Scanner for school

There is a learning curve with scanning, and scanning itself does take time. So why not buy a used DSLR for use during the class? You could sell it when the class ends if you decide to stay with film only.

KEH sells Nikon D70s for 4105 in Ex+ condition, charger included. Better yet, buy a used digital camera that has the same mount as your film camera.

 

Scanned negatives are nowhere near as malleable as a RAW file from a digital camera. Especially from a cheap scanner.

 

That will work, and that scanner would likely be ok.
But, the instructor is probably expecting the students will be working with cameras that can produce raw images rather than jpegs. The scanner's software may not be able to produce compatible raw images. You can certainly learn Lightroom working with jpegs, but the instruction is probably geared toward working with raw images.
There are digi point&shoots that can do raw, as well as most digi SLR's, either are available on the used market for 200 or less.

In 2018, rather than a scanner, I'd probably pair a digi SLR with a bellows or macro lens and a slide copy attachment to digitize negatives. I think that would minimize your learning curve with scanning and get you good files to work with in the class whether you work with your digitized negs or originals from the digi.
Depending on what film cameras you work with you can probably get a lens-compatible digi SLR body from the used market for less than what that scanner costs.
Nikon is an especially good candidate for that approach, but Canon's are probably an equal choice.

 

Viewscan software for scanners will allow you to save a file as "raw" but its not the same as a camera raw file; it's just a TIFF file.

If you own Nikon 35mm camera gear, you could find a relatively cheap, used D200 body (Dead Link Removed) and use your prime Ai lenses on the body. It can create raw files, has good manual controls and feels like a film camera.

Megapixel snobs will look down their noses at your measly 10.2 megapixels, but who cares? My D200 does a fine job and I really like the way it feels; like a camera, not a crackerjack box...

 

That scanner is overkill just for that, a smartphone and taping the negs to a window will accomplish the same thing if troubleshooting assistance is the goal.
Otherwise, if the goal is getting good quality images to work with for whatever purpose, it will do it.

FWIW, I like my scanners quite a lot, but wouldn't make the investment again.

 

Ah, sorry to hear that. I know about those sudden developments...

 

I’m sorry to hear that.

If you want a cheap scanner, just something so you can post photos online, I’d suggest checking out your local thrift stores. I recently purchased an Epson V550 and an Epson 4950 for 50 cents each. One came with a power supply, the other did not, but I was able to find a compatible power supply in their bin of random power supplies. They were both in decent condition and Epson software can be downloaded for free from their website. Anyway, I already sold them both online and made a crazy amount of profit! I still have a third, generic brand one. I’d be willing to give it to you, but the shipping cost would be pretty high and you could likely find a better scanner for less money locally.

Just look for one with a light in the lid, so it can scan negatives. It would also be wise to do a bit of online research before you buy so you can make sure it will fit your needs. If it doesn’t come with a negative holder, you can either try to scan them flat on the glass (I use a wet mount methods with imitation Mylar and Ronsonol) or use a traditional enlarger negative carrier. It may not be ideal, but it should work for internet uploads.

 

The Plustek will out preform any flatbed scanner with a transparency adapter for film scanning. That Dell will barely produce a decent text document scan, nothing more.
It will take a drum scan to produce noticeably better than the Plustek.
With Silverfast SE you can scan in 48 bit RGB but it will only save in 24 bit RGB tiff or jpeg.
Scanning is like photography, it takes some time to learn it. Most adjustments in scan software are better applied in post software like Photo Shop.

Check Craigslist in your area for a digital camera that takes the same lens as your film camera. I picked up a Nikon D300 with kit lens off ebay a few years back fir a reasonable price from a dealer in Sacramento and a power grip from KEH a few months later. If you are unsure if one is a good buy or not ask, us late risers will voice an opinion unless we agree with the early risers.

