Slide scanners. Is there any real choice?

Rick · 08-27-2009, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by stevebrot

You might want to check out the price for Silverfast Ai Studio (IT8) for the Nikon scanners. There is a reason why I am using Nikon Scan

Yes, I see the price - and the price for the IT8 targets to work with it.

On the other hand, while I really hate thinking of what that is going to cost, it really doesn't compare to the cost that all those drawers of slides represent. A roll of film with processing was... how much again??? Multiply that by... how many trays of slides??? And then there's all the old family slides of the vacations when we were kids, my brothers and I growing up, etc. Not exactly artistic, but how do you put a value on the memories those bring back?

So, yup, I think I have a pretty good idea about the cost. But given the above, I don't see a way around it. Or at least, around finding a solution that will allow me to get what I want out of all those slides without laying out a good chunk of cash.

Rick · 08-27-2009, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

Not personally, since I can't afford to buy both. I did read a number of reviews that stated that the Digital ICE feature with Kodachrome worked much better on the 9000. The photo examples in the reviews showed a loss of detail when using the ICE version which works with the 5000 on some Kodachrome slides. The 9000 has a dedicated Kodachrome setting.

However, others report that ICE does work on Kodachrome with the 5000 most of the time.

One thing I do have going for me is that the vast majority of my slides are scratch free, and they're almost as good in regards to dust contamination.

I will have to break out the slide projector and screen and reconfirm that when I get home, but if that is still their state, then Digital ICE issues are not as important as they would be otherwise.

At least, that's what I assume.

With that in mind - and the fact that a 9000 is REALLY more than I can afford to spend right now unless I feel I absolutely have to - what are opinions on how much difference am I going to see in "end result" between a Coolscan V ED and a 5000 if I use either Silverfast or Vuescan with IT8 targets on "perfect condition" slides? Most of them being either Kodachrome or Fuji. Right now speed is not an issue - I'm prepared to give up speed for less wallet shock right now if the end results are comparable. The house DOES need a new roof...

The good ones that suffer from not having a much higher quality scanner should not be too numerous, and those I can pay to have somebody with a high end scanner do for me. Or, bribe my Photoshop guru wife to put aside her architectural work long enough to humour my Photoshop needs to recover an imperfect scan.

At least, that's my current thinking and what I'm seeking input on with this post.

HarryN · 08-27-2009, 12:51 PM

I think it is worthwhile to consider the canoscan 8800F, especially as it is now under $200. I am still figuring it out, but the scans are acceptable for my use.

I wrote a little about my learning curve experience in the medium format section. If you would like a "sample", I could scan a "few" for you - not rolls, but a couple.

GeneV · 08-27-2009, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Rick

One thing I do have going for me is that the vast majority of my slides are scratch free, and they're almost as good in regards to dust contamination.

I will have to break out the slide projector and screen and reconfirm that when I get home, but if that is still their state, then Digital ICE issues are not as important as they would be otherwise.

At least, that's what I assume.

With that in mind - and the fact that a 9000 is REALLY more than I can afford to spend right now unless I feel I absolutely have to - what are opinions on how much difference am I going to see in "end result" between a Coolscan V ED and a 5000 if I use either Silverfast or Vuescan with IT8 targets on "perfect condition" slides? Most of them being either Kodachrome or Fuji. Right now speed is not an issue - I'm prepared to give up speed for less wallet shock right now if the end results are comparable. The house DOES need a new roof...

The good ones that suffer from not having a much higher quality scanner should not be too numerous, and those I can pay to have somebody with a high end scanner do for me. Or, bribe my Photoshop guru wife to put aside her architectural work long enough to humour my Photoshop needs to recover an imperfect scan.

At least, that's my current thinking and what I'm seeking input on with this post.

I would suspect that if you are willing to spend time with the spot healing tool in PS, you can get away with not using ICE on the Kodachrome slides that don't take well to it with the 5000.

Ben_Edict · 08-28-2009, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by Rick

One thing I do have going for me is that the vast majority of my slides are scratch free, and they're almost as good in regards to dust contamination.

I will have to break out the slide projector and screen and reconfirm that when I get home, but if that is still their state, then Digital ICE issues are not as important as they would be otherwise.

At least, that's what I assume.

