PDA

View Full Version : Scanning negatives and slides


francois
1st June 2011, 09:00 PM
I have no experience whatsoever scanning negatives and slides. From what I can tell reading and searching the net, a dedicated slide scanner such as the Plustek give better results than flatbed scanners.

I've also seen some kind of attachment you slide on a lens. No idea as to the quality of the output with this. Much cheaper of course.

As I have hundreds and hundreds of slides to scan (about 35 years of my folks touring the world), I'm leaning towards getting a Plustek.

Thanks for sharing your experience converting slides to digital format.

snaarman
1st June 2011, 09:11 PM
Could be an excuse to buy a 35mm or 50mm macro lens :) I use a home made attachment with my 50mm macro lens to scan slides and negs, see in this previous thread...

http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5759&highlight=scanner

Pete

francois
1st June 2011, 09:16 PM
Thanks for the link. You've done something similar to the slide copier option I was talking about. Something like this...

http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/images/products/large/2958.jpg

... which can be purchased for around 50 these days.

I do have the 50 macro, so your option is certainly feasible.

I'm more interested in hearing about the quality obtained using the slide copier compared with a dedicated scanner, compared with a general scanner with negative/slide holders.

snaarman
1st June 2011, 09:33 PM
I'm more interested in hearing about the quality obtained using the slide copier compared with a dedicated scanner, compared with a general scanner with negative/slide holders.

I have a Minolta slide scanner, a bit long in the tooth these days. It would produce an image about 3300 pixels wide from a 35mm slide. Using the E600 and the 50mm macro you can fill the screen left/right with a slide - so its up to 4000 pixels in that direction. The DSLR copier method produces (for me) much better results with darker slides (and using off camera flash, you can adjust the lighting anyway).

However, the real big advantage is the speed. Once you have loaded the slide it takes 1/180th second to get the picture, rather than the minute and a half that the old Minolta took :-)

If you are facing a mountain of slides and negs to scan, the time spent on each one is as important as the image quality. If each slide is a right pain in the neck, you will give up after 5 evenings, and the rest will never get scanned at all :)

Here's an example: Taken with a Nikon FE2, 20mm wide angle on Provia and scanned with Oly DSLR and macro

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/622/02062915019.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/34579)

Just my 2p..

Pete

francois
1st June 2011, 10:09 PM
Thanks for the input.

This one (http://www.google.co.uk/products/catalog?client=opera&rls=en&q=plustek+slide&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=17350800685419856449&sa=X&ei=RLjmTfSiNIiGhQei7oXHCg&ved=0CFgQ8wIwBw) looks awesome for the money at just 140.

benvendetta
1st June 2011, 10:16 PM
I borrowed a friend's Canon film scanner earlier in the year - stunning results. I have an old Acer Scanwit but unfortunately it doesn't work with recent versions of Windows. It was OK with XP though but nothing newer - shame as it gave good results.
Bit of a white elephant at the moment!

Zuiko
1st June 2011, 10:22 PM
The Plustek certainly has a great spec. I use an Epson V500, which is essentially a flt bed with slide holders for 35m and medium format, plus dedicated settings for transparencies in the software. I chose it because I have a lot of medium format slides as well as 35mm. You can scan in batches of 4 at a time and I'm really happy with the quality. The digital ICE dust removal does work, but at the expense of some detail rather like in camera noise reduction. I tend to switch it off, but at the expense of maybe 20 minutes per slide dust spotting afterwards in pp.

francois
1st June 2011, 11:33 PM
My link is wrong. Although it shows the Plustek, that 7600 is certainly not 140.

I had a look at the V500. My old 1640SU which I use for work was never good enough to get sharp results when scanning pictures and I never bought the slide adapter. The V500 is interesting because I could reuse the ADF of my 1640SU. So I may go that route too, thanks for letting me know you get good results with it.

Zuiko
2nd June 2011, 02:25 AM
My link is wrong. Although it shows the Plustek, that 7600 is certainly not 140.

