Scanner - A Question

[mattkirwan]

Hi,

this is my first post on Hybrid having come over from APUG.

Having recently begun shooting film again (I find it a great way to escape the pressure of deadlines, briefs and the all the other stuff that comes with our digital world).

I'm about to take it a step further and begin dev'ing at home.

I've trawled the forums here referencing different types of scanner - but before I go ahead and invest... a question:

Film is my hobby, I currently get the film developed and scanned to CD.

The scan I get is low resolution - about 1350dpi (it seems to be approximately a 6x4 @ 300).

I have no use for prints. The scan is simply a way for me to create a contact, maybe use for web (approximately 1000px @ 72) and that is it.
If I ever shoot a frame that is any good! or I want a print made up I will send the neg to a pro drum scanner.

Assuming then I have no need for a scan greater than 1600/1800dpi - will a decent flatbed scanner do the job?
I don't have the money to invest in a 9000 or top spec dedicated film scanner and to be honest the work is personal stuff, mostly rubbish - kind of 'my ramblings' with a camera.

If a flatbed will do the job, can anyone recommend one?

I've looked at the V750/700/500 - even the 500 seems like it might be 'too much' for my requirements - and if I can save the money, I will.

Any thoughts advice welcomed.

Kind regards,

Matt Kirwan
http://www.mattkirwan.com/
Dead Link Removed

 

[pellicle]

Matt

given your stated criteria :

Assuming then I have no need for a scan greater than 1600/1800dpi - will a decent flatbed scanner do the job?

absolutely

in fact you'll probably only get around that no matter what they say on the specs

save your self a bundle and get a used Epson 3200 / 4870 / 4990 if you can. I happen to have all three and there isn't much difference. Further if you get a Nikon you will need to be working it much more to get the benefits.

http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2009/03/nikon-iv-ed-vs-epson-flatbed.html

 

[Bob Carnie]

If your criteria is only for looking at your work on screen and no need to print I would suggest that you can process your film , do not cut and take to a minilab for roll scans.
This is what we do at Elevator for most of our clients these days, some prefer contact sheet but most like these small files to edit on lightroom or bridge.

 

[pellicle]

If your criteria is only for looking at your work on screen and no need to print I would suggest that you can process your film , do not cut and take to a minilab for roll scans.
This is what we do at Elevator for most of our clients these days, some prefer contact sheet but most like these small files to edit on lightroom or bridge.

to add to bobs point if they have a Noritsu minilab then you'll be able to get excellent results. I've put Noritsu up against my Nikon LS-IV ED and found outstandingly good results from the Noritsu.

Staff at shops can assume roles when they come to work and need exactly the right buttons to be pressed (or know nothing about it, or just be plain dumb) so ask about getting scans done "for bigger prints" or what ever key words you need to use ... as my scans worked out to be about 2000dpi and quite good.

Having said that, I recall upsizing scans done on my LS-II scanner years ago from 1350 dpi to 2700 dpi and not being able to really tell the difference (as long as focus was good in the first place).

Naturally as your scan quality goes up, the attention to detail you require to take advantage of that (Eg focusing it, fixing film flatness ...) goes up. I've been happy with the Noritsu, if I could get it reliably I probably wouldn't scan 35mm ... heck if I could get it on 120 I wouldn't do that either!

 

[mattkirwan]

Pellicle, Bob,

thank you for your replies.

Web and low res screen are all I will ever need from my films. So it seems the flatbed or a secondhand Nikon 3200 / 4870 / 4990 may be the go.

Ultimately it's about saving money, sadly its not so much the cost of the scan to CD it's the travelling and subsequent costs involved for each trip!

Another reason for wanting to scan myself was that I am hoping to get a better overall scan with regards to exposure.

Example: I got my last roll scanned to CD at the lab, a particular frame - nothing special a picture of a room. (If bothered it's the chocolate room on 'The Art of Chocolate' via my mediagtherers link below.
Exposing for the room, obviously is going to lead to some overexposure outside the windows - now it's been that long I forgot just how good the exposure latitude is on film (this roll was 800Z) compared to digital.
The only reason I noticed this was by looking at the negs - in the neg there is detail on the building outside the window - not perfect, but detail - however on the scan it's as 'whited' out as a duplicate frame on my D3.
Yes I suppose the white out is good (aesthetically) - but it's not the point.....

It seems the 'auto' scan has taken it up on itself to literally adjust my exposure. To that I say: what's the point in me even shooting manual, if any one single process is automated beyond my control?

So, will a flatbed scan (of good enough resolution for my needs) still pick up the exposure that I want it to??
Now i'm not expecting miracles, i'm more than aware that you just can't beat an RA-4 but a true and accurate exposure of the neg can't be too much to ask, can it?

Regards,

Matt Kirwan
http://www.mattkirwan.com/
Dead Link Removed

 

[pellicle]

Matt

I've personally scanned and printed this image from 35mm 200 ISO negative on my flatbed and printed it to 40cm wide

Dead Link Removed

That scan is a little dark (why put up your best to have them pinched) and compared to my 4x5 camera its soft if you put your nose to the print, but from 2 meters away on a wall it often gets comments in my office (I rotate prints to keep my office looking interesting and remind me of places I've been while I'm stuck in one place).

if you follow my tutorials on my blog I'm sure you'll get results from an Epson 4870 which will be quite satisfactory.

I single out the 4870 as it has a moving fluro tube in the top whereas the 4990 has a moving row of LED's and the 3200 has a fully illuminated LED lid. I've noticed less dust on the 4870, but I have yet to do a side by side of the same thing with all three (my 4870 is in Australia I'm in Finland.

PS: all the images in Dead Link Removed were scanned with a 4870 (except for a few digitals and the snowy boat parked beside the tree)

 

[mattkirwan]

Question Answered!

Ultimately it's a way of getting away from 'automation' and it seems with the difficult subject above there is still detail to be found in the sky and even better detail to play with in the shadow.

I will be taking a good look at your sarticles Pellicle.

Now off to find myself a 4870!

Thank you.

Regards,

Matt

 

[pellicle]

Thank you.

you're welcome