Negative film scanner recommendations

Taz777 said:

@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?

Click to expand...

Depending on the equipment and knowledge of the operator, a lab process and scan - even in a lightly compressed JPEG can be ideal due to it's low cost and convenience. But due to the low cost, they can't spend anytime with any of your images as they are fully automatic operations and can often leave undesirable results like bad cropping, over processing and just wrong colors. In the example below, I had the corner drugstore run a process and scan on their Noritsu and I compared one of the frames they scanned with one I did an automatic scan on my Coolscan 5000. Mind you this is the same frame but their results makes it look like a different frame of Kodak Gold 100.


I suppose if you like their results then it could be worth the time and cost.

@Les Sarile That's a fair old difference!

Apologies but I may have got some terminology wrong when I said Process and Scan. When I looked at the AG site, it said it does a Process and Scan on the negative strips, so there's possibly a Develop step missing somewhere.

What I'm after is a lab where I can send my roll of 35mm film and they will send me back a CD of digitised images, plus the negatives. Thus, I imagine that I need a 'Develop and Scan' rather than a 'Process and Scan'?

In the background I am seriously considering a scanner and have looked into several of the ones mentioned in this thread. One thing I've noticed is that almost all of them were released at least a decade ago. Would this cause any compatibility issues? I've also read that many people buy software called VueScan rather than use the supplied software. In terms of makes, it seems that Epson, Canon and Plustek are the ones mentioned the most when I've searched for film scanners.

Labs "process" film - which includes all the steps, including development. Many will, however, use "develop film" and "process film" interchangeably.
It doesn't hurt to look for a lab that does a good job with a "process and scan" workflow. But if I might suggest, while you are in early learning mode, consider getting prints as well. Being able to evaluate an existing print is, IMHO, a much better learning opportunity than viewing a scanned file through software that gives you a nearly infinite variety of manipulation alternatives.
As for your scanner questions - yes you can sometimes run into compatibility options with older scanners, but those issues are usually minor unless the scanner is so old as to require a different connector (e.g. SCSI) then those that are currently in use.If I recall correctly, you are using a Mac. I'd suggest researching Mac compatibility for any scanner you consider. Check in particular if there are updated drivers available for your computer's operating system.
It may be that the drivers for older versions of the Mac operating system will work, but it is worthwhile to research that issue.
Vuescan is excellent, powerful, flexible and somewhat klunky software that circumvents a lot of compatibility issues. I own a copy, which has allowed me to use a number of older scanners - including two SCSI connected models - that would be otherwise unusable with Windows 7.
That being said, I mostly use a nine year old Canon 9000F with the Canon software designed for it (on Windows 7). I would point out though that when I started using it, it wasn't giving me nearly as good results as it does now - operator experience is very important to one's results! It is also better with medium format than it is with 35mm, but I still find it useful with 35mm.

@MattKing Thank you for your advice. I did call AG about the terminology and they reassured me that their 'process' also means 'develop', as you have pointed out. I take your point about having prints too, and I think you are right on this point.

Taz777 said:

(...)

In the background I am seriously considering a scanner and have looked into several of the ones mentioned in this thread. One thing I've noticed is that almost all of them were released at least a decade ago. Would this cause any compatibility issues? I've also read that many people buy software called VueScan rather than use the supplied software. In terms of makes, it seems that Epson, Canon and Plustek are the ones mentioned the most when I've searched for film scanners.

Click to expand...

Yes, as mentioned in #8, some/many of the used film scanners being offered for sale today are going to come with software that will not run under a modern operating system. Personally, I would never buy any older film scanner without first checking the VueScan website to be sure that model of scanner is supported by VueScan (the vast majority are). Love it or hate it, VueScan does allow the continued use of many old film scanners that are no longer supported by the scanner manufacturers.

The more I think about it - the technological hurdles, the learing curve, the cost, the time it takes - I'm not sure scanning film at home makes any sense unless you already have shoe boxes full of slides and negatives. For anyone going forward, the moderate cost of having the slides scanned at the time of processing seems like a bargain! The caveat, of course, is that you need to find a lab that provides decent scans. I keep a list of labs which are often recommended by forum users in the USA. Might be a good idea to start searching out which labs in Great Britain are doing a good job.

