[UncleVanya]

Experience here from b/w scanning is that dust here is usually in the form of little fibers, circulating in the house probably mainly from the clothes dryer. I also blamed the ginger cat, although he has been departed for some years.

My computer area is much dustier than other areas in the same room, so I suppose it is prudent to keep the film scanner as far away as possible.
I am keeping it in a vacuum sealed bag.

Scanning at 125 pixel/mm (3200 dpi) will resolve down to less than 15 micron or so. (65 cy/mm)
Here is a link to some contaminant sizes in micron.
Particle Sizes

A vacuum cleaner with a Hepa filter is supposed to filter particles larger than 0.3 micron

When I started out doing 35mm b/w scans, I had big dust problems because the Epson V600 Digital ICE can't be used on ordinary b/w film.
The reason is that a 4th Infra Red illuminant is used to distinguish the dust particles which can't be done on film types with metallic silver. C41 on the other hand has no silver and is partially transparent to the IR, allowing the Digital ICE to work.
(I read that some newer tech ICE may also work on films with metallic silver)

So I built a dust hutch which has a down draught of filtered air. That helped a lot and enabled successful scanning and wet printing of b/w.

Now I have a PrimeFilm120Proscanner with "Magic Touch dust- and scratch-removal" and I have not had any dust problems.
I continue use the dust hutch to dry and cut the negs.

---------- Post added 01-05-15 at 10:57 AM ----------



However it is older tech ( unless updated compared to the 3 year old one here) and you might look at at the reviews of the latest V850 series.

The V600 was excellent for reflective copies of 6 by 9, 8 by 10, and makes good files of paper enlargements of my b/w.
It works "just OK" on 6x9 C41.
I was never happy with its resolution when scanning C41 35mm *, although it has good enough performance on monochromatic b/w 35mm

*The PrimeFilm120Pro is a lot better even at lower resolution setting.
(I am using a 22 inch monitor.)

Thanks again. I'm leaning towards slide copies made by DSLR but the dust issue worries me...

I'll look up the PrimeFilm120Pro - the Epson V500-600 series info I have read does not impress me much in terms of 35mm negative and slide results.

---------- Post added 01-05-15 at 11:23 AM ----------

Thanks again. I'm leaning towards slide copies made by DSLR but the dust issue worries me...

I'll look up the PrimeFilm120Pro - the Epson V500-600 series info I have read does not impress me much in terms of 35mm negative and slide results.

OK - ouch. That's not cheap. I will have to think about that. I don't need 120 film capability - any 35mm only scanners you can recommend.

[wombat2go]

I don't need 120 film capability - any 35mm only scanners you can recommend.

The PrimeFilmPro120 is part of the product range branded "Reflecta" (EU) and "Pacific Imaging" ( USA, Asia)
They offer a range of 35mm only models, I understand, for a lot less price than the 120 version.

(I am only a customer, and not promoting this brand over any others.)

I also suggest to check before purchase that the software/driver for the model you select is compatible with your computer and operating system version.

Happy Scanning!

[LesDMess]

So what do I need to pay for a scanner with ICE?

What film brand/types are you going to scan and how many?

[UncleVanya]

What film brand/types are you going to scan and how many?

Mostly Kodachrome, some Ektachrome, Fujichrome, etc. At this point I don't have a clue what the numbers are - I shot film for many many many years and as I find more of it I have more to tackle. I shot a lot of B&W Tri-X and Pan-X as well as Kodacolor, Fujicolor, etc.

Many of the photos are low value - those can be quick and dirty captures for simplicity. The best shots may be more complicated. I had a bias towards slides with Color film.

[LesDMess]

Mostly Kodachrome, some Ektachrome, Fujichrome, etc. At this point I don't have a clue what the numbers are - I shot film for many many many years and as I find more of it I have more to tackle. I shot a lot of B&W Tri-X and Pan-X as well as Kodacolor, Fujicolor, etc.

Many of the photos are low value - those can be quick and dirty captures for simplicity. The best shots may be more complicated. I had a bias towards slides with Color film.

Since you mostly have Kodachrome, this may be a factor for you to consider. Of course if your Kodachrome slides are clean then you won't need ICE and this may not matter to you. I have not seen this artifacts with any other emulsion and of course ICE does not work with true black & white film.

Other than the Coolscan 9000+Nikonscan, it seems that other implementation of ICE results in artifacts when scanning Kodachrome. The artifacts can be seen in high contrast transition areas such as in the exhaust below.
Epson V500 ICE is worst, Coolscan 5000 not as bad and Coolscan 9000 has been perfect in all the Kodachromes I have. I have only shot a few rolls of Kodachrome so this isn't a comprehensive survey.


Full res -> http://www.fototime.com/056E802FBAE131D/orig.jpg

[UncleVanya]

Thanks... I need to double check my info and numbers. Since Kodachrome is B&W film dyed to color it isn't too strange that it acts weird with ICE I guess. That was unexpected info, leads me back to DSLR copy via macro and copy stand. But then dust greeted in the way... sigh.

[LesDMess]

I haven't tried the newer version scanners they may have addressed this issue with Kodachromes. If you buy a scanner with a money back guarantee I would suggest you try it on your Kodachromes first particularly if that is the type you have the most of.