With that in mind - and the fact that a 9000 is REALLY more than I can afford to spend right now unless I feel I absolutely have to - what are opinions on how much difference am I going to see in "end result" between a Coolscan V ED and a 5000 if I use either Silverfast or Vuescan with IT8 targets on "perfect condition" slides? Most of them being either Kodachrome or Fuji. Right now speed is not an issue - I'm prepared to give up speed for less wallet shock right now if the end results are comparable. The house DOES need a new roof...

The good ones that suffer from not having a much higher quality scanner should not be too numerous, and those I can pay to have somebody with a high end scanner do for me. Or, bribe my Photoshop guru wife to put aside her architectural work long enough to humour my Photoshop needs to recover an imperfect scan.

At least, that's my current thinking and what I'm seeking input on with this post.

Rick, if you follow that strategy I would certainly go for the 5000 + Silverfast Ai (the original IT-8 targets can be bought off ebay sometimes quite cheap). It will be good enough for the majority of shots and the rare ones, which you want in professional scan quality would need a pro scanner anyway and can be done by a service provides.

Just be aware, that Kodachrome is among the hardest film material to scan, because it can have very high densities and steep contrast. Also the base of Kodachrome is completely different from "standard" slide film, as it is more related to a silver halide BW film, than usual E-6 slides. This is, by the way, the reason, why Digital ICE is not recommended for Kodachrome (it isn't either for BW).

Ben

kitkat · 08-28-2009, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

Is there a scanning tips thread somewhere?

This Web site has some tips on slide copying with a digital camera: Scanning Basics 101 - All about digital images

stevebrot · 08-28-2009, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Ben_Edict

...Digital ICE is not recommended for Kodachrome (it isn't either for BW).

I am acutely aware of what happens when Digital ICE is used with B&W, but was unaware of any particular problems with Kodachrome and the current version, ICE4. My 5000 ED works just fine using ICE from Nikon Scan 4.0, but the effectiveness of the ICE is decreased somewhat as compared to non-Kodachrome scans. Dust is handled well, scratches not so well. Better than nothing, but hardly the kind of fatal results you get with B&W negatives.

Steve

**janosh** · 08-28-2009, 04:26 PM

ICE4 works fine with a lot of Kodachrome... depends on the era. Don't confuse yourself with books, website "instruction", or with any application other than Nikonscan or Vuescan (and the justification for Vuescan mostly has to do with workflow preferences). You'll find that the most minimal "EZ" defaults are superb. It's not tricky. Kodachrome is, like Velvia, a problem mostly when someone thinks underexposed shadows hide important information...ie bad camera work and too much peering at the resulting film with loupe. If the image doesn't show what you want fairly obviously in projection, it's badly exposed and maybe not worth the struggle.

**janosh** · 08-28-2009, 04:34 PM

It's true that Ice4, at least with my Nikon V, has trouble with Kodachrome. However it's not true that there's difficulty scanning properly exposed Kodachrome otherwise...expect to do simple color correction in post processing...perhaps not necessary when scanning Ektachrome.

**ChrisPlatt** · 08-29-2009, 02:21 PM

Forgive me if I missed it, but what will you be doing with the output from the scanner?

Chris

ghelary · 09-08-2009, 05:34 AM

Hi,

I'm bumping up this thread as I'm looking for a scanner for 35mm film and 120 film. I've started to shoot 35mm film in order to get accustomed to film manipulation (vs digital cameras) and ultimately buy medium format gear (probably Pentax 645 or 6x7, depending on the finding)

As I live in Paris, it is easy to find pro laboratory selling film in any format but the price for developping and scanning is quite step (15€ for a 36) so I just have it developped and put on a contact sheet.

However I consider buying a scanner to post-process those pictures (at least the ones I find interresting) Considering that I want to print large format (A3, A2), I need a very good qualtiy.

Which scanner would you advice for those 2 formats ?

Regards,
Guillaume

Ben_Edict · 09-08-2009, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by ghelary

Hi,

I'm bumping up this thread as I'm looking for a scanner for 35mm film and 120 film. I've started to shoot 35mm film in order to get accustomed to film manipulation (vs digital cameras) and ultimately buy medium format gear (probably Pentax 645 or 6x7, depending on the finding)

As I live in Paris, it is easy to find pro laboratory selling film in any format but the price for developping and scanning is quite step (15€ for a 36) so I just have it developped and put on a contact sheet.

However I consider buying a scanner to post-process those pictures (at least the ones I find interresting) Considering that I want to print large format (A3, A2), I need a very good qualtiy.

