Good cheap negative scanner ?

spystyle · 05-08-2012, 08:30 PM

Hello from Maine,

I am in the market for an affordable yet quality negative scanner, for negatives.

I have regular flat bed scanners, can I just use those, and maybe there is a Photoshop filter to go from negative to regular ?

Or is it best to buy a real film scanner.

I know the Plustek OpticFilm is awesome but I think those tend to go for $225-ish

I could bite the bullet but gosh that's a lot of dough

What are you guys using that is more affordable ?

Thanks

Craig

twitch · 05-08-2012, 08:39 PM

A $50 lens and a $250 scanner will deliver a much better final result than a $250 lens and a $50 scanner. If you only shoot 35mm, then the plustek is well worth the investment IMHO. The quality of scans is outstanding. Not the faster in the world that's for sure, but it is relatively cheap compared to scanners offering the same or better IQ.

Each of the photos in this set were scanned with a Plustek 7600, each at 3600dpi (there is 7200dpi available which offer slightly better quality at the "cost" of huge files and time to scan). Most of he photos were also shot with lenses wide open, not stopped down for ultimate sharpness either.

spystyle · 05-08-2012, 08:49 PM

Thanks, I guess you're right I should just invest in a good one

I only shoot film for fun, but if I had a nice scanner I bet I'd do it more.

Cheers

Craig

twitch · 05-08-2012, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by spystyle

Thanks, I guess you're right I should just invest in a good one

I only shoot film for fun, but if I had a nice scanner I bet I'd do it more.

Cheers

Craig

Give it a while and see if anyone chimes in with some bright ideas. When I did my research on this last year, and I haven't revisited it since, it all pointed to getting the plustek.

spystyle · 05-08-2012, 09:20 PM

OK, have fun

wlachan · 05-08-2012, 10:08 PM

Nikon dedicated Coolscan film scanners are awesome, expensive and available used only (well almost). The next best things would be used Minolta Scan Elite models, also used only. For the much cheaper alternative, I just got the Epson V330 which can do negative scans. While the scan quality is a far cry from the dedicated film scanners, the results are okay for 8x12".

Hilo · 05-08-2012, 11:36 PM

I have the same question(s) as the OP, plus this: the scanner should be able to do 135 as well as 120 film. And I want to be able to scan not only the exact image, but also the negative borders.

I have only had quite cheap Epson flatbed scanners and, in order to get more of the borders, have had to file out the holders . . . hmmmm. There must be better solutions . . .

Thanks !

Jimfear · 05-09-2012, 12:36 AM

For 135 and 120 film in the same scanner (for a price that will not get you murdered by your wife) you're looking at a flatbed. I mostly have experience with Epson scanners. I own the V700 and have used one of the lower series (that still manages 135 film). The V700 is more than enough for most applications, I have successfully made A3 prints from scanned 135 (not as good as a similarly sized copy made in the darkroom but still not bad at all). The cheaper (V250 or something like that) did not do a good job at all, and I wouldn't even like to use the scans for the web.

I would say, check the thread with samples of scanned images (it should be here somewhere on PF), and try too see what quality to price ratio seems to fit you.

Joe Nation · 05-09-2012, 01:08 AM

Sorry for the minor hijacking, but when you say flatbed scanners do you mean regular home/office scanners? I have an HP printer/scanner/copier which is ok for printing 8x10s from digital, and I'd like to be able to scan and print my negs too. I guess the thing to do is give it a try and buy something better if it turns out like garbage.

Hilo · 05-09-2012, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by Jimfear

For 135 and 120 film in the same scanner (for a price that will not get you murdered by your wife) you're looking at a flatbed. I mostly have experience with Epson scanners. I own the V700 and have used one of the lower series (that still manages 135 film). The V700 is more than enough for most applications, I have successfully made A3 prints from scanned 135 (not as good as a similarly sized copy made in the darkroom but still not bad at all). The cheaper (V250 or something like that) did not do a good job at all, and I wouldn't even like to use the scans for the web.

I would say, check the thread with samples of scanned images (it should be here somewhere on PF), and try too see what quality to price ratio seems to fit you.