 

A new but discontinued DSLR with lens might cost little more than the Plustek, and may provide better digital files for classroom work. Don't worry about the quality of a relatively inexpensive interchangeable lens DSLR. After 6 years and 40,000+ photos I gave my Nikon D5100 to a young friend who could put it to better use. Film is still better than such a DSLR for critically sharp big photographs, but few people would notice the difference. In the future, mirrorless digital cameras will likely replace DSLRs for most photography You may grow to prefer a digital camera to film for most use. I did, but still miss the durability and quality of Leica and Nikon film cameras.

Even if you can't attend school at this time, you can get a good education online by following photo sites and searching youtube.

 

Lots of good tutorials in this google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=sca...amera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab
Make sure your light box has even illumination across the negative area.

 

As the one from B&H says the big difference is how large of a print you can make from the DSLR copy vs the film scanner.

 

Yes. And your wife’s printer copier won’t work well because you need a scanner with a backlight in the scanner’s lid. Light has to pass through the negative, or you won’t get a good scan. You can always tape the film down to the glass, place a piece of non glare acrylic over the film, or secure it in a negative holder to keep it flat. Or you can buy a film holder. You could also do what I do, and use a wet scanning method. There are lots of ways to go about this.

But an old 15ish MP DSLR with a good macro lens will out do any flatbed or dedicated film scanner you can likely afford for 35mm film. I use my flatbed scanner for large format film and my DSLR for 35mm. All you need is a light box, a mask to block out stray light to cut down on glare, a way to hold the film flat (a negative carrier from an enlarger works well for both of these), a decent macro lens, and a good tripod. An old manual focus macro copy lens would be great. I bought an old Nikon 55mm f3.5 for this purpose and it works superbly.

The biggest problem with either solution is getting your whole process down. That’s why dedicated film scanners are so popular. They make the process easier. Generally speaking, the thing that most beginners have issues with, no matter how you scan the film, is getting the colors right in color negative film and getting all of the shadow and highlight detail in slide film. Also, don’t be afraid to sharpen the image in software. Scanning film is a skill that takes a while to learn, but anyone can learn it.

 

If you are copying 35mm negatives with a DSLR, a micro lens as Jim10219 suggests is advisable, as the lenses usually found on DSLRs aren't ideal for close-ups. With such a set-up, focusing can be critical. The lens should be used at a fairly large aperture to avoid loss of definition due to diffraction. Fresh photography with the DSLR and a kit lens should fit into the classwork better than old photographs taken without the viewpoint of today's students.

 

Your wife's printer/copier will probably do a good job of digitizing your prints for sharing purposes. I'd suggest spending some time there because being able to share work prints is really handy.
For presentation quality results, negative or slide scans require knowledge and hard won experience.

 

I am of the opinion your teacher doesn't know what he is talking about as a scanned image can be manipulated just like any other digital file in PS or any other post processing tool. In fact it is easy to argue that an overexposed image can be easily recovered from a frame of film compared to one originating from a digicam that cannot be recovered regardless of any post work.

No doubt everyone has different levels of experience with these things and if you do not, then I am willing to provide you scan files from your own film and help you analyze the results. I have scanned over 30,000 frames of various films using my Nikon Coolscans, Epsons and digicams. If you have a few frames of films that you are interested in getting scanned, let me know and we can work out the logistics.

BTW, I tend to use ACDSee much more then PS so don't think you need to use PS especially just for post processing work.

 

ACDSee Photo Software - https://www.acdsee.com/en/index
There are lots of competing options out there that allow you to work without Adobe's monthly licensing payment requirements.
For example, I use Corel's Paintshop Pro and Corel's Aftershot Pro.
Fast Stone Image Viewer is also quite powerful, and is either free or by donation.
The problem that comes with using something that isn't Adobe - either PhotoShop ("PS") or Lightroom - is that a lot of the learning material out there is Adobe oriented.

 

bite the bullet and get a used low-cost digital SLR such as a Nikon D40 or D60 and avoid unnecessary scanning troubles; They cost so little and give you so much. Also,there are a ton f cheap old Nikon glass available for them too