Which scanner would you advice for those 2 formats ?

Regards,
Guillaume

If quality is the most important factor, try to get a secondhand Creo or Imacon Flextight scanner. A photog I am in regular contact found one for a price not too much about the Nikon Coolscan 9000 new.

The latter one would probably the next best choice.

Anyway, if properly used, the Epson V700/750 provide very good medium format scans. You just need to make some test uns to optimzie the film to flatbed distance (the film trays can be adjusted). If that is done correctly, you will reach film grain lebvel (unless you would use Kodachrome or perhaps Velvia 50, which both will outresolve any flatbed). Be aware, that best results (especially in density) will only be reached, when using the Epson with Silverfast software.

You will find a meaningful comparisson here: Collaborative Large Format Scanner Comparison

Ben

ghelary · 09-10-2009, 01:53 AM

Many thanks for the link.

I don't plan to buy this by tomorrow, but now I can dig in eBay and wait for a good opprotunity.

Regards,
Guillaume

Zav · 09-10-2009, 02:11 AM

Btw, developping + scanning is only 8,50€ at Negatif+ for a 135 film.

ChrisA · 09-25-2009, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by stevebrot

I own the Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED.

I've just bought one of these. I'm really pleased with the quality of the scans when I get them, but using Nikon Scan 4.02, I'm getting frequent acquisition failures.

Often, just clicking the scan button again will result in success, but it's a real drag not to be able to scan a strip reliably most, if not every time.

I've tried numerous combinations of settings, with no joy.

I've also tried VueScan, which doesn't fail to scan the way Nikon Scan does, but doesn't give me anywhere near as good scans.

I'm a bit stuck, and would be grateful for any ideas on how to get it all working reliably.

09-08-2009, 05:34 AM	#41
ghelary Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 613	Scanner for 120 & 35mm film Hi, I'm bumping up this thread as I'm looking for a scanner for 35mm film and 120 film. I've started to shoot 35mm film in order to get accustomed to film manipulation (vs digital cameras) and ultimately buy medium format gear (probably Pentax 645 or 6x7, depending on the finding) As I live in Paris, it is easy to find pro laboratory selling film in any format but the price for developping and scanning is quite step (15€ for a 36) so I just have it developped and put on a contact sheet. However I consider buying a scanner to post-process those pictures (at least the ones I find interresting) Considering that I want to print large format (A3, A2), I need a very good qualtiy. Which scanner would you advice for those 2 formats ? Regards, Guillaume

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Post your film scanners	Clicker	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	25	03-22-2010 12:26 AM
before the invention of scanners..	Gooshin	General Talk	40	10-23-2009 12:00 PM
Film scanners	miniheli	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	30	12-28-2008 08:10 PM
Photo Scanners, help.	Jimfear	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	2	10-09-2008 12:50 AM
Slide and trasparency scanners...	Arpe	General Talk	4	06-13-2007 10:25 AM

08-27-2009, 11:59 AM	#31
Rick Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: SE BC and NE Montana Photos: Gallery Posts: 198 Original Poster	Originally posted by stevebrot You might want to check out the price for Silverfast Ai Studio (IT8) for the Nikon scanners. There is a reason why I am using Nikon Scan Yes, I see the price - and the price for the IT8 targets to work with it. On the other hand, while I really hate thinking of what that is going to cost, it really doesn't compare to the cost that all those drawers of slides represent. A roll of film with processing was... how much again??? Multiply that by... how many trays of slides??? And then there's all the old family slides of the vacations when we were kids, my brothers and I growing up, etc. Not exactly artistic, but how do you put a value on the memories those bring back? So, yup, I think I have a pretty good idea about the cost. But given the above, I don't see a way around it. Or at least, around finding a solution that will allow me to get what I want out of all those slides without laying out a good chunk of cash.

