[jcdoss]

What's your opinion on best 35mm negative scanner right now? Cost is a consideration. Do any of these produce RAW files? Thanks for tolerating this fairly basic question.

---

Last edited by jcdoss; 07-22-2015 at 07:44 PM.

[rbnvrw]

I am not an expert, but I did ask a similar question and got some more knowledgeable people to respond: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/107-film-processing-scanning-darkroom/295...ml#post3300429

If you're interested in what result the Epson v550 can give with the normal holder, have a look at my flickr page.

[photodesignch]

What's your opinion on best 35mm negative scanner right now? Cost is a consideration. Do any of these product RAW files? Thanks for tolerating this fairly basic question.

Consumer level or Industrial level?

Consumer probably looking for Nikon CoolScan (although old but still works perfectly).. Or you could probably go for flatbed EPSON for mid/large formats. None of the scanner will ever produce RAW. Best you can do is 36~42bit TIFF file compression. (pre-defined color curve and spaces). Scanner does not save pure RAW data like digital cameras.

[6BQ5]

You can get a macro lens and a film holder for less. This would allow you to process your "camera-scanned" images using the same tools you use today.

[UMC]

Having scanned thousands of slides and hundreds of negatives, I think I can share some basic considerations:

While scanning slides is pretty much straight forward as long as you have a calibrated scanner and appropriate software, I found scanning negatives much harder. Or as someone said "scanning negatives is rather an art than a science".

Of course, the scanner does matter a lot. So probably you can't go wrong with Nikon. However, my requirement was medium format and 35mm at a reasonable price. A thorough internet research revealed only one perfect match below 500 Euros: Epson Perfection 550.

Trying to evaluate the Epons scanner's capabilities I compared slides scanned with the V550 to slides scanned with a Reflecta Digitdia 4000 (aka Pacific Image Electronics PowerSlide 3650). Not very surprising the 3600dpi slide scanner shows more resolution details than the (theoretically) 6400 dpi Epson V550. Therefore selecting 3200dpi seems to squeeze every tiny bit of information out of the Epon´s sensors and still would yield resulting image sizes that a regular desktop PC can handle.

Getting back to the negatives, we quickly found that resolution is the minor concern. What really matters is the software´s ability to eliminate the orange masking of the film, to find the proper white balance and to restore colors, especially if the negatives are older than 20 years or haven´t been stored properly. Calibration is only a theoretical option, because almost every film that I scanned was a different brand or model. In the end my favorite software was Vuescan, using EpsonScan as a backup in rare cases when Vuescan decided not to like a certain stripe of film. Vuescan provides easy options of playing with white balance and color restoration, therefore it is a lot more flexible than the manufacturers software.

As someone said before, none of the scanners in question would yield RAW files, but you can always store the initial result as a TIFF and you will have all the options for post-processing in the future. Another advice was given to use a DSLR with a macro lens. I tried this also, but it requires very painful post-processing with quite disappointing results (because of the before mentioned orange masking of negatives). However, for slides with high contrast this would be my preferred method.

A final word about the estimated superiority of the Nikon scanners: Consumer fladbed scanners can handle density values of 3.2-3.4, better slide scanners will yield density ratings of 3.6-3.8, while the Nikons are rated 4.0 or above. However, the practical meaning of this IMHO is more relevant to slides than to negatives as negatives have a smaller contrast range compared to slides.

My recommendations for market research would be:
Budget level - Epson V550
Medium level - Epson V700/V750, PIE PrimeFilm 7200 (~ Reflecta ProScan 10T)
Premium level - any of the good old Nikons

[6BQ5]

...

As someone said before, none of the scanners in question would yield RAW files, but you can always store the initial result as a TIFF and you will have all the options for post-processing in the future. Another advice was given to use a DSLR with a macro lens. I tried this also, but it requires very painful post-processing with quite disappointing results (because of the before mentioned orange masking of negatives). However, for slides with high contrast this would be my preferred method.

