Scanner for non didgital photographer

I use an Epson V600 with VueScan software for medium format, and an Plustek 8200i for 35mm.

For web uploads and snapshots, the V600 is really all you need.

Kino said:

The Epson 4990 and 700 series are both fine flatbed scanners that can scan up to 8x10 negatives. The 4990 can be picked up used for a reasonable price and the bundled (downloadable from Epson) software is very good in its own right for what it does.

Click to expand...

+1. My 4990 does a decent job with 35mm, but does a very nice job with medium format. And I actually like the Epson Scan software. One reason why I bought mine was so I could scan large format, if I ever got one of those cameras. Still haven't yet. But I've got the scanner for it if/when I do.

I'm late to the party here but have you thought about a light box and cell phone? Maybe w/ a copy stand if you have one.

Another advantage of the flat bed scanner is that you can scan your prints too, for which even the entry level models do a grand job.

The Epson scan software is good enough. Silverfast is horrific IMHO it has such an ugly and poorly thought out UI I'm surprised anybody can bear to use it for enough time to get past he inscrutability of it (I got a copy free with my V700 and that was too much to pay!). I've not seen anything in Vuescan that makes it worth spending extra money for over the included epsonscan software.

The Epson software, whilst far from perfect, does a good enough job, especially for batch scanning for which it is the best option (it's easy to scan multiple negatives and have each cropped and saved automatically).

Just turn off all the built in processing if you ever want to make a scan for something other than posting online and tweak later. This will retain as much detail as possible. The default settings will crush the hell out of the image and results in losing detail you can't get back. The detail is all there when you turn off the processing but requires a bit more work (and it helps if you know your way around photoshop or equivalent editor).

If you are going to be buying a consumer level scanner it makes sense to me to be able to scan your prints as well as the negs.

CMoore, many blessings upon your head! You have expressed so well what I think and feel in my own heart. KISS. Minimalist photography. Simple is best.

So you are now looking for the simplest way to scan your images.

May I suggest you do as I did in 2009, when I took stock of my archive of film negatives and slides dating back to the early 1960s, and realised I had more than 100,000 images to go through, and sort out the best thereof, and scan them.Nine lifetimes (or livetimes?) of work, but I am only human, not a cat. Ergo, conumdrum.

After much pulling of hair (what little of it remains), gnashing of (mostly ceramic) teeth and a few bottles of good Tasmanian red wines to assist the creative process, I bit the proverbial bullet and invested a reasonable wad of dosh in two scanners which have served me since, and have never ever failed to do what I want them to.

The Plustek 7600i for 35mm negatives and slides. Made in Germany, soultra high quality, and for '35', about as good as it gets. I believe the current model is the 8600 or whatever. Time passes, scanner development marches on. Many are listed on Ebay. Our fellow APUG(sorry-lah, PHOTRIO)ite ozphoto uses an even older 7200i, which given his superlative results is in itself a worthy recommendation for the Plustek.

As the venerable Alan Klein has recommended, the Epson V600 for MF negatives and slides or prints without negatives. More than adequate for my needs (which includes high quality scans for clients)` The Epson software is amazingly good. Vuesan is better, but for what it does, the Epson package is tops. For best results with Epson flatbeds, even with 35, the keywords are test, test, test, and test.

With a little care and attention to the scanning process, Plustek and Epson will produce top quality digital images you can easily downsize for internet posting, and upsize to larger images for printing.

Neither is difficult to work with. Fiddly, yes, at times. There are excellent books available, also online tuition.

Consider the Viewscan software. Others in this thread have recommended this. I am happy to praise it as the best available.

pdeeh, have you checked your scanner settings? You may be scanning at higher levels than you really need. Do a series of tests at different settings, and check the results on magnification. In my experience, the medium range settings are as good as the higher ranges, which just increase your scan times but give you very little in return.

Chan Tran said:

Although you have no interest in digital camera you could buy one to copy the negatives.

Click to expand...

Nikon just released their latest DSLR and the D850 has a built-in feature of being able to copy a color negative and convert it into a positive -> https://www.dpreview.com/news/6588202384/the-nikon-d850-can-scan-film-using-the-new-es-2-digitizing-adapter. If it is as competent in doing this as the Coolscan+Nikonscan, then that would be great.

ozmoose said:

pdeeh, have you checked your scanner settings? You may be scanning at higher levels than you really need. Do a series of tests at different settings, and check the results on magnification. In my experience, the medium range settings are as good as the higher ranges, which just increase your scan times but give you very little in return.

