Cheap scanners

Ambermile

Ambermile

A Whole Lot of Sparkle..
Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,126
Name
Arthur
Edit My Images
No
I have, on the odd occasion, maintained that the £60-ish USB scanners are reasonable for the price and just fine for low res web stuff. Today I got a Canoscan... I had been using the Veho-004 and so a side by side comparison is inevitable...

£79.99 USB scanner: £15 from the 'Bay Canoscan 8400F:

tmp026.jpg
Scan10004.jpg



And there you have it - no extra naughty software stuff with the Canon, though it has FARE and so on if needed. This pic was with the Konishiroku (I) with Rollei 400 dipped in ID-11.

Sorry if you have a lower-res screen - the pics will not be side by side but you can still see the difference easily.
 
Last edited:
Arthur, they look quite the same; with the right one a bit more contrasty. Is that what you're saying?
 
Not at all Ujjwal - the rh one is significantly sharper...
 
joxby said:
put yerr glasses on Ujjwal....:D
Click to expand...

Hmmm... spec saver time, I think. Either that, or a new hi-def screen. :D

Seriously, on my screen they look pretty much the same, with the right one a bit more contrasty ( which I actually like)
 
Aye. The 'pineapple' things in the top left are formless blobs on the £60 scanner.

It's like someone set the JPEG compression to maximum.

e2a: Actually, more like some leaden-footed noise reduction.
 
Last edited:
Know what? Most of the pics I have taken and thought to be so so are actually not that bad. I had thought my developing skills were atrophied (even for the C41 rolls) but the more I use the Canon and the more film I drop into it the more I am convinced that the cheapie scanners are in fact not such a good idea if you are trying to improve your film-based skills. I mean yeah, they're prolly great for that pile of old stuff you wanna digitise but...
 
Ambermile said:
Know what? Most of the pics I have taken and thought to be so so are actually not that bad. I had thought my developing skills were atrophied (even for the C41 rolls) but the more I use the Canon and the more film I drop into it the more I am convinced that the cheapie scanners are in fact not such a good idea if you are trying to improve your film-based skills. I mean yeah, they're prolly great for that pile of old stuff you wanna digitise but...
Click to expand...

Thats exactly what I thought when I got the Canoscan 8800F, Arthur. I was actually so happy with the output it gave me the impetus to actually get back into using film properly as much as possible. As to how happy I'd have been to have picked up something like your Canon scanner for that fleabay price... all I can say is well done that man :thumbs: I was actually quite happy with paying for a new one, in fairness, as it's a computer expense, and went against the tax bill anyway, but a bargain's always good!
 
I think it proves the scanner point. Get a decent one and you will only ever need to buy 1! Not that I know how to use my 8900F anyways.
 
is there any way to use a 'normal' (document) scanner to scan film ? or is that just not worth it either ?
 
Tricky69 said:
is there any way to use a 'normal' (document) scanner to scan film ? or is that just not worth it either ?
Click to expand...

You need to shine a light through the film, the normal document scanner goes on reflected light.

Some flat-bed scanners have an extra light in the roof, or a plug in light you put on top of the film to make the scans.

You should be able to pick up a decent flat-bed with film capability from eBay or similar. Manufacturers don't seem to make this sort any more; something to do with the falling "popularity" of film. So, snap one up soon.
 
What he said. HP Scanjet TMA is one such light source, there are a few on Ebay atm BIN £5.00. IMO you need a pretty dense neg though or a decent scanner. I should also point out that while the lack of a "faceplate" for the above is not an issue really - the lack of a film holder definitely *is* so I would advise checking with the seller exactly what is included (because when not in use, the film holder(s) are fitted into the faceplate for safekeeping). Also, these HP models are designed to be powered from the scanner via a weird socket - I have cut mine off and use a 12v supply direct to the lamp inside.
 
Last edited:
Hippie said:
Manufacturers don't seem to make this sort any more; something to do with the falling "popularity" of film. So, snap one up soon.
Click to expand...

What - Like the Epson V600,V700, V750, Canon 8900F ??? Plenty around - just not at the "pie and chips" end of the scale...
 
A lot of the flatbed scanners can do the job nicely (I'm happy with mine), but the professional dedicated scanners will always knock the socks off them. I have seen some compelling evidence however that the Epson V750 is roughly a good notch above all the other flatbeds out there... you also get what you pay for!

Nevertheless, certainly worth getting your best negs/slides scanned professionally one day.
 
OK I am probably missing the point here by a "wide" (read HUGE) margin, and i kind of get but don't get it........

Have a Canon 5600F here, which does a great job of converting either 4 x slides, or 4 x 35mm negs at a time, (from Dad's pics of the 70's) and also acts as scanner etc / along with a dedicated photo printer, / fax machine (if i plugged a phone line into it etc..........) but i will happily say, I do not understand the logic of taking pics on film, in 2010, for the purpose of developing, doing whatever needs to be done (excuse the lack of knowledge) and then converting to digital and then uploading in a digital format......

