What's your preferred film scanner?

[shaaktiman]

Hi all,

I JUST purchased a Mamiya 6 medium format camera, and had put off buying equipment for my soon to exist digital darkroom until I was sure that I was going medium format. I'm looking for the best film scanner (imagewise, value, etc.) for around $2000 and under.

I read some great reviews over at www.kenrockwell.com of several. Unfortunately, the one he recommends (Minolta Dimage scan multi pro) was just taken off the market and I'm leery of buying a used one with no return policy (re: ebay.)

I mostly do black and white, but I do have a lot of chromes that I'd like to be able to easily scan, so I think ICE may be useful. Please share any and all experiences. I'm going to spend as much on this thing as I did on my G5, so I want the best gear for my money. (I'd also appreciate any other recommendations for general digital darkroom stuff.)

Thanks a lot,

adam

[GeneW]

Adam, if you're going for the best, get a Nikon 8000 or 9000. I would myself, if I could afford one.

What many of us use are Epson flatbeds -- not the same quality, but surprisingly good. Flatbed scanners are more successful for MF than for 35mm. My Epson 2450 -- an old model by today's standards -- still does a decent MF scan. My newer Epson 4180 is even sharper and is very inexpensive.

Gene

[MolteniOrange]

Adam: I'm a new Mamiya 6 owner, too, and opted for an Epson 4990 instead of the big Nikon scanners because of budget. So far, I couldn't be more pleased. (It's about $415 from Amazon.)

I'm using it with VueScan instead of the bundled softward and am getting great results. Scan times are slow on my dual 800 G4, but you should zip right through them with your G5.

I'll be working on test prints from the lab and my home ink jet this weekend.

For b/w, I recommend the Kodak T400CN or the new Kodak BW400CN. It's C41 process, which enables you to take advantage of the ICE technology in your scanner. I scan it as a positive, then invert in Photoshop.

[schaubild]

I'd second the Nikon 8000/9000. If you're going to print large there is almost no alternative in this price range. Together with Silverfast you will get results that are very hard to top.

Flatbed scanners work fine if you a) publish most of your work on the web or b) want be able to scan even large format. They are also a great alternative for contact sheets, which I mainly use mine for.

[shaaktiman]

I actually have the 2450 and I tried to use it once for a job, scanning some 6 x 6 chromes for a 5 x 7" card. Maybe I just didn't know how to work the thing well enough, but my scans weren't usable. (Not for a paying job, anyway.) I ended up having them drum scanned. They weren't very sharp, and there was terrible color fringing.

I really want to make bigger prints, and I feel like if I couldn't get good scans for 5 x 7, then 8 x 10 sure won't fly. Thank you for the advice though.

[Jarvis]

I have the Epson 4270 which I use for 6x6, 6x7 as well as my 35mm films, I make use of a program called Silverfast for scanning procedures and workflow. I am very content with this scanner. For B&W it is near to perfect, colourslides for 120 film is excellent whereas for 135 film the slide scans resemble the budgte minolta series, not bad, but not as good as a Nikon 5000 or Minolta 5400.
The only downside is the looks of the scanner, obviously having no impact what so ever it resembles a Startrek Klingon battleship ... a well can't have it all.
I would certainly buy this product again....

[kiev4a]

I'd second the Nikon 8000/9000. If you're going to print large there is almost no alternative in this price range. Together with Silverfast you will get results that are very hard to top.

Flatbed scanners work fine if you a) publish most of your work on the web or b) want be able to scan even large format. They are also a great alternative for contact sheets, which I mainly use mine for.


If you have the money I would go with the Nikon 9000. I do disagree with flatbed scanners only being good enough for web pictures. There aren't many people who can tell the difference between a 11x14 print made from a scan from a good flatbed v. dedicated scanner -- especially in MF. Some photographers and graphic arts people might -- just as some might be able to tell the difference between scans from a $2,000 Nikon and a $10,000 drum scanner. In most cases, however, any additional sharpness gained is lost on the average viewer.

[NelsonFoto]

I spent $124 on a 3170 and I get very nice prints. I really dont see the need to spend so much.

[RUBENatHOME]

I have an artixscan 120 tf - it takes up til 6x9 slides 4000 dpi and a dmax 4,2 - I am happy with the results

[afaceinthecrowd]

I have been thinking it's time to get a better scanner. I've not had the best experiences with Epson products but it looks like it's the way to go to get a decent quality flatbed that will scan film and slides with accectable results.

Does anyone know if you can do 127 negatives with something like the Epson 4180? I don't have any but would love to have the option ... those Yashica 44's are tempting ...

Thanks!
dan

[T_om]

I've had a Nikon LS8000 almost since the first day they came out. I have been VERY happy with the results.

If you are serious about your scans, I think you are going to have to bite the bullet and get a dedicated film scanner. I did LOTS of testing before buying my Nikon. After all that, I knew I would not be happy with a flatbed. This was a non-trivial purchase at the time, as it was a $2500.00 item and my budget was tight. But it has been worth every dime.