Click to expand...

yeah I know my scanner and the software settings pretty much inside out.

Wallendo said:

I use an Epson V600 with VueScan software for medium format, and an Plustek 8200i for 35mm.

For web uploads and snapshots, the V600 is really all you need.

Click to expand...

+1

Not wishing to split hairs but surely digital photographers don't have any use for film scanners because they can upload their images directly from their camera to their computer, only analogue photographers.have any use for scanners.

Kino said:

The Epson 4990 and 700 series are both fine flatbed scanners that can scan up to 8x10 negatives. The 4990 can be picked up used for a reasonable price and the bundled (downloadable from Epson) software is very good in its own right for what it does.

Replacement scanner glass, if that is an issue, can be purchased at http://fpointinc.com/glass.htm.

Click to expand...

Tagged for future reference!

benjiboy said:

Not wishing to sp[lit hairs but surely digital photographers don't have any use for film scanners

Click to expand...

a digital-only photographer might find themselves with a lot of negatives all of a sudden - perhaps as a result of inheriting them for instance

benjiboy said:

Not wishing to split hairs but surely digital photographers don't have any use for film scanners because they can upload their images directly from their camera to their computer, only analogue photographers.have any use for scanners.

Click to expand...

Yes, Touche...
but......they KNOW about modern stuff like Computers/Scanners/Digital technology.
My guns shoot black powder
My cameras shoot film
My amplifiers have vacuum tubes
There are simply a lot of "Modern" technologies that i am pretty ignorant of.
I probably would have been better off if i had first mentioned THAT. I need a scanner that can easily be interfaced With/By an analog human being.
Oh.....and my cell phone is a Dumb/Flip/Not an I-Phone

CMoore said:

Is there a "decent" scanner for mostly 35mm but also (if possible but not crucial) 6x7.?
Maybe in the 200-500 usa dollar range.?
Thank You

Click to expand...

Since you have very modest needs, I would suggest to buy cheap used such as on craigslist or ebay. One represented as working. With some luck, you may find upper tier models for well below what you are willing to pay.

If you want some warranty, you can look for refurbs on https://epson.com/Clearance-Center/Scanners/c/cc200. They have a V550 model that should meet your needs including MF 6X7 scanning.

winger said:

I've been using an Epson 4870 since 2004. If it ever dies, I'll likely get the most recent Epson. This one still runs on my newer iMac and has been moved at least four times ( 3 different states). Everything in my gallery here was scanned on it. 35mm negs don't scan beautifully, but they are acceptable (even for 8x10 prints sometimes). Medium format is no problem. Most of my scans are just for showing things on the web and the flatbed works just fine.

Click to expand...

could't agree more with this post !
i've been using mine for around the same time period
never really had a problem with it ...

Nobody's mentioned this here in this thread yet so I thought I should. A very good alternative to scanners is to shoot dupes with your digital (whether DSLR or mirrorless, I've used both). There are a couple of important things to keep in mind when shooting dupes of your film images: first, I'd recommend a camera that has close to 24mp resolution, and 2, make sure the lens you use is up to the task. At the heart of my dupe rig is a 55mm f/2.8 AIs Micro Nikkor. It is a superb lens when it comes to contrast and resolution. I set it for its sweet spot, which is f/8. Now, the particular rig I have cobbled together allows me to easily shoot either 35mm slides or unmounted film strips. I have extensions dialed in such that I'm getting almost exactly 1:1 images with 35mm. These days, I'm using a 24mp NEX 7, which nets me 4000 x 6000 pixel images. This resolution is the same as the high-end Nikon Coolscans. I also shoot raw, and I use Photoshop's raw image converter. This combination allows me to perform a wide amount of enhancements to the image before it's converted to jpg or tif or png. I feel pretty confident that I'm getting just about all the image information that is possible to get at 24mp. I mean, I'm even able to resolve Fuji Velvia 50 and Kodachrome 25.