I had a look at the V500. My old 1640SU which I use for work was never good enough to get sharp results when scanning pictures and I never bought the slide adapter. The V500 is interesting because I could reuse the ADF of my 1640SU. So I may go that route too, thanks for letting me know you get good results with it.

I can always e-mail you a scan so you can judge for yourself, if it would help. :)

francois
2nd June 2011, 02:39 AM
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. No rush though. I've got other things to sort out first.

son of sid
2nd June 2011, 04:43 AM
I use the Epson V-600 (basically an "updated" version of the V-500).

Like Zuiko I get good results with this but also tend to leave digital ice off because of it's effect on IQ.

I was looking at the Nikon range but they tend to cost two arms and three legs WHEN you can find a them and the memsahib wanted a general purpose scanner so the V-600 killed two birds with one stone.

Sid

gazza95
2nd June 2011, 07:52 AM
Yep, done the scanning of 1,000's of slides and colour negs using a Canon 2700 scanner.

Slides are OK if not too high a dynamic range, which was challenge with Kodachrome.

If you are scanning negative makes sure you get some good software as scanning can be quick compared to getting colours right across different faded film stock. It is a total pain.

I ended up with vuescan which was the best at the time. Not sure about now.

Gary

OlyPaul
2nd June 2011, 08:20 AM
In my film days I ended up with Nikon Coolscan V ED (which is gathering dust now), after having a cheap film scanner and then a Minolta one both of which I was not satisfied with.

What you choose will depend on the quality of image you are prepared to except and only you can decide that.:)

What I will say is that web shots without a 100% crop (actual pixel size) included are not what you should be basing your decision on.

Nikon Coolscan V ED. 100% crop on the right

Straight Negative scan (Kodak ISO200) with no sharpening or dust scratch removal applied.

http://www.pbase.com/paulsilkphotography/image/135213558.jpg

Slide scan (Fugi Velvia) , this has had some post production skin softening as it was way to sharp and unflattering.

http://www.pbase.com/paulsilkphotography/image/135213560.jpg

OlyPaul
2nd June 2011, 08:26 AM
I borrowed a friend's Canon film scanner earlier in the year - stunning results. I have an old Acer Scanwit but unfortunately it doesn't work with recent versions of Windows. It was OK with XP though but nothing newer - shame as it gave good results.
Bit of a white elephant at the moment!

Try this or something similar as it worked with my Coolscan and W7.:)

http://axelriet.blogspot.com/2009/10/nikon-ls-40-ls-50-ls-5000-scanners-on.html

Tordan58
2nd June 2011, 08:31 AM
Quite many years ago (10?) I started a project with the objective to scan my library of slides and negatives. So I acquired a consumer market film scanner (HP photosmart 20 I believe it was) and started the project. The project lasted a few years but never completed, due to one or several LEDs in the scanner failing after 3000+ pictures scanned and resulting into uneven brightness

Lessons Learned from this project

As already written, scanning speed is an important parameter (depends on the amount of slides of course). My scanner was not that fast...
Dust and speckle removing (at least reducing) software. I had none at that point in time, and had to spend a lot of time on this task. (Slides and film strips tend to collect dust and dirt over time).
Scanning of negatives (B/W or color) will have dust to be more pronounced than on positives (rendered as white speckles againt dark background).

francois
2nd June 2011, 09:13 AM
Thanks for the input.

maccabeej
2nd June 2011, 12:34 PM
I have a Minolta 5400 and the results are good but it is slow. If you go down this route don't use the manufacturers software, it is usually c**p. Unless you are going to produce large scale prints don't scan at full res or use multipass. Single pass and around 2800dpi should produce an acceptable 7x5 print. Over a long period I scanned in about 1000 of my parents Kodachromes from the late 50's with good reults and 10mb file size. A multi-pass, 5400dpi scan took about 5mins and produced a 200+mb file. Its all in the settings.
Jim

shenstone
2nd June 2011, 06:40 PM
I'm very happy with my plustec even though I haven't used it as much as i thought I would

Mine has the Infra red dust reduction and I would say that was worth every penny as it reduced post processing times about 90% it's a feature I would strongly recommend

Regards
Andy