In my case, I do have boxes full of slides and negatives (started shooting film in 1970). So for me, it was necessary to learn how to connect my old SCSI scanner to my not-so-old Mac. It was necessary for me to buy a copy of VueScan and learn how to use it. I felt like it was necessary to have a "plan B" for when my 18 year old film scanner eventualy quits working, so I had to learn how to "scan" film with my digital camera. More money spent, and another set of problems to be solved. But why would you put yourself through all that if you can get back a nice set of scans from the processing lab without all the headaches?

In my experience scanning colour negatives on consumer level equipment is frustrating to say the least and I would highly recommend getting scans done by the lab at the time of developing. AG are brilliant and the best of the labs I’ve used.

I started scanning on a Plustek 8200 and having tried Silverfast, Vuescan and Color Perfect I just couldn’t get colours to look consistently right (Ektar is a pain!) not to mention the enormous expenditure of time scanning and editing one frame at a time. When my first scans came back from AG I was amazed and regretted not having used the lab sooner.

I then bought a Noritsu LS-600 (basically the same output as the one AG uses). I thought having a lab scanner at home would be the end of it but I quickly found out that there was no advantage to having such a complex and expensive machine at home since the Noritsu software was so good I never had to make a single colour adjustment in 300 slides and 50 rolls of colour negative, just a nudge up or down of density on an occasional frame. And the software is a nightmare to set up.

So now I’m back to just letting AG do the scans without any hassle, knowing I can’t beat their scans anyway even with a Noritsu, and not having the risk of an expensive repair should anything break. I’m happier for it!

@slugoon Which scan option do you choose with AG? The medium one is 18MB files and is the one that I’m considering unless the top one is visibly better.

Taz777 said:

@slugoon Which scan option do you choose with AG? The medium one is 18MB files and is the one that I’m considering unless the top one is visibly better.

Click to expand...

As posted above, quoting file sizes for scans isn't at all useful - you need numbers of pixels.
More importantly though, the different resolution standards shouldn't make a difference as to how a scan looks on a small screen.
The difference will reveal itself if you print anything more than 4" x 6" from the scan, or start editing the scan - particularly if you choose to crop it.
Remember, if you print at 300 dpi (a good standard), and don't want to artificially scale up your file, you need a file of at least 3600 pixels x 4800 pixels in size to do a 12" x 18" print. For an 8" x 12" print, you need 2400 pixels x 3600 pixels.

After my retirement and deciding I felt the 'need' to scan my 4x5 negatives for making larger prints using the 'archaic' print processes.. so... I sold a somewhat 'rare' Pentax lens (used for 'recording' in the UV and IR wavelengths and invested in an Epson 850 Pro flat bed.. I am more than happy with the results I'm achieving when the results are printed out onto Pictorico 'film' to be used for making prints using the 'archaic' print processes under my 'home built' UV light source. I now consider myself more of a "happy camper" since I now get to 'adjust' the density and contrast range of the Pictorico negative to meet the needs of a variety of the 'archaic print processes. That being said.. I am just as willing to use original negatives made with my old 'faith-full' 8x10 B&J 'woodie' when I can afford the 'extra cost' per exposure

Ken

Taz777, for most things I use Medium scans which are 6 megapixels (3089 x 2048). They are big enough for most uses and I have A4 prints on my wall that look great. I get Large scans only if I’ve photographed something with slide film or Ektar and I want maximum detail for downsampling and room to crop etc. The Large scans are 24 megapixels.

Taz777 said:

@slugoon Which scan option do you choose with AG? The medium one is 18MB files and is the one that I’m considering unless the top one is visibly better.

Click to expand...

I just looked at AG's website, and I was unable to find the resolution specifications for their scans. Most labs post on their website the pixel dimensions as well as the MB file size. Suggest you call them and ask for the pixel dimensions.

Whatever the dimensions of the 18MB TIFFs may be, I suspect they will probably be plenty "good enough" for screen viewing for most people, but maybe not everyone.

My 8-year-old iMac screen can display 1920 x 1080 pixels. But for someone with a 2019 iMac with the 27-inch Retina 5K screen, it's going to take an image 5120 x 2880 pixels to fill up their screen. I am guessing AG's "18MB" scans might fall in between those resolutions, but the only way to know for sure is to ask them.