[butangmucat]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

I am considering jumping into the range of film photography as I have a collection of old lenses (now used with a mirrorless body via a bunch of adapters) and is intoxicated by the colors of Fujichrome Velvia. I am a college student and our school's photography program does not offer film photography courses nor do we have a darkroom. I am not going to focus on film a lot so I am planning to send my films out for development. Dwayne's Photo can develop Velvia and have them scanned. I am wondering is it better to have them scanned by Dwayne's Photo (or any other lab) or have them digitized by myself using a macro lens (which I don't have) or a slide copier that can be mounted onto a Sony MILC body? Dwayne's Photo advertises their scans to be 6.5M high IQ files, but many yrs ago I used to play around with some negatives and I just sent them to a local shop (supported by Fujifilm) and they only scanned them in XGA size BMPs, which are just terrible.

Sincerely

[C_Jones]

I used an Epson V700 scanner to scan 35 mm negatives to TIF files, in case you are interested in a similar method. That model may not be available anymore, but there are newer versions. A shortcut to one is below.

https://www.amazon.com/Epson-Perfection-V800-Photo-scanner/dp/B00OCEJM9K/ref...rds=epson+v800

[LesDMess]

Have the first roll scanned by them and you can compare with your own results after as well as have an understanding of what it will take. Slides will be easier to visually compare results to the original.

[IgorZ]

I bought a used Canon scanner for around $40US, and have been scanning film with it. File sizes that I get range between 30 and 40mb for a 35mm negative. I think it is cheaper to scan, and you get better quality as well.

[gofour3]

I am considering jumping into the range of film photography as I have a collection of old lenses (now used with a mirrorless body via a bunch of adapters) and is intoxicated by the colors of Fujichrome Velvia. I am a college student and our school's photography program does not offer film photography courses nor do we have a darkroom. I am not going to focus on film a lot so I am planning to send my films out for development. Dwayne's Photo can develop Velvia and have them scanned. I am wondering is it better to have them scanned by Dwayne's Photo (or any other lab) or have them digitized by myself using a macro lens (which I don't have) or a slide copier that can be mounted onto a Sony MILC body? Dwayne's Photo advertises their scans to be 6.5M high IQ files, but many yrs ago I used to play around with some negatives and I just sent them to a local shop (supported by Fujifilm) and they only scanned them in XGA size BMPs, which are just terrible.

Sincerely

Personally I don't get my slides scanned period and just view them on a light table or slide projector. However I'm old school and don't need my images digitized to enjoy them, so I'm in a minority.

I do own a Pacific Prime 35mm film scanner that I use to scan slides that I want to post online, otherwise I'm stuck back in the '70s in my film workflow.

Phil.

[ramseybuckeye]

If they scan them to that quality you mentioned it should be at least worth a try. You'll also get the negatives so you do it yourself if you get a scanner. Most places are pretty cheap to scan them also. The only problem I've had with labs scanning was the same you had, scanned to a low quality. But higher the quality scans I've got are good. I really don't have a lot of experience on film, but that's my two cents worth.

[RGlasel]

I am a college student

I'd hate to see you waste a pile of time digitizing your slides by hand when you could use that time for studying. It's a surprisingly time consuming activity and good scanners aren't cheap. The other way to economize is to view your slides the way they are meant to be, by buying a used slide projector at a garage sale and a screen from Staples. I much prefer the analog display to a digitized image, when you are working from a film original.

[brightseal]

buying a used slide projector at a garage sale

Imagine how cool is that , seriously cool but the only downside is you can't post to IG or FB.

---------- Post added 08-16-16 at 17:39 ----------

I am wondering is it better to have them scanned

Epson V600 - https://www.amazon.com/Epson-Perfection-Negative-Document-Scanner/dp/B002OEB...rds=epson+v600

[leekil]

It depends what you want the scans for. If you re just posting them online, then the Dwayne's scans will be fine. If you want to print them, you should look into something better. You could get a dedicated film scanner, or if you only want the occasional one scanned, take them someplace to get them scanned professional; those will probably be better than a cheap film scanner.

There's also a slide duplicator, which will be as hi-res as your digital camera is, and much quicker than a film scanner.

Slide Duplicator | eBay

[butangmucat]

I'd hate to see you waste a pile of time digitizing your slides by hand when you could use that time for studying.

I understand this. But I am taking a photography course this semester and if I happened to have a good shot on a slide, I would like to have it digitized. Yeah I should have mentioned I don't want to spend hours on digitizing slides.

---------- Post added 08-16-16 at 08:39 PM ----------

There's also a slide duplicator, which will be as hi-res as your digital camera is, and much quicker than a film scanner.

That was what I was thinking, but does this require a macro lens or a lot of time?

[LesDMess]

I understand this. But I am taking a photography course this semester and if I happened to have a good shot on a slide, I would like to have it digitized. Yeah I should have mentioned I don't want to spend hours on digitizing slides.

When they scan at the time as processing then no additional time required from you.

That was what I was thinking, but does this require a macro lens or a lot of time?

Yes, they require a macro according to the listings and the commensurate prices.

Time to scan at a minimum is setup your DSLR and lenses, adjust light, take picture and post process. As you get acquainted, you will shave some time.

[leekil]

I understand this. But I am taking a photography course this semester and if I happened to have a good shot on a slide, I would like to have it digitized. Yeah I should have mentioned I don't want to spend hours on digitizing slides.

---------- Post added 08-16-16 at 08:39 PM ----------



That was what I was thinking, but does this require a macro lens or a lot of time?

I didn't really look at the listings there in detail. Some slide duplicators have a lens built-in, so no additional lens is needed. I have seen ones by Cambron like that.

[Helios 1984]

I was thinking about get a scanner to save bucks on the long run as I do not process my rolls. Something between 50-150$, any suggetion will be welcomed.

[SOldBear]

....have them digitized by myself using a macro lens (which I don't have) or a slide copier that can be mounted onto a Sony MILC body?

A few years back, I tried to digitize about 30K family film frames. Some were 35mm negatives, some 35mm slides, some APS.

I tried macro lenses, I tries slider copiers, I tries slide projectors (still have some of the equipment from this exercise).

None of them work decently, even just for family photos. I didn't want to send the them out because of the risk of losing them.

I ended up buying a Nikon scanner (Coolscan V ED I think). It was one of the best decision I've ever made. Unfortunately that good decision was followed by a bad one: I sold the scanner after the project was completed.

My advice: if you don't have to, don't bother with taking photos with film and then scanning them. The result is never, never as good as starting with digital photos in the first place.

[LesDMess]

My advice: if you don't have to, don't bother with taking photos with film and then scanning them. The result is never, never as good as starting with digital photos in the first place.

Not on opinion I share as obviously there are many fine qualities of film that cannot be matched by any digi - even with PS. And of course the light tight boxes are awesome . . .