The possibilty to do 120 film is actually more for my girlfriend

. . . how much would a reasonable 135 / 120 film scanner come to ?

titrisol · 05-09-2012, 11:45 AM

Most of the old Nikon/Minolta/etc that had SCSI inteface are sold for next to nothing

if you are willing to fight a bit with the omputer you can get them to work and get great results

**Lowell Goudge** · 05-09-2012, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Joe Nation

Sorry for the minor hijacking, but when you say flatbed scanners do you mean regular home/office scanners? I have an HP printer/scanner/copier which is ok for printing 8x10s from digital, and I'd like to be able to scan and print my negs too. I guess the thing to do is give it a try and buy something better if it turns out like garbage.

Actually yes and no

Ihave a canon 3200F scanner, which can do 35mm scans, but which is equipped with a backlight in the cover that is turned on for these scans.

Unfortunately, it can't do 120 roll film, only 35mm, so I am somewhat stuck as I have a whole raft of 120 negatives from the late 50's and early 60's that I would love to scan..these are all 6 x 9 CM negatives.

**boriscleto** · 05-09-2012, 12:55 PM

The Canon 8800F has a transparency adapter built into the lid like the 3200F, but it is also capable of scanning 120.

wlachan · 05-09-2012, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Hilo

The possibilty to do 120 film is actually more for my girlfriend

. . . how much would a reasonable 135 / 120 film scanner come to ?

The cheapest Epson that can do both is V500. Not sure about Canon.

**boriscleto** · 05-09-2012, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by wlachan

The cheapest Epson that can do both is V500. Not sure about Canon.

You need the 8800F at least. The 5600F will only scan 35mm. So about $180 for Canon compared to $130 for Epson.

05-08-2012, 08:30 PM	#1
spystyle Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Maine, USA Posts: 424	Good cheap negative scanner ? Hello from Maine, I am in the market for an affordable yet quality negative scanner, for negatives. I have regular flat bed scanners, can I just use those, and maybe there is a Photoshop filter to go from negative to regular ? Or is it best to buy a real film scanner. I know the Plustek OpticFilm is awesome but I think those tend to go for $225-ish I could bite the bullet but gosh that's a lot of dough What are you guys using that is more affordable ? Thanks Craig

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Are Those $50 ebay Scanner Any Good	violini	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	5	10-24-2011 02:15 PM
How good is a Microtek 120 TF MF scanner?	Sig M9	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	5	01-03-2011 11:36 AM
Is a DNG/PEF as good as a negative...	johnmflores	Photographic Technique	13	07-23-2010 05:26 PM
Yet another Negative film scanner advice needed thread	ismaelg	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	27	06-23-2010 08:54 PM
Film/negative scanner	leadbelly	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	8	09-15-2008 08:55 PM

05-08-2012, 08:39 PM	#2
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	A $50 lens and a $250 scanner will deliver a much better final result than a $250 lens and a $50 scanner. If you only shoot 35mm, then the plustek is well worth the investment IMHO. The quality of scans is outstanding. Not the faster in the world that's for sure, but it is relatively cheap compared to scanners offering the same or better IQ. Each of the photos in this set were scanned with a Plustek 7600, each at 3600dpi (there is 7200dpi available which offer slightly better quality at the "cost" of huge files and time to scan). Most of he photos were also shot with lenses wide open, not stopped down for ultimate sharpness either.

05-08-2012, 08:49 PM	#3
spystyle Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Maine, USA Posts: 424 Original Poster	Thanks, I guess you're right I should just invest in a good one I only shoot film for fun, but if I had a nice scanner I bet I'd do it more. Cheers Craig

05-08-2012, 08:54 PM	#4
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Originally posted by spystyle Thanks, I guess you're right I should just invest in a good one I only shoot film for fun, but if I had a nice scanner I bet I'd do it more. Cheers Craig Give it a while and see if anyone chimes in with some bright ideas. When I did my research on this last year, and I haven't revisited it since, it all pointed to getting the plustek.

