Rupert49
enthusiast
Reged: 12/01/2008
Posts: 298
Loc: Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire
|
|
I'm planning my digital darkroom for when I retire later in the year, and part of the set-up will incorporate a decent quality high resolution scanner that I can use to digitise photographic prints & negatives and miscellaneous pages from magazines .. so I suppose up to and including A4 size. Epson and Canon are the makes that usually come to mind; price is not really a limiting factor (within reason), so if you had a free choice which model(s) would you recommend I had a closer look at?
--------------------
Rupert
I know you believe you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realise what you heard is not what I meant!
|
Wheelu
addict
Reged: 31/10/2007
Posts: 568
Loc: UK, up North
|
|
To scan prints you need a flatbed scanner, but to get the best results from your negatives a specialist film scanner is preferable.
I use an Epson 4990 flatbed. If you are content with web sized images it's fine for negative scans, but if you want to make enlargements for printing from your 35mm negatives it leaves something to be desired.
Professional scans from a commercial scanner leave it well behind. I have compared the output from my scanner with that from both a Fuji Frontier and a Durst Sigma. It really can't compete, particularly if you require enlarged prints. It's not just a question of resolution, the professional scanners provide better highlight and shadow detail, and higher image contrast.
One strategy might be use a flatbed for web based work (where you struggle to see the difference most of the time), and then pay to have a minority of your negatives professionally scanned for printing.
I have not used the Nikon film scanner so can't speak from personal experience, but I have read mixed reviews on that particular piece of kit. It would be useful if someone who owns both that film scanner and a modern flatbed could post some comments and comparative results.
--------------------
Web Site
|
Rupert49
enthusiast
Reged: 12/01/2008
Posts: 298
Loc: Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire
|
|
There's clearly more to this than I thought. Do I understand you to say that good quality scans from prints are relatively easy to achieve (using a flat bed scanner), but to scan negatives at anything like the sort of quality I'm after I'll need a specialist film scanner? Is there not a high end domestic machine that can achieve both?
As far as I know I won't be doing anything web-wise (flickr, myspace, facebook, posting pictures on the internet, etc... it's all rather foreign to me and I'm even a little ashamed to say that I don't really understand any of it). I just want the sort of quality from scanning negatives that will enable me to process my images in Photoshop and produce prints that will equal the quality I would have got when they were first produced from the original roll of film. I presume there's something in the scanner that turns the colour negative film strip into a positive image for editing?
Any further thoughts or advice, please?
--------------------
Rupert
I know you believe you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realise what you heard is not what I meant!
|
Wheelu
addict
Reged: 31/10/2007
Posts: 568
Loc: UK, up North
|
|
Quote:
There's clearly more to this than I thought. Do I understand you to say that good quality scans from prints are relatively easy to achieve (using a flat bed scanner), but to scan negatives at anything like the sort of quality I'm after I'll need a specialist film scanner? Is there not a high end domestic machine that can achieve both?
Any further thoughts or advice, please?
The straight answer is yes, you do need a specialist scanner to produce prints from 35mm negatives that approach the quality of those that were printed conventionally.
However, I have enjoyed scanning my collection of negatives using a flatbed, and have been able to give my children CDs of images of them growing up. This is the form of media that they use, and for that purpose, it's fine.
Recently my son asked if I could provide him with a digital image of him as a child for a competition at work where staff were asked to match up the kids and adults. Thinking that they would be using screen displays, I gave him a smallish JPG. However they printed all of the images at about 10x8, and, seen from a distance, the result is far better than it deserves to be, good enough to live on my bookshelf!
It really does depend upon your own particular requirements and view of image quality.
To return to this IQ thing, if you do an actual pixels comparison of a flatbed and professional film scanner scan, they are worlds apart. However seen reduced to screen dimensions, it's hard to tell the difference. Enlargements are a different matter, you do need decent scans.
There are dedicated film scanners available for home use, such as that made by Nikon, and Minolta did make a film scanner. I have no experience of these scanners and leave it to those who use them to comment. I suggest that you Google the Net to see what turns up.
--------------------
Web Site
|
donny
member
Reged: 09/06/2005
Posts: 124
|
|
I am using a Nikon Coolscan 5000ED and am delighted with it but the price is £1100 my former scanner was the Nikon Coolscan IV ED and it performed very well , it was only the need for exceptional quality that made me upgrade. The IV is a great tool for most uses and cost approx £300. Both of these models have reviews if you google them.
Don
|
Rupert49
enthusiast
Reged: 12/01/2008
Posts: 298
Loc: Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire
|
|
Thank you again for a very comprehensive reply. I've got some Googling to do that's for sure!
Kind regards, Rupert
--------------------
Rupert
I know you believe you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realise what you heard is not what I meant!
|
Rupert49
enthusiast
Reged: 12/01/2008
Posts: 298
Loc: Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire
|
|
I've heard Nikon's neg scanners are very good .. time I got Googling!
Thanks, Rupert
--------------------
Rupert
I know you believe you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realise what you heard is not what I meant!
|
digitravel
I aint got nuffin
Reged: 03/12/2002
Posts: 1297
Loc: Dorset
|
|
Ive used an Epson V700 for a while now and am very pleased with the results. There is a thorough review here
|
Wheelu
addict
Reged: 31/10/2007
Posts: 568
Loc: UK, up North
|
|
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I would start by having one of your negatives/slides scanned professionally using a high resolution machine like the Durst Sigma, it will only cost a few pounds and will serve as a benchmark. Then, see if you can get a shop, or maybe a friend from a photo club, to provide you with a sample scan, using the same negative or slide, from the home scanner that you are thinking of buying. If necessary pay for the service. Clearly, you need to pick a good sharp original with a full range of tones.
If you are going to compromise, be aware of what you are doing.
--------------------
Web Site
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