I have not used this rig yet for medium format. Because medium format scans so well with my Epson 4990 I don't worry too much about shooting dupes, but I'd like to at least try it. And for that, I have a light table that I'll try out with my medium format images.

cooltouch said:

Nobody's mentioned this here in this thread yet so I thought I should. A very good alternative to scanners is to shoot dupes with your digital (whether DSLR or mirrorless, I've used both).

Click to expand...

Nobody's mentioned it probably because the OP said he doesn't have a digital camera and not because he's a film snob either.

BTW, curious to know what is your minimum time to convert a color negative into a positive image using a DSLR and how does the color compare to your scanner?

Les Sarile said:

Nobody's mentioned it probably because the OP said he doesn't have a digital camera and not because he's a film snob either.

BTW, curious to know what is your minimum time to convert a color negative into a positive image using a DSLR and how does the color compare to your scanner?

Click to expand...

Yeah.....that made me laugh.
I did not say anything, because (this many posts into the thread) he may have just mentioned it as a general "Heads-Up" for anybody that might be reading this.
Oh The Irony......as i said in my OP.....A Digital Camera is a FABULOUS tool. I simply do not own one.

Les Sarile said:

Nobody's mentioned it probably because the OP said he doesn't have a digital camera and not because he's a film snob either.

BTW, curious to know what is your minimum time to convert a color negative into a positive image using a DSLR and how does the color compare to your scanner?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I missed that. As for converting negatives, they can sometimes be tricky. Photoshop's raw converter wants to apply exposure corrections to a negative as if it were a positive image, and often this does not work with negs. They often end up being way too thin. So I have to make sure not too much is done in the way of image enhancement. Now, when it comes to converting negative images, there are tutorials out there for using photoshop with good results. I prefer to use Corel's Paint Shop Pro, however (I've used PSP for over 20 years and I'm just too used to it to entirely convert to Photoshop). With just a couple or three keystrokes I can get a negative looking pretty good. So minimum time can be measured in a few minutes. However, there is one emulsion that doesn't cooperate very well -- Ektar. It requires special attention because when converted way too much cyan appears, and it takes a lot of tweaking to get rid of it.

Here are a couple of examples that were converted from Fuji Superia 400. I don't really care much for Superia 400 because it has rather pronounced grain. But at least the colors are pretty accurate.

cooltouch said:

Sorry, I missed that. As for converting negatives, they can sometimes be tricky.

Click to expand...

Good job on those two images!

I have only done a dozen or so color negative conversion via DSLR capture that I compare to my Coolscan results. Just a reality check as I have seen a few of the posted conversions too.

I'm using Paint Shop Pro as well to invert my negatives, and for colour to do the colour balancing. After that I import them into Lightroom and continue there.

What I find important when using a camera to digitise is to use a blue Filter (80B I believe) with colour negatives to move the masked image into the usable colourspace of the camera. My arrangement used to be a sandwhich of lightplate, cokin 80B filter, negative, antinewton glas (from my enlarger). I now use a filter on the lens because the cokin easily scratches. But it doesn't seem to be as effective.

I was afraid that this might happen. Maybe the colour specialists can comment on that. In an enlarger the light gets filtered before passing through the negative as well. With filterering after the negative, when looking at the histogram of the positive, the blue channel gets squeezed against the right (light) end of the histogram.

Here is one of my more successful ones. Fuji Pro 400H 6x6:

What light source are you using to illuminate the negative? The system is designed for a colour temperature similar to tungsten bulbs.

MattKing said:

What light source are you using to illuminate the negative? The system is designed for a colour temperature similar to tungsten bulbs.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you are referring to me.

The 80B filter is a conversion filter, but I'm simply using it as a blue filter to counteract the orange mask. Without it is near impossible to colour balance on the computer. The filter will not completely neutralise the mask. But it moves it enough to have all the information in the file. It's simply less orange. A computer magazine mentioned that method in a pretty old article.

Oh, and my light source is an led light plate (Kaiser) with 5500K.

lantau said:

Oh, and my light source is an led light plate (Kaiser) with 5500K.

Click to expand...

You should use the 5500K source for slides, but I'd suggest something closer to tungsten (2400K) for colour negatives.
The C41 negative, including its orange mask, is designed to be printed with tungsten light. I expect that if you use that light with the orange mask and your filter, the result would improve.
You may need a continuous spectrum source - an actual tungsten or halogen bulb. A discontinuous 2400K LED source may not perform as predictably.