Tom

[doubs43]

I have the Epson 4180 and like it. It's better than any of my previous scanners but that's not saying a whole lot. I'm sure that some of the more expensive scanners will run rings around the 4180 but at $150 I won't complain.

I don't have a 127 camera or negatives so I can't comment on whether the 4180 will work with those or not. I suspect it can be made to but that's PURELY a guess.

Walker

[afaceinthecrowd]

The next time I'm at the local electronics box store I'll take a closer look at the 4180 to see if I can modify the film holder for my 127 fantasy. :)

Thanks!
dan

[GeneW]

The next time I'm at the local electronics box store I'll take a closer look at the 4180 to see if I can modify the film holder for my 127 fantasy. :)

Thanks!
dan
The 4180 will work fine for 126/127 film, but there is no film holder for it. You can make a film holder by finding some cardboard of approx the same thickness as the plastic one and cutting it to the same shape. Then cut a mask the correct size for the film. Or, you might use a cardboard insert into the MF holder that would mask the 127 correctly but keep it slightly off the scanner glass. I've scanned some 126 negs by laying it directly on the glass inside the MF film holder and it turned out pretty well.

Gene

[Bob Michaels]

I'm very happy with my Minolta MultiPro. I chose it over the Nikon 8000 or 9000 but suspect I could learn to live with the Nikon if I had to.

Unfortunately, MF film scanners are expensive. But they are worth it.

The earlier model Minolta Multi (not MultiPro) seems to come up on EBay for around $500 from time to time. I have a friend who is very happy with hers.

I've found I can get better prints with 35mm and a film scanner than with MF and a flatbed. I haven't used any of the new flatbeds but my Epson 3200 certainly didn't cut it for me. Each new model brings the same comments "well, this new one will finally be good enough". I suspect people will be saying the same about the successor to the 4990 when it comes out.

[NelsonFoto]

I've had a Nikon LS8000 almost since the first day they came out. I have been VERY happy with the results.

If you are serious about your scans, I think you are going to have to bite the bullet and get a dedicated film scanner. I did LOTS of testing before buying my Nikon. After all that, I knew I would not be happy with a flatbed. This was a non-trivial purchase at the time, as it was a $2500.00 item and my budget was tight. But it has been worth every dime.

Tom


Im plenty serious about my scans. I also made $42k last year at my deskjob, so an $8k scanner was not then nor now part of my plans. :)

I get seriously nice prints scanning from my 3170. If the expendable income and the overwhelming NEED ever becomes manifest, then maybe. Until then, I am a bottom-feeder by nature - heck, my favorite camera at the moment is a frickin $24 Daiichi-Rapid Zenobia.

Cheers!

[Ukko Heikkinen]

Hi

Epson 4870 for MF.

Minolta 5400 for 35 mm.

I prefer Epson-MF to Minolta-35 mm.

Ukko Heikkinen

[hoot]

Hey. I'm also a Mamiya 6 owner (or perhaps it owns me), and the scanner I use is called Epson F-3200. If you live in the USA you will have to smuggle one in from Europe or Japan because they aren't being sold in the 'States. However, this scanner is a real steal. It costs as little as a flatbed, but is a true transparencies scanner for 35mm, 120 (or 220) roll film, and 4x5" sheets. I originally bought it to scan panoramic photos, because its software doesn't chop up the strip of film according to some predefined standard.

This scanner does not come with ICE, but I never really needed it. It comes with the Silverfast AI software, which lets you define histograms and such, and I've always gotten superb quality out of my black and white negatives. It behaves a little funny with color negatives, since you need to manually fiddle with the color balance to remove the orange cast.

[wdenies]

I agree with your comments on Epson scanners.
I take pictures with almoust all formats: 35 mm (including Xpan panoramic) up to 4"*5".
The only affordable financial solution for me was the 4870 Epson scanner.
The Silverfast AI program from Epson is the simplified (SE) version.
I use the full version and I never had problems with scanning negatives.

WORKFLOW

Scan with 16 bits/channel
Resolution
35 mm : 4800 dpi
larger : 3200 dpi
Those settings create large files but gives you room for digital post-processing in
the digital darkroom (pixelroom?)

TIPS

Do as much as corrections in the scanning program because post processing corrections (even with Photoshop) decrease the quality of your pictures

Buy Taz Tally's "Silverfast The Official Guide" (English/German)

[Bob Michaels]

[QUOTE=wdenies]
TIPS

Do as much as corrections in the scanning program because post processing corrections (even with Photoshop) decrease the quality of your pictures[QUOTE]

Bob says:
Actually any corrections you do in the scanning program are manipulating the basic raw scan data just as if you did them in Photoshop. I find Photoshop to be more precise and controlable, therefore I minimize any corrections in the scanning program.

But, there is no right and wrong and everyone needs to do what they think in right and works for them.

[digitalox]

I just got the canon 8400f yesterday, it scans my MF very well and was only $150. I'm don't need for professional use and this is the scanner I've had that could do MF, so I don't have much to compare it to.