Sorry if this has gatecrashed an area I am not welcome in, but just saying as I see it.......
 
what you dont get ( and you have gatecrashed before, but we are ok with gatecrashers) is that the whole point is not about scanning and uploading in digital format. Thats both a convenience and a necessary evil.

The point is to use the medium of film, and then when sufficiently confident, to use positive films. And since you have, by your own admission, gatecrashed, you may not be aware that positive films do not allow you the fudge of photoshopping. At that point its you and your skill that matters.

Its not the first time you have wondered about 21st century and using films; as it so happens though, connoisseurs still hang oil paintings above their fireplace - which, as far as I can tell, was a craftsmanship practised since at least 16th century. May be you were not aware of that, and might wish to 'gatecrash' into a painter's forum to learn a bit more about true crafts.
 
Last edited:
Lynton said:
OK I am probably missing the point here by a "wide" (read HUGE) margin, and i kind of get but don't get it........

Have a Canon 5600F here, which does a great job of converting either 4 x slides, or 4 x 35mm negs at a time, (from Dad's pics of the 70's) and also acts as scanner etc / along with a dedicated photo printer, / fax machine (if i plugged a phone line into it etc..........) but i will happily say, I do not understand the logic of taking pics on film, in 2010, for the purpose of developing, doing whatever needs to be done (excuse the lack of knowledge) and then converting to digital and then uploading in a digital format......

Sorry if this has gatecrashed an area I am not welcome in, but just saying as I see it.......
Click to expand...

Just a thought in support for film.....So where will your jpgs be in say 30 years time, the big corps are pushing digital for profit only, the lemmings are following without realising how to save their jpgs for the future.
 
Lynton said:
OK I am probably missing the point here by a "wide" (read HUGE) margin, and i kind of get but don't get it........

Have a Canon 5600F here, which does a great job of converting either 4 x slides, or 4 x 35mm negs at a time, (from Dad's pics of the 70's) and also acts as scanner etc / along with a dedicated photo printer, / fax machine (if i plugged a phone line into it etc..........) but i will happily say, I do not understand the logic of taking pics on film, in 2010, for the purpose of developing, doing whatever needs to be done (excuse the lack of knowledge) and then converting to digital and then uploading in a digital format......

Sorry if this has gatecrashed an area I am not welcome in, but just saying as I see it.......
Click to expand...

I scan my film work for 2 reasons...

1) it's very difficult to show your shots on TP unless they're in digital form.

2) I cannot afford the cost of a wet darkroom setup for printing my pictures. I like the total involvement of film - from selecting the correct fill for the effect I want to achieve, through to getting the shot correctly in the camera without the aid of histograms, blinkies or chimping (I get a kick out of occasionally achieving that level of mastery of the cameras hardware), through to processing the film in my choice of chemicals (again to get a specific look - be it contrasty/grainy/smooth etc.) - and finally to the finished print - currently by digitising the shot, applying similar techniques as I would have in the wet darkroom (dodging/burning for example) and then either printing or sending the shot out for external printing.

Some of the most satisfying shots i've taken have been done with the most minimal of kit - Pinhole cameras for example - though that doesn't mean I'm some kind of a luddite - I'll happily shoot on digital if the circumstances dictate - if it's for work, or for money, or if the situation is just something that I'll not be able to replicate, I'll shoot on digital, use all the tools I can to ensure i've got the shot in the camera before I leave location. But, when I want to challenge myself, to see if I truly understand what i'm doing with a camera, and for my own personal fun and satisfaction, I seem to be shooting film more and more.

If you can't understand it, that's fine. My satisfaction does not depend on your understanding. :D
 
petersmart said:
The R/H one is much sharper and has some more contrast - I definitely would be peed off if that's the result I got from a more expensive scanner (assuming you've got it set up right).

.
Click to expand...

the right hand one may well have been sourced from ebay for £15, but when It was new it was probably nearer £200, and should be a bit more capable... All I can say is Arthur, you got yourself a bargain there ;)
 
Lynton said:
OK I am probably missing the point here by a "wide" (read HUGE) margin, and i kind of get but don't get it........
Click to expand...



Lynton, putting aside the more esoteric points (both for and against) just look at it from a pragmatic viewpoint... digital images are a system crash away from being lost forever (yes, I know about off-site backups and so on but most people only back up to a second drive, right?). With digitised pics I too am in the same boat - one crash away from losing them - but, I would also need to have the house go up in flames to *completely* lose the pictures.

Besides, film is fun - wanna borrow a camera and a roll?
 
My digital knowledge goes no further than an ageing Canon compact, which does at least have the advantage of a proper viewfinder. However it seems most digital users get off on the fact they can take 500 images instead of say, 5, and sift through for the keeper.