05-08-2012, 09:20 PM	#5
spystyle Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Maine, USA Posts: 424 Original Poster	OK, have fun

05-08-2012, 10:08 PM	#6
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Nikon dedicated Coolscan film scanners are awesome, expensive and available used only (well almost). The next best things would be used Minolta Scan Elite models, also used only. For the much cheaper alternative, I just got the Epson V330 which can do negative scans. While the scan quality is a far cry from the dedicated film scanners, the results are okay for 8x12".

05-08-2012, 11:36 PM	#7
Hilo Closed Account Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 161	I have the same question(s) as the OP, plus this: the scanner should be able to do 135 as well as 120 film. And I want to be able to scan not only the exact image, but also the negative borders. I have only had quite cheap Epson flatbed scanners and, in order to get more of the borders, have had to file out the holders . . . hmmmm. There must be better solutions . . . Thanks !

05-09-2012, 12:36 AM	#8
Jimfear Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 576	For 135 and 120 film in the same scanner (for a price that will not get you murdered by your wife) you're looking at a flatbed. I mostly have experience with Epson scanners. I own the V700 and have used one of the lower series (that still manages 135 film). The V700 is more than enough for most applications, I have successfully made A3 prints from scanned 135 (not as good as a similarly sized copy made in the darkroom but still not bad at all). The cheaper (V250 or something like that) did not do a good job at all, and I wouldn't even like to use the scans for the web. I would say, check the thread with samples of scanned images (it should be here somewhere on PF), and try too see what quality to price ratio seems to fit you.

05-09-2012, 01:08 AM	#9
Joe Nation Forum Member Join Date: May 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 61	Sorry for the minor hijacking, but when you say flatbed scanners do you mean regular home/office scanners? I have an HP printer/scanner/copier which is ok for printing 8x10s from digital, and I'd like to be able to scan and print my negs too. I guess the thing to do is give it a try and buy something better if it turns out like garbage.

05-09-2012, 05:01 AM	#10
Hilo Closed Account Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 161	Originally posted by Jimfear For 135 and 120 film in the same scanner (for a price that will not get you murdered by your wife) you're looking at a flatbed. I mostly have experience with Epson scanners. I own the V700 and have used one of the lower series (that still manages 135 film). The V700 is more than enough for most applications, I have successfully made A3 prints from scanned 135 (not as good as a similarly sized copy made in the darkroom but still not bad at all). The cheaper (V250 or something like that) did not do a good job at all, and I wouldn't even like to use the scans for the web. I would say, check the thread with samples of scanned images (it should be here somewhere on PF), and try too see what quality to price ratio seems to fit you. The possibilty to do 120 film is actually more for my girlfriend . . . how much would a reasonable 135 / 120 film scanner come to ?

05-09-2012, 11:45 AM	#11
titrisol Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: In the most populated state... state of denial Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,852	Most of the old Nikon/Minolta/etc that had SCSI inteface are sold for next to nothing if you are willing to fight a bit with the omputer you can get them to work and get great results

05-09-2012, 11:49 AM	#12
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Originally posted by Joe Nation Sorry for the minor hijacking, but when you say flatbed scanners do you mean regular home/office scanners? I have an HP printer/scanner/copier which is ok for printing 8x10s from digital, and I'd like to be able to scan and print my negs too. I guess the thing to do is give it a try and buy something better if it turns out like garbage. Actually yes and no Ihave a canon 3200F scanner, which can do 35mm scans, but which is equipped with a backlight in the cover that is turned on for these scans. Unfortunately, it can't do 120 roll film, only 35mm, so I am somewhat stuck as I have a whole raft of 120 negatives from the late 50's and early 60's that I would love to scan..these are all 6 x 9 CM negatives.

05-09-2012, 12:55 PM	#13
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	The Canon 8800F has a transparency adapter built into the lid like the 3200F, but it is also capable of scanning 120.

05-09-2012, 01:29 PM	#14
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Originally posted by Hilo The possibilty to do 120 film is actually more for my girlfriend . . . how much would a reasonable 135 / 120 film scanner come to ? The cheapest Epson that can do both is V500. Not sure about Canon.

05-09-2012, 02:04 PM	#15
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by wlachan The cheapest Epson that can do both is V500. Not sure about Canon. You need the 8800F at least. The 5600F will only scan 35mm. So about $180 for Canon compared to $130 for Epson.