...

My experience was the opposite but it requires a capable software package. After photographing the negative all you need to do is invert the colors (or invert the curve), perform a white balance adjustment, and adjust the levels for the R, G, and B channels such that the limits touch the ends of the individual histogram. I find this to be very easy to do in Capture One and I even created a preset that is applied upon import. The white balance adjustment still needs to be done manually. Just pick something that is suppose to be gray in the image. The levels adjustment is also easy. It's an automatic adjustment. I had to configure the automatic adjustment to work on the individual R, G, and B channels vs. the combined RGB channel.

After that it's all the usual steps to season the shots to taste: contrast, clarity, exposure compensation, etc. Just remember that some adjustment like exposure will work opposite of what you may be used to since the image is a negative.

Here's an example made from a camera-scan of Ektar film.



Here's another from Fuji Superia 1600. Higher ISO stuff.

[UMC]

...
Here's an example made from a camera-scan of Ektar film.
...

I must confess that these results look quite good and are way better than anything I had achieved in my attempts of directly converting with PS CS6 and LR6.

However, there is still one advantage in the scanner solution which particularly applies to older material and material that has not been stored in perfect conditions: Infrared dust removal.

Although I blow off all the material before scanning (I have a small airbrush compressor for this purpose), I find it amazing, how many dust particles still made it into the final scan... Perhaps I should mention that most of the material I scanned originates from the 1950s until the mid 90ies. ICE and the likes are really helpful in reducing artifacts and dust to a level that can easily be fixed in LR or PS.

Anyway, the examples above show exactly the main challenges of digitizing negatives: Many pictures from the 70ies and 80ies have terrible high-lights caused by harsh flash lighting. These overexposed areas would frequently get a blueish shimmer in the digitized result. The 2nd example demonstrates how hard it is to find the right balance between "warm tone" and "yellowish". How many times did I desperately search for something white or grey in the scan that I could use for picking the white point...

---

Last edited by UMC; 07-07-2015 at 01:33 PM.

[6BQ5]

Film and dust seem to love each other. I also try to remove as much as I can with my rocket blower but some always manages to get back on. Some people here have reported good luck with antistatic brushes and that is something I need to try some time in the future. The few bits that manage to come back on are seen as white spots. I can use a healing tool or a dust removal tool to get rid of them. It's certainly nowhere as convenient as ICE but it also isn't backbreaking work either.

I've never encountered a blue shimmer in my scans but I understand the challenge of finding a good white balance and color balance. Film is inherently non-linear in its response to light and color and that is one of the features that gives it a unique look. On the one hand, you don't want to fuddle too much with the film's character and sterilize it but on the other hand you don't want yucky rendering. Ektar film is by nature very saturated. Colors almost look cartoonish and unreal. It's possible to correct for this by desaturating the whole image a bit or you can target the red/magenta channel specifically. All it needs is a gentle tweak. The 2nd shot looks yellow because of the interior color of the room. It is indeed a slight yellow inside the room. The colors in the picture is generally accurate.

I struggled tremendously with Rollei CN200 film. Yuck! You might as well convert the image to B&W and move on. Lomo 100 film is probably the most enjoyable to camera-scan. Porta, Ektar, and Gold 200 are nice too. Agfa Vista is OK. Fujifilm usually comes out too cool. Gold 400 and 800 is junk along with the Rollei formula. You can use it to wrap presents for a unique exterior. Velvia and reversal film in general is tough because of the narrow dynamic range. I feel like I am really fighting the histogram.

[jcdoss]

Thanks for all your responses, and thanks to the mod for moving this topic to the appropriate forum.

Obviously I'm a neophyte at this. The purpose to my question is partly to satisfy my curiosity as I begin to experiment with film and the notion of developing my own b/w film, and partly to help out some relatives who apparently have a ton of miscellaneous film negatives. I previously hadn't considered a flatbed scanner since I didn't know they could handle negatives or slides. I'll seriously look at an Epson v550 if I decide to go whole hog.

