Scanning film shots...

[Beltaine]

Looking into a scanner.

For scanning shots from film would you recommend scanning a print or the negative?

I would think the negative since it's an original, but hey, I'm no expert.

I've looked at 35mm negative scanners and they're kind of pricey. I think it's mostly due to them being able to do a greater volume of scans as opposed to flatbeds with transparency adapters. I'm not looking to do volumes of photos, just a select few I like to go into photoshop for manipulation.

Anyone use a flatbed with a film adapter and have good results?

What do you recommend?

[Franglais]

Looking into a scanner.

For scanning shots from film would you recommend scanning a print or the negative?

I would think the negative since it's an original, but hey, I'm no expert.

I've looked at 35mm negative scanners and they're kind of pricey. I think it's mostly due to them being able to do a greater volume of scans as opposed to flatbeds with transparency adapters. I'm not looking to do volumes of photos, just a select few I like to go into photoshop for manipulation.

Anyone use a flatbed with a film adapter and have good results?

What do you recommend?

I have an Epson 3200 Photo flatbed and a Nikon Coolscan IV film scanner. They have similar theoretical resolution (3200dpi for the flatbed vs 2900 dpi for the film scanner) but in fact the film scanner is somewhat better plus it has ICE dust removal which is wonderful. I use the Nikon for 24x36 film and the Epson for 6x6 where dust removal is less important.

Epson have now brought out the 4800 Photo flatbed which has 4800dpi resolution and ICE dust removal. It's half the price of the Nikon Coolscan V and the reviews say its pretty good. This might be your answer.

Charles

[Clicker]

Looking into a scanner.

For scanning shots from film would you recommend scanning a print or the negative?

I would think the negative since it's an original, but hey, I'm no expert.

I've looked at 35mm negative scanners and they're kind of pricey. I think it's mostly due to them being able to do a greater volume of scans as opposed to flatbeds with transparency adapters. I'm not looking to do volumes of photos, just a select few I like to go into photoshop for manipulation.

Anyone use a flatbed with a film adapter and have good results?

What do you recommend?

Hello, Beltaine, and first let me say, Welcome to PR.com! I hope you enjoy the site...

I saw your post and wanted to direct you to this thread in PR from the Digital Imaging Forum:

Flatbed scanner or film scanner?


It discusses the scanner issue....

[Outdoorsman]

Looking into a scanner.

For scanning shots from film would you recommend scanning a print or the negative?

I would think the negative since it's an original, but hey, I'm no expert.

I've looked at 35mm negative scanners and they're kind of pricey. I think it's mostly due to them being able to do a greater volume of scans as opposed to flatbeds with transparency adapters. I'm not looking to do volumes of photos, just a select few I like to go into photoshop for manipulation.

Anyone use a flatbed with a film adapter and have good results?

What do you recommend?

I have the Microtek ScanMaker 4850. Don't buy it!!! I hate the thing! Scanning film/slides is a nightmare with this hunk of junk! It does prints OK, not great, but OK. It's slow and loud and I've had to reload the software three times already. It doesn't clean well, and it has this awful line pattern in everything it scans. I really don't like it too much. It does about enough for the average non-photography-minded person. It makes gigantic files really well, however.
I really couldn't give any advice on which ones to buy, but I sure can tell you what not to buy.
Good luck!