G7X Mkii will focus to 1.97" in Macro mode - but I did not find a specification for what magnification ratio you get at minimum focus. As a test, why not use the Canon to take a photo of a negative - as close as possible. You will need some kind of light source - a smart phone or tablet screen set to a white image, or whatever you can come up with. Use a tripod if you have one. If the camera allows you to choose the aperture, aim for about f/11-16.

Your Canon camera may, or may not, make better copies than a smart phone or an all-in-one flatbed scanner, but it's worth a try to find out. Of course the camera copy will need to be inverted from negative to positive, and if it's a color negative, a little work will be required in post processing to get the colors right. What kind if image editing software do you usually use?

 

[Taz777]

What kind if image editing software do you usually use?

I have Adobe Photoshop Elements 2018 on my Mac.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I have Adobe Photoshop Elements 2018 on my Mac.

That is an easy one to invert negatives with. For color negatives you may have to fool around with them a bit to get acceptable color, but it's doable.

I'm not sure if you ever said - is it the negatives you already have that you want to digitize? Or have you just started shooting film again, and it is the negatives you plan to shoot in the future that you want to scan?

If it is the latter, then the best solution is to get your negs scanned at the same time they are developed. Here in the US you can get moderately sized scans with processing for not too much more than development, alone. On the other hand, a couple of labs I tried here in the middle of the US had very poor scans with a lot of noise and sharpening artifacts. I have since found a lab that makes great scans at a reasonable price. I'll be suprised if there is not someplace in London that can make affordable scans you will be happy with. Prices go up a lot if you take in the negatives you already have to be scanned, but it still might be cheaper than buying a good scanner, especially if you don't have too many.

Honestly, I wouldn't spend too much time digitizing negatives with any method that produces files that are just "good enough" for online viewing, only. When I first started scanning my slides back in 2002, I wanted to put family photos on CDs so family members could look at them on their home computers. At the time, many people were still using 17"-19" VGA/SVGA monitors. So I figured scanning my slides at 600x400 pixels was good denough.

A few years later, and flat screen HDTVs and DVD players became more common and I wanted to update my photo albums for TV viewing. So I had to rescan a lot of family photos at 1200x800. Then I wanted to print some photo books and I had to rescan some of my images a third time. So my advice is to always make the highest resolution scans you can with the best technology you can afford. Considering how much time it takes, you don't want to have to do it over in a few years.

 

[Taz777]

@runswithsizzers I had my first roll of film processed and printed last week. The lab sent me the 6" x 4" prints and the negatives. I've just checked back on their prices and for about 2GBP more I could have got process + scan (no prints). The scans would be medium resolution (18MB TIFF format), supplied on a CD. High res scans at 80MB bumps the price up by another 4GBP.

I'm just wondering if this a better option for me as I already have a decent photo printer at home with photo paper?

If this might be a better idea (process + scan rather than process + print) then is it worth paying the extra 4GBP per roll of film to get 80MB scans rather than 18MB scans?

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you want a new scanner but do not have the money, look at the websites for Epson, Canon, ... and see what they have in refurbished photo scanners. Years ago I got a refurbished Epson 4490 Photo scanner from Epson for $100US including shipping. It costs much less than new, but in fact was new as far as condition and it was thoroughly tested. I used it for years.

 

[runswithsizzers]

@runswithsizzers I had my first roll of film processed and printed last week. The lab sent me the 6" x 4" prints and the negatives. I've just checked back on their prices and for about 2GBP more I could have got process + scan (no prints). The scans would be medium resolution (18MB TIFF format), supplied on a CD. High res scans at 80MB bumps the price up by another 4GBP.

I'm just wondering if this a better option for me as I already have a decent photo printer at home with photo paper?

If this might be a better idea (process + scan rather than process + print) then is it worth paying the extra 4GBP per roll of film to get 80MB scans rather than 18MB scans?

Because I don't really mess with prints much, all I ever do is process and scan. It's been a long time since I had a color inkjet printer at home, but as I recall, once I got everything set right, my home prints looked just as good or better as the ones from the local minlab. But I also recall maintaining the inkjet printer was a bit of a chore. Now if I want a print, I'll send my digital files to an online printing service.

Instead of having loose 4x6" prints in a shoebox or photo album, I now prefer to have a book of photos printed and bound by a book sevice like Blurb. I can organize the shots by theme and write captions that stay with the images - hard to do with 4x6 prints. Photo albums are a pita; they are bulky and awkward to handle, and the prints always want to fall out or stick, or the images are hard to see under plastic. A bound book on good paper is much more convenient to handle, and if it gets lost or damaged, I can just have another one printed. Plus, I have the option to have the better shots displayed bigger than 4x6" and the lesser shots, smaller.

BTW, I would rather know the pixel dimensions of the scans rather than the MB file size. If I know the pixel dimensions, I can easily calculate how big of a print I can make, or how much of my computer or TV screen I can fill. The file size in MB gives me a rough estimate about how much compression was used, so is vaguely related to quality, but it tells me much less than pixels do. For example, if I want a full page image in a Blurb book that is 12"x12" and I want enough resolution to print at 240 dpi, then I need (12"x240dpi=) 2880x2880 pixels. Will an 18mb file be enough? I have no idea.