Film Scanning?

Deke in Ak

I've been a film guy for a long time. With my new foray into the digital world, I am wondering the "best" way to scan my negatives and slides.

I realize that I can dupe all of them by taking a digital photo of each one, but I am wondering if there is an easier way?

Thanks, Dennis

Art Scott

In the same boat ....
I am in the same boat....I have tons of negs that need to be archived and was wondering whether I would get better results using a slide / neg duplicator attached to my camera or if scanning would produce the best results.

GraphyFotoz

Deke in Ak wrote:

I've been a film guy for a long time. With my new foray into the digital world, I am wondering the "best" way to scan my negatives and slides.

I realize that I can dupe all of them by taking a digital photo of each one, but I am wondering if there is an easier way?

Thanks, Dennis

Certain all-n-1 printers have attchments for doing this.
I know I saw a HP recently that had it and I'm sure the others have em too.
I hear they do a very nice job too.

GraphyFotoz

Lil searching I found these:

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?oid=53540921

http://www.compusa.com/overstock/product_info.asp?product_code=335488&Pn=Pixma_MP950_Photo_All_In_One_Printer

http://www.hp.com/united-states/consumer/digital_photography/organize_archive_photos/tips/scanning_slides.html?jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN

Hope this gives you guys some ideas?

03FatBoy

You could follow this thread.

I have an order out now for processing.

hgernhardtjr

Art, I do both re-photographing of slides and negatives with a quality optics Canon slide/negative copier lens attachment I purchased in the early 80s ...however the Epson 4490 (or its "larger" sibling, the 4990) do an absolutely outstanding job. While I regularly re-photograph various size negatives, copying 2¼" (or larger) negatives and slides is easier with the Epson, though.

Do I notice a difference? With the 8mp sensor in the camera, marginal, if any ... the 4490 is just more convenient, especially with its Digital ICE feature. And for about $180, the price does not blow out the budget like a Nikon film-scanner would. Unless one intends a mass transmigration from film to digital as quickly as possible (and expensively, I might add), both are viable, cost-effective options IMHO.

Anyway, that's what I have found and do!

Art Scott

hgernhardtjr wrote:

Art, I do both re-photographing of slides and negatives with a quality optics Canon slide/negative copier lens attachment I purchased in the early 80s ...however the Epson 4490 (or its "larger" sibling, the 4990) do an absolutely outstanding job. While I regularly re-photograph various size negatives, copying 2¼" (or larger) negatives and slides is easier with the Epson, though.

Do I notice a difference? With the 8mp sensor in the camera, marginal, if any ... the 4490 is just more convenient, especially with its Digital ICE feature. And for about $180, the price does not blow out the budget like a Nikon film-scanner would. Unless one intends a mass transmigration from film to digital as quickly as possible (and expensively, I might add), both are viable, cost-effective options IMHO.

Anyway, that's what I have found and do!

Thanks...this is the kind of answer i was looking for....so since I do not own any film scanner, flat bed capable of scanning film or a neg-slide duplicator camera attachment...it would probably be in my best interest to go the route of either the 4490 or 4990 epson as I do have tons of medium format negs/ slides to archive also.

I have operateed a Nikon film scanner and was not impressed with it.....the process was extremely slow and at times it would tear the tractor feed holes as it pulled the film thru andwith film cut from 1 hour labs in sections of 5 frames it was tough to use also...... 7 frames and full uncut rolls were fine

hgernhardtjr

Overall, Art, the 4490 or 4990 seem to be the most cost effective method if you have the time. Major effective difference is the 4490 has a smaller film-scan area than the 4990, which can hold more negatives/slides than the 4490. I think if you check these forums, or Steve's, or dpReview, or others you will find that the the marginal majority is for the Epson over the equivalent HP (and of course both flat beds will do regular scans/copys).

I know the 4490, both from personal experience as well as the satisfaction of other users I have recomended it to at the college I teach at, works well and is extremely cost effective. If you have a bit less time or want to scan more/bigger all at once, then get the 4990. Beyond that it's the dedicated film scanner or outside jobber route (read expensive), although you might look at the IMHO over-priced-for-what-you-get but excellent Epson V750 flatbed.

SteveBennett

Hi Dennis -

Deciding between doing the scanning yourself and farming the work out to a service company really comes down to time. It will cost about $1 per slide to have a service do this work. It will likely cost from $300 - $1500 for you to do it yourself (for scanner, software, books, cleaning supplies, etc.) in addition to the many, many hours required. I suspect that unless you are very interested in learning the ins and outs of scanning that you will be better served by having a service do the work. If you have only a small number of images, the cost of the scanner/etc. will exceed the cost of paying a service to do the work. If you have a very large number of images to scan, then the time required is huge. In both cases, you will need to make sense of the tools - both hardware and software - and develop a workflow that gives good results.

(It is regularly pointed out that you can buy a film scanner and resell it after the project is complete - and this is definitely true, at least for higher end scanners. A non-professional flatbed is not likely to be worth much on the used market - though I have not scoured Ebay to be able to back up the statement.)

Doing the scans and post processing will take a huge amount of time -- regardless of the stats given by the scanner manufacturers. A scanning service can do these scans for you, providing you high-quality scans from very good equipment using ICE and color/exposure correction for less than $1 each (less than $1 each for 4000PPI scans >50MB images with my company). The project will be completed much faster than you could ever do it yourself and quite likely at a lower overall cost. You will have the high resolution TIFF files for further manipulation in Photoshop/etc., but you should receive digital images that are 'done' for almost all uses.

The Nikon film scanners that we use (mostly the 5000 ED) have no problems with damaging film. I do not recall a single instance of any such problems out of the thousands of strips that we have scanned over the last several years.

Full disclosure: I work for a company that makes money doing projects like this. I got into this business after doing a similar personal project and realizing just how large of a time and money commitment was required to make it happen.

Regards -

--Steve
Pixmonix slide and negative scanning

GaryBakker

Interesting. I came here searching for information on converting film to digital, and lo and behold, there was a thread on the front page.

I think I'm going to have the conversion done by a service rather than do it myself. While I'm not independently wealthy, I have more money than time. The question is going to be whether to try an inexpensive offshore service (like referenced in the linked thread) or a comparatively expensive onshore service (like Steve's for example).

It appears that the technology is sufficient for the task at least. Now it's just how much I want to spend (both in terms of provider, and in terms of which photos to digitize).