Ignoring the reality that editing 500 similar images is a mind-numbing exercise, quite as time consuming in its way as the development process, I'd argue time spent looking through the lens for the right 5 angles is time well spent. The notion that sufficient monkeys on a large enough number of typewriters will come up with the bible is misplaced in a photographic context, the typical digital user just comes up with an even bigger pile of crap - no harm in itself of course, but perhaps not quite the point.

Once you move away from screen sharing to the print, film makes even more sense, providing a system of producing silver rich archival images in an acknowledged 'art' medium for very small bucks. I'd warm to digital more if I had the technology to produce large prints of high tonal and colour integrity and the cash to renew the production line of camera, computer and printer every time something better came out but in the absence of that kinda wonga, film is a very good second best.
 
I shoot film because I much prefer the look of it, this is far more important to me than anything technical.
 
OK - I apologise - I could have worded my post better, and after "BigYin's" response it kind of makes a bit more sense to me. :thumbs:

At no point in this thread did I mention Film v Digital etc (as in one is better than the other) but from peoples responses it would appear that some would think this was the case. It wasn't - but seems to have evolved into this. (From my understanding each medium has it's advantages and disadvantages. I am sure there are others with different opinions.)

What I didn't understand (but now do - again Big Yin - thanks for the explanation) is if you are trying to achieve a digital file, why start with film and not digital? :shrug:

Ujjwal - i would hope connoisseurs would know better than to hang oils from the fireplace - by far one of the worst places to hang a painting in a room. ;) (I know the point you were trying to make though - and yes I was aware of it. In fact, I think you'll find it's earlier than that - but that's irrelevant.)


Arthur - would love to have a go - but what I think would make it fun for me is actually developing the print - and seeing it 'appear' on paper.
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
Hmmm... spec saver time, I think. Either that, or a new hi-def screen. :D

Seriously, on my screen they look pretty much the same, with the right one a bit more contrasty ( which I actually like)
Click to expand...

Get your screen calibrated or buy a new one
 
Lynton said:
Ujjwal - i would hope connoisseurs would know better than to hang oils from the fireplace - by far one of the worst places to hang a painting in a room. ;) (I know the point you were trying to make though - and yes I was aware of it. In fact, I think you'll find it's earlier than that - but that's irrelevant.)
Click to expand...

Not if the fireplace is decorative ( especially in towns where its not allowed to be used) and the room is air conditioned .......:D .

Apologies for not understanding your point very well. I only bother to scan an image ( from the positive prints, really) to put up on this forum. So the question really didn't make much sense to me.
 
Lynton said:
Arthur - would love to have a go - but what I think would make it fun for me is actually developing the print - and seeing it 'appear' on paper.
Click to expand...


Well, sadly I cannot do the "appearing on paper" bit but I can do the initial film developing - at yours if you like - you want to have a go? I'm at the LSHS in a bit to watch a footie match so could drop something off?
 
Lynton said:
OK - I apologise - I could have worded my post better, and after "BigYin's" response it kind of makes a bit more sense to me. :thumbs:
Click to expand...
Occasional visitors generally come to poke a stick, which puts everyone on the defensive. If they looked at the new toys thread, the pics are all taken on digital cameras, which makes the taunts hollow.
Your point is a fair one, film shots that don't finish up as a print make less sense than those that do (IMVHO), but as this forum is itself digital, scanning the images to share is understandable. Wet photographers outnumber wet printers here.
 
Last edited:
I'm an unashamed hybrid photographer.

I don't have room in my current house for a darkroom to print (had the luxury when I was a teenager, but not now). I'm barely able to get clear bathroom time to do film developing without complaints, so I haven't done any for a considerable period of time.

As I've mentioned elsewhere on this forum, it's the act of taking photographs with my various film cameras that I enjoy. Despite doing it for years, I never was much of a darkroom wizz anyhow... and I'm much better with Photoshop :)

From a process-managment perspective, the film frames then just becomes an input into a digital workflow, via a scanner, but they retain the character of their analogue origins, which you can't replicate effectively from a pure digital starting point.
 
Ambermile said:
Well, sadly I cannot do the "appearing on paper" bit but I can do the initial film developing - at yours if you like - you want to have a go? I'm at the LSHS in a bit to watch a footie match so could drop something off?
Click to expand...

Sounds a good plan, and all for giving it a go...if only to see what this magical substance called "film" is really all about.... :lol: ........bit late now as at i am guessing 3 hours from posting, you are watching a game of footy - how about in a couple of weeks or so time... at least I will be relatively mobile by then... (i.e. walking (in a kind of fashion!!))...... think i have used my camera 3 times since end of July.... and only once in any kind of seriousness......... :'(
 
as an entirely different point - its not necessary for a film photographer to do their own development and printing. Certainly quite a few famous ones didn't do it themselves - they got it printed by others. They were still very much film photographers. ( I guess colpepper did make the distinction between 'wet photographer' and 'wet printer'
 
Yup - back home now (LS beat Harleston 4-1) so missed that chance. I'll hold you to it though and remind you in a couple of weeks :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top