Film Scanners?

[drifter136]

I have a 35mm SLR set-up right now, but I really like having my photos in a digital format. I'd really like to move to DSLR, but I can't afford it at the moment (probably not for a long while). I've looked into film scanners a little bit, but have never seen the results on computer.

I'm looking at the lesser expensive ones, such as the Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...#goto_itemInfo

I understand that it will take photoshop work, but what can be expected from such a system? Also, do you generally get better results through negative or slide film?

Thank you for any help or other info you can give!!!

[another view]

I was going to say that I wouldn't buy one without Digital ICE for dust removal, but this one does have some sort of dust removal system. The thing about digital ICE is that it doesn't affect the image - it just removes the dust. I'm not sure about what's in this scanner, you may want to check the reviews. The least expensive Nikon that has Digital ICE and other stuff is about twice as much though.

The alternative method of dust removal is pretty time consuming. I know because that's what I do! My scanner has neither of these and I have to clone each piece out in Photoshop. It's not bad if you do it once in awhile and start with a clean slide, but there will always be dust to deal with. My scanner (Acer, now Benq, 2720S) is pretty outdated but I've gotten good results with it. I've seen my results improve as my Photoshop skills improve, so there is a long learning curve.

If you want the end result to be digital, you still might want to consider a DSLR. I know you said it's out of your budget, but consider your film/processing costs. That made it pretty easy for me to justify it.

[Michael Fanelli]

I have a 35mm SLR set-up right now, but I really like having my photos in a digital format. I'd really like to move to DSLR, but I can't afford it at the moment (probably not for a long while). I've looked into film scanners a little bit, but have never seen the results on computer.

I'm looking at the lesser expensive ones, such as the Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...#goto_itemInfo

I understand that it will take photoshop work, but what can be expected from such a system? Also, do you generally get better results through negative or slide film?

Thank you for any help or other info you can give!!!

The Canon FS film scanners have dust removal and produce the same quality as the Nikons for a fraction of the price. But you don't get something for nothing: they are also about half the speed as the Nikons. I have an FS4000 that was wonderful for film scanning and highly recommended.

[drifter136]

This may be a stupid question, but with these scanners, after you get done shooting the roll do you just pull the film back out of the canister (my Elan 7 has a custom func that allows it to leave the leader out) and insert it into the scanner? If so, what keeps the film from getting damaged by light? Or does the film need to still be processed in a lab, then the negatives can be scanned? Please clear my confusion.

[berrywise]

Drifter,

You most definately need to have the film developed as like you thought it will still be sensitive to light. Most scanner will have mounts for them that allow you to either scan one slide (in a slide mount) at a time or scan a strip (usually 5) of film at a time. So if you don't want to pay for slide mounting you could just have your slides developed, cut into strips and then scan them that way.

This may be a stupid question, but with these scanners, after you get done shooting the roll do you just pull the film back out of the canister (my Elan 7 has a custom func that allows it to leave the leader out) and insert it into the scanner? If so, what keeps the film from getting damaged by light? Or does the film need to still be processed in a lab, then the negatives can be scanned? Please clear my confusion.

[drg]

You need to get the film processed. The scanners are slide and negative scanners.

A few quick notes. Whatever scanner you decide on check the availability of replacement/extra carriers for the negatives or slides. If your scanner doesn't use carriers make sure that the holder or feed mechanism is readily accessible if you plan on using it much. I've only damaged one carrier, but I like having multiples when scanning batches of film. It can be a slow enough process (for high dpi scans) without having to deal with a finicky tray or holder, particularly if your going to scan multiple rolls at one time.

Some pro film (Fuji NPC and NPH I know from personal experience) will some times "flake" off and get into the "works". Again, make sure the mechanism is cleanable. DON'T use compressed air. A squeeze bulb to gently move the dust around and maybe a electronics vacuum to remove dust.

ICE is great, but it can affect resolution and sharpness slightly. I don't usually notice it when I've looked closely, but in some macro work from the past it did make a noticeable difference. For older film that may have been sleeved for a while or other such static issues, or if you are doing bulk scanning it's almost a must. The alternative is days with your scanner and photo tools,
HOWEVER . . .

If you're going to make a transition to digital (Its so much quicker and no dust) in th next year or so, don't worry as much about ICE, and try an alternative. Scan only what you really want to convert, scan your best negatives and slides (a good loupe can be found for < $50 new), and use one of the special tools in the ADOBE PS Elements (2 or 3) to remove "noise". Just select the area that has the dust spots or scratches and then tweak the controls. (O.K. it can be more complicated than that) It is cost vs. speed. Of course you can do it with the full P/S .

Some of the really fine grain slide films (Provia or Sensia for Example) if scanned at 2000 dpi or less will show virtually no grain at all as the grain is smaller. Or thats the theory.


Hope this helps - C

[drifter136]

Thanks for all the helpful information. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be as much a cost-effective alternative as I had hoped since the film still needs processed. That's an extra $300+ that could be saved for my future dslr.

However, thanks again for all the helpful information and letting me know some of the things about it I didn't previously know.