08-27-2009, 12:17 PM	#32
Rick Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: SE BC and NE Montana Photos: Gallery Posts: 198 Original Poster	Originally posted by GeneV Not personally, since I can't afford to buy both. I did read a number of reviews that stated that the Digital ICE feature with Kodachrome worked much better on the 9000. The photo examples in the reviews showed a loss of detail when using the ICE version which works with the 5000 on some Kodachrome slides. The 9000 has a dedicated Kodachrome setting. However, others report that ICE does work on Kodachrome with the 5000 most of the time. One thing I do have going for me is that the vast majority of my slides are scratch free, and they're almost as good in regards to dust contamination. I will have to break out the slide projector and screen and reconfirm that when I get home, but if that is still their state, then Digital ICE issues are not as important as they would be otherwise. At least, that's what I assume. With that in mind - and the fact that a 9000 is REALLY more than I can afford to spend right now unless I feel I absolutely have to - what are opinions on how much difference am I going to see in "end result" between a Coolscan V ED and a 5000 if I use either Silverfast or Vuescan with IT8 targets on "perfect condition" slides? Most of them being either Kodachrome or Fuji. Right now speed is not an issue - I'm prepared to give up speed for less wallet shock right now if the end results are comparable. The house DOES need a new roof... The good ones that suffer from not having a much higher quality scanner should not be too numerous, and those I can pay to have somebody with a high end scanner do for me. Or, bribe my Photoshop guru wife to put aside her architectural work long enough to humour my Photoshop needs to recover an imperfect scan. At least, that's my current thinking and what I'm seeking input on with this post.

08-27-2009, 12:51 PM	#33
HarryN Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Pleasanton, CA Posts: 68	I think it is worthwhile to consider the canoscan 8800F, especially as it is now under $200. I am still figuring it out, but the scans are acceptable for my use. I wrote a little about my learning curve experience in the medium format section. If you would like a "sample", I could scan a "few" for you - not rolls, but a couple.

08-27-2009, 01:49 PM	#34
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Rick One thing I do have going for me is that the vast majority of my slides are scratch free, and they're almost as good in regards to dust contamination. I will have to break out the slide projector and screen and reconfirm that when I get home, but if that is still their state, then Digital ICE issues are not as important as they would be otherwise. At least, that's what I assume. With that in mind - and the fact that a 9000 is REALLY more than I can afford to spend right now unless I feel I absolutely have to - what are opinions on how much difference am I going to see in "end result" between a Coolscan V ED and a 5000 if I use either Silverfast or Vuescan with IT8 targets on "perfect condition" slides? Most of them being either Kodachrome or Fuji. Right now speed is not an issue - I'm prepared to give up speed for less wallet shock right now if the end results are comparable. The house DOES need a new roof... The good ones that suffer from not having a much higher quality scanner should not be too numerous, and those I can pay to have somebody with a high end scanner do for me. Or, bribe my Photoshop guru wife to put aside her architectural work long enough to humour my Photoshop needs to recover an imperfect scan. At least, that's my current thinking and what I'm seeking input on with this post. I would suspect that if you are willing to spend time with the spot healing tool in PS, you can get away with not using ICE on the Kodachrome slides that don't take well to it with the 5000.

08-28-2009, 02:33 AM	#35
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	Originally posted by Rick One thing I do have going for me is that the vast majority of my slides are scratch free, and they're almost as good in regards to dust contamination. I will have to break out the slide projector and screen and reconfirm that when I get home, but if that is still their state, then Digital ICE issues are not as important as they would be otherwise. At least, that's what I assume. With that in mind - and the fact that a 9000 is REALLY more than I can afford to spend right now unless I feel I absolutely have to - what are opinions on how much difference am I going to see in "end result" between a Coolscan V ED and a 5000 if I use either Silverfast or Vuescan with IT8 targets on "perfect condition" slides? Most of them being either Kodachrome or Fuji. Right now speed is not an issue - I'm prepared to give up speed for less wallet shock right now if the end results are comparable. The house DOES need a new roof... The good ones that suffer from not having a much higher quality scanner should not be too numerous, and those I can pay to have somebody with a high end scanner do for me. Or, bribe my Photoshop guru wife to put aside her architectural work long enough to humour my Photoshop needs to recover an imperfect scan. At least, that's my current thinking and what I'm seeking input on with this post. Rick, if you follow that strategy I would certainly go for the 5000 + Silverfast Ai (the original IT-8 targets can be bought off ebay sometimes quite cheap). It will be good enough for the majority of shots and the rare ones, which you want in professional scan quality would need a pro scanner anyway and can be done by a service provides. Just be aware, that Kodachrome is among the hardest film material to scan, because it can have very high densities and steep contrast. Also the base of Kodachrome is completely different from "standard" slide film, as it is more related to a silver halide BW film, than usual E-6 slides. This is, by the way, the reason, why Digital ICE is not recommended for Kodachrome (it isn't either for BW). Ben