[shaaktiman]

Hi all,

Thank you so much for your advice. In the end I've decided to buy the Epson perfection 4990 scanner. At first I was convinced that I would need a dedicated film scanner, but I looked into it some more. It seems that epson has replaced their MF dedicated model with this flatbed one. It's less than 25% of the cost of the Nikon 9000, and is supposed to make scans that are very nearly its equal in quality. I've been disappointed with flatbed results in the past, (I have the 2450.) but I'm going to give this one a shot. I'll let you know how it turns out. It's only $430 from amazon, and if you don't like it, you can return it for any reason, so I figure it's a risk free trial.

[phototone]

My preferred scanner is the Nikon 9000ed, as I do medium format also, and the Nikon has a wonderful quality to the b/w scans.

[GeneW]

Something that makes Epson flatbeds scan a whole lot better with MF is this guy's 3rd-party negative holder, especially when used with his ANR insert:

http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mainintro.html

Makes a noticeable difference.

Gene

[Thomaspin]

While I have found dedicated film scanners optimal for 35mm, use of Silverfast software with my (discontinued) Epson 2450 has it come quite close in quality, and certainly good enough for 6x6 film. I ran some comparisons for a friend the other day and posted them Here. (http://www.pindelski.org/equipment/scanners.htm) The Silverfast software appears to do a better job than the Epson software.

The 4990 is the latest Epson version of this scanner and adds Digital ICE noise and scratch reduction as well as purportedly higher definition and dynamic range. My 2450 came with Silverfast included. Note that the scratch reduction will not work on silver based or Kodachrome films as both types of emulsion block infra red, passage of which is required for Digital ICE to work.

[RObert Budding]

My preferred scanner is the Nikon 9000. But I own an Epson 4990.

Robert

[shaaktiman]

Robert,

what's your impression of the 9000 vs. the 4990? I know that the nikon is better, but I'm curious as to how much better? In your opinion, does the 4990 make acceptable scans for 120 film? How about 35mm?

thx,

adam

[wdenies]

I am very happy with the combination Epson 4870Siverfast Ai

[RObert Budding]

The 4990 is pretty good with 120 film, but a little too soft for 35mm. I'm using Silverfast SE, which is excellent. I also have Vuescan, but the dust removal isn't very good, so I've retired it.

I don't own the Nikon 9000, unfortunately. But I've seem images that were scanned with one and they were really nice - very shrp. Of course, the skill of the operator does matter, and I'm new to scanning.

Robert

[Borghesia]

I just ordered a konica minolta scan multi pro, after month of examining reviews.
At the moment scan with a older dual scan II for 35mm and an Epson 2450 for above.
I have high hopes for de multi pro, read about it a lot, but I haven't seen real examples yet.
My upcoming multi pro is the investment that has to hold me from mega expensive DSLR full frame camera's for the next couple of years.

[sf]

I currently own an Epson 3170. It scans 645 black and white very well. It can scan up to 6x9, and if you stick to black and white, it does a fabulous job. For color, slide or negative, it is terrible. But for 170 bucks, you can't beat it for the black and white digital darkroom.

If you want to be able to do large format, the new Canon model and the Epson 4870 ( I think it's this one) are both awesome. The newest from Epson and Canon are both very high resolution, can handle up to 4x5 large format, and work at 4.2 dmax, which is something previously left to the drum scanners and high end dedicated film scanners. DMAX is related to density and dynamic range (I am not entirely sure of what it means), and higher is better. The difference between, say, 3.2 and 4.2 is enormous from my experience. Pay the extra cash for the newer scanners, it is worth it. And they can do batch jobs on 35mm frames. VERY USEFUL.

For 500 bucks, buy the newest Epson or for 350 the newest Canon. Both are awesome scanners, and I have seen both do their thing. For large format, they are the only options, and if you have the computing capability to work with super-huge files, you can do some amazing stuff with a large format negative or slide and photoshop. I know that I will be doing all my portraits and landscapes 4x5 now, and doing all the post-processing in Photoshop CS. A nice mix between digital and film. All the quality of film and all the flexability of digital files. My less discerning clients are happy with the prints from the ip5000, but you might want to go with the Epson 2200 or a Frontier (maybe it was the Lightjet) print for traditional quality. Of course, no consumer printer on the market can make use of the image information on a 4x5 slide or negative, or even 645 for that matter, but you can always load that huge file onto a DVD or CD and take it down to the local shop and have them do it. In Los Angeles, "The Icon" on Wilshire is AMAZING. And they have great prices. In Seattle, Ivey Imaging is decent.

My current system is a 3170 and a Canon IP5000. The IP5000 is a fantastic printer, and does things with black and white that will amaze even the most skeptical viewers. My prints on the IP5000 look like traditional prints for the most part, and with Photoshop, I can perfect my images to levels previously impossible through traditional methods. Now, every single image I intend to sell is EXACTLY how I want it.

Buy the newer Epson or Canon, and a printer like the IP5000 or the Epson 2200 or the Canon i9900. You'll never need anything printed or retouched again. It has saved me thousands, and that terrible feeling you get when you get the prints back and they aren't what you expected? Well, those days are over.