[Lowell Goudge]

You need to think again about the low cost scanners. Scanners have changed quite a bit since the early 2000's. flat bed scanners have also improved, from the turn of the century.

If you go flat bed get one that can do bigger neg's also. It may come in use

[JimJohnson]

You need to think again about the low cost scanners. Scanners have changed quite a bit since the early 2000's.

Mine is not quite THAT old. The discount stores are once again filling their shelves with cheap slide & negative scanners that look sort of like the one below. I would hope newer models are better, but are they as good as (semi) pro film scanners or flat-beds with backlights to do negatives and slides?

[boriscleto]

A good place to take this discussion would be the sub-forum "Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom".

While I eventually invested in an Epson V500 Photo scanner, I would still like to perfect slide duplication via my K-r with a bellows & slide copier unit ... at least for my best work. That way I get RAW images.

VueScan can scan images as RAW. Unfortunately they are not completely compliant with the DNG standard so not all RAW processors can read them.

[JimJohnson]

VueScan can scan images as RAW. Unfortunately they are not completely compliant with the DNG standard so not all RAW processors can read them.

That's good. Unfortunately I don't see any of the cheap negative/slide scanners I see heaped up in the discount stores in the VueScan compatibility list. And those scanners are the type I have warned beginners to steer away from.

[boriscleto]

That's good. Unfortunately I don't see any of the cheap negative/slide scanners I see heaped up in the discount stores in the VueScan compatibility list. And those scanners are the type I have warned beginners to steer away from.

No, but it is compatible with all the flatbed scanners with built in transparency adapters. I recommend against the cheap "scanners" as well. They are little more than a cheap p&s mounted above a light tray.

[tuco]

Thanks guys. That is meaning that besides buying the film roll I will have to spend on developing costs after every 24 /32 shots. Expensive!!

If you shoot everything you see, yes. But what you need to learn is to take only the worthy pictures. Of course easier said than done and usually takes experience and time to learn.

Secondly, after the newness wears off, you may find you only average a roll a week if you also shoot digital.

[Jonathan Mac]

The cheap ones are just 5MP digital cameras that take a photo of the negative/slide. I haven't seen any of this style with good reviews, and it's something you could always try with a DSLR or compact mounted on a tripod. You then have the difficulty of reversing the colours of the negative, which is not as simple as it sounds as negatives have a heavy blue tint which specialised processors remove.

Most places you go looking for advice on cheap scanners will recommend the V500, which is the advice I followed. While I'd agree the results aren't perfect, something significantly better would cost many times more. If I ever want a really high resolution scan of a particular photo then I can get that done elsewhere. For the hobbyist the V500 or similar are fine. There's a V500 flickr group you could take a look at.

[tibbitts]

Whether film is at all practical or affordable depends upon the subjects you typically photograph. You can use film somewhat effectively to photograph static subjects, for example. But the cost will prohibit you from experimenting and learning to the same degree as you could with digital.

Although I understand the point about wide angle, exactly what wide-angle lenses do you have for FF that you can't duplicate cost-effectively with digital? For example, I used to own 24mm f2.8 and 17mm f4 FD lenses. Even being FDs, and therefore effectively unusable on any modern camera, at retail they were worth a good portion of the cost of the (older model) 10-20mm Sigma. The Sigma is a little slower, but it's more versatile than the FDs. And even if the FDs on full frame had better image quality, that would get lost very quickly in any affordable film-to-digital translation.

Paul

[voyager13]

that would get lost very quickly in any affordable film-to-digital translation

That makes sense Paul. I wouldn't have thought of that that image quality can be degraded in the translation. That gives me more good reason to stick to digital.

[tuco]

...
That gives me more good reason to stick to digital.

Typically you shoot film to get away from the digital look but whatever. And interms of getting similar IQ as todays better digital cameras you will need to move up to at least medium format film and a good scanner, IMHO.

[voyager13]

And interms of getting similar IQ as higher end digital you will need to move up to at least medium format film.

That's why the wait for FF by Pentax.

[stevebrot]

That's why the wait for FF by Pentax.

Still won't touch medium format film though.


Steve

[stevebrot]

A good place to take this discussion would be the sub-forum "Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom".

What he said...


Steve

[stevebrot]

The most efficient way is to get the film developed and scanned onto a CD by the shop. Later you can make any prints you want. From the CD you can load into the computer.

Efficient? Yes. Satisfying? No.

That was my initial approach. Unfortunately, even a high pixel count scan from the mini-lab usually translates to several megapixels of garbage. The difference between a mini-lab scan and output from a decent film scanner is readily apparent. The above comments have a lot of good advice, though it is still pretty hard to sort it all out. Here are a few discussion points:

• It is difficult to manage a "figital" work flow without doing your own scans
• Scanning is the hidden cost of film photography
• The makers of most currently available scanners grossly overstate the real-world resolution of their products
• Even the best flat-bed scanners have a resolution limit of about 2400 dpi (adequate for 8x10 print from a 35mm negative)
• The better dedicated film scanners manage about 3200 dpi (11x14 print from a 35mm negative)
• Scanning takes skill and the learning curve can be steep
• From a quality perspective, the best value is medium format or large format film coupled with a higher-end flat bed scanner (e.g. Epson V700/V750)

For objective scanner reviews see:

Detailed test reports and experience reports about film scanners slide scanners: market overview, application in practice

Steve

(...could have bought a very respectable FF dSLR kit for what I have invested in film cameras and scanners...)

P.S. In anticipation of the chorus of responses by various techies, I used "dpi" rather than "lp/mm" for resolution for the sole reason that "dpi" is the more commonly used term and is the unit provided by the manufacturers.

[arnold]

Efficient? Yes. Satisfying? No.

That was my initial approach. Unfortunately, even a high pixel count scan from the mini-lab usually translates to several megapixels of garbage. The difference between a mini-lab scan and output from a decent film scanner is readily apparent. The above comments have a lot of good advice, though it is still pretty hard to sort it all out. Here are a few discussion points:

• It is difficult to manage a "figital" work flow without doing your own scans
• Scanning is the hidden cost of film photography
• The makers of most currently available scanners grossly overstate the real-world resolution of their products
• Even the best flat-bed scanners have a resolution limit of about 2400 dpi (adequate for 8x10 print from a 35mm negative)
• The better dedicated film scanners manage about 3200 dpi (11x14 print from a 35mm negative)
• Scanning takes skill and the learning curve can be steep
• From a quality perspective, the best value is medium format or large format film coupled with a higher-end flat bed scanner (e.g. Epson V700/V750)

For objective scanner reviews see:

Detailed test reports and experience reports about film scanners slide scanners: market overview, application in practice

Steve

(...could have bought a very respectable FF dSLR kit for what I have invested in film cameras and scanners...)

P.S. In anticipation of the chorus of responses by various techies, I used "dpi" rather than "lp/mm" for resolution for the sole reason that "dpi" is the more commonly used term and is the unit provided by the manufacturers.

I accept all you say as good information, especially if one seeks ultimate quality in resolution. I did find a good little camera store when I visited Auckland earlier this year, and he did a pretty good job onto a CD. I doubt an upload onto this thread will do it justice, but here is one of those pictures taken with a Kodak Retina 1B with a Schneider Zenar 2.8 lens. Shots like this call out for detail to be clear.