08-28-2009, 12:05 PM	#36
kitkat Forum Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada Posts: 85	Originally posted by GeneV Is there a scanning tips thread somewhere? This Web site has some tips on slide copying with a digital camera: Scanning Basics 101 - All about digital images

08-28-2009, 01:24 PM	#37
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Ben_Edict ...Digital ICE is not recommended for Kodachrome (it isn't either for BW). I am acutely aware of what happens when Digital ICE is used with B&W, but was unaware of any particular problems with Kodachrome and the current version, ICE4. My 5000 ED works just fine using ICE from Nikon Scan 4.0, but the effectiveness of the ICE is decreased somewhat as compared to non-Kodachrome scans. Dust is handled well, scratches not so well. Better than nothing, but hardly the kind of fatal results you get with B&W negatives. Steve

08-28-2009, 04:26 PM	#38
janosh Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 243	ICE4 works fine with a lot of Kodachrome... depends on the era. Don't confuse yourself with books, website "instruction", or with any application other than Nikonscan or Vuescan (and the justification for Vuescan mostly has to do with workflow preferences). You'll find that the most minimal "EZ" defaults are superb. It's not tricky. Kodachrome is, like Velvia, a problem mostly when someone thinks underexposed shadows hide important information...ie bad camera work and too much peering at the resulting film with loupe. If the image doesn't show what you want fairly obviously in projection, it's badly exposed and maybe not worth the struggle.

08-28-2009, 04:34 PM	#39
janosh Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 243	It's true that Ice4, at least with my Nikon V, has trouble with Kodachrome. However it's not true that there's difficulty scanning properly exposed Kodachrome otherwise...expect to do simple color correction in post processing...perhaps not necessary when scanning Ektachrome.

08-29-2009, 02:21 PM	#40
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,694	Forgive me if I missed it, but what will you be doing with the output from the scanner? Chris

09-08-2009, 08:46 AM	#42
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	Originally posted by ghelary Hi, I'm bumping up this thread as I'm looking for a scanner for 35mm film and 120 film. I've started to shoot 35mm film in order to get accustomed to film manipulation (vs digital cameras) and ultimately buy medium format gear (probably Pentax 645 or 6x7, depending on the finding) As I live in Paris, it is easy to find pro laboratory selling film in any format but the price for developping and scanning is quite step (15€ for a 36) so I just have it developped and put on a contact sheet. However I consider buying a scanner to post-process those pictures (at least the ones I find interresting) Considering that I want to print large format (A3, A2), I need a very good qualtiy. Which scanner would you advice for those 2 formats ? Regards, Guillaume If quality is the most important factor, try to get a secondhand Creo or Imacon Flextight scanner. A photog I am in regular contact found one for a price not too much about the Nikon Coolscan 9000 new. The latter one would probably the next best choice. Anyway, if properly used, the Epson V700/750 provide very good medium format scans. You just need to make some test uns to optimzie the film to flatbed distance (the film trays can be adjusted). If that is done correctly, you will reach film grain lebvel (unless you would use Kodachrome or perhaps Velvia 50, which both will outresolve any flatbed). Be aware, that best results (especially in density) will only be reached, when using the Epson with Silverfast software. You will find a meaningful comparisson here: Collaborative Large Format Scanner Comparison Ben

09-10-2009, 01:53 AM	#43
ghelary Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 613	Many thanks for the link. I don't plan to buy this by tomorrow, but now I can dig in eBay and wait for a good opprotunity. Regards, Guillaume

09-10-2009, 02:11 AM	#44
Zav Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,371	Btw, developping + scanning is only 8,50€ at Negatif+ for a 135 film.

09-25-2009, 07:59 AM	#45
ChrisA Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: London Posts: 393	Originally posted by stevebrot I own the Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED. I've just bought one of these. I'm really pleased with the quality of the scans when I get them, but using Nikon Scan 4.02, I'm getting frequent acquisition failures. Often, just clicking the scan button again will result in success, but it's a real drag not to be able to scan a strip reliably most, if not every time. I've tried numerous combinations of settings, with no joy. I've also tried VueScan, which doesn't fail to scan the way Nikon Scan does, but doesn't give me anywhere near as good scans. I'm a bit stuck, and would be grateful for any ideas on how to get it all working reliably.