[photolady95]

thanks to the mod for moving this topic to the appropriate forum

You're welcome!

[arnold]

What's your opinion on best 35mm negative scanner right now? Cost is a consideration. Do any of these product RAW files? Thanks for tolerating this fairly basic question.

Having used a scanner, slide copier stuck to the front of a macro lens and lastly a light box, may I suggest the last. It works well for slides and, if you can keep film flat, should also be OK for that. I use a short tripod sitting on the lightbox, which held the lens about 3 inches away from the the film. Strangely, the lightmeter was thrown out, and I settled for -3EV for good pictures.

[photodesignch]

I had a Minolta slide scanner for 35mm and EPSON for larger for ages. ICE was good till certain point. The advantage of film scanner with ICE is basically the nice scratch / dust removal. However, I found that camera scanning gives best dynamic range and sharpness.

I've tried all kinds of methods.. camera scanning with lightbox, tripod, and macro extension tubs.. to dedicate macro.. end result I use dedicate macro. It gives the best result. (way better than scanners IMHO)

The following photos were tests I tested.. I tested against flatbed and slide scanners.. but keep in mind my scanner was older model so they aren't that "GREAT" on resolution.. max it gets its 2820dpi. Second note is scanner scans were made 14 yrs ago so the colors would be much vivid. As slides aged, the camera scan tend to have less vivid color (but sharpness remained)









If you would ask me today what would I choose.. I would hands down on camera scanning methods over scanners. Nice plus to it is the RAW allows to change color space.. TIFF can't.

camera scanning work (15~ 12 yrs old slides.. mostly RVP)

[jcdoss]

If you would ask me today what would I choose.. I would hands down on camera scanning methods over scanners.

And you make a convincing argument to make your point, too. Nice photos, and nice demonstration!

[southlander]

@jcdoss

I've been following various scanning conversations for some time. The bottom line seems to boil down to a simple question: how much of your life do you wish to devote to this task?

All in all, if any significant volume is to be dealt with, create some very big spaces in your calendar. If the volume is low, then the capital cost of a scanning device is probably hard to justify. The "help out some relatives who apparently have a ton of miscellaneous film negatives" could well be a bottomless pit for your time, so be careful with any undertakings you may give.

If looking to experiment with B&W film, then maybe start with the developing lab doing the scans for you, or 'scan' via photographing the negatives. If it proves not to be your thing, then no capital has been committed. If you get hooked, you will have a better idea of how much you are willing to pay to advance further.

[6BQ5]

@southlander is right. Film scanning of any kind takes a lot of time. Include the time it takes to get the film developed , scanned, and processed. Photography is a hobby for me and I find it therapeutic. I'm ok with the time. With much practice I have gotten pretty quick with it. Camera-scanning 36 exposures takes me about 45 minutes. This includes cutting the developed film, adjusting focus for every frame, and filing the film after I finish a strip of five frames. Processing the DNG files can take anywhere from 45 minutes to 2 hours depending on the results. Sometimes I get a lot of winners and I want to take the time and put in the effort to carefully adjust the colors and do some dodging/burning. Other times I only get a few winners and the processing could be simpler - no need for elaborate processing.

I camera scanned my family's negatives too. Yes, it took time but I had a deep interest in archiving my family history so I enjoyed it very much! It was a good way to connect with my family and get some stories. Not every frame was processed with a lot of effort. Some frames were simply camera-scanned to be preserved. How much effort did I want to put in for the frame that was shot 45 degrees rotated and turned out blurry? Not much. I could tell what it was and that was enough for me.

However, these are my negatives and my family's negatives. I would be far less inclined to spend this kind of energy for someone else's unless I had some interest, owed it to them, or was being compensated.

The nice thing about camera-scanning is that if you find out you don't enjoy the process then at least you walk out of the experience with a macro lens in your hands that you can use for other endeavors.