Help with film scanners

H

HPix

Suspended / Banned
Messages
12
Name
Hilary
Edit My Images
No
I want to scan my archive of more than 7,000 35mm slides at a high resolution. Researching film scanners brings up the Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 Ed but also that it is being discontinued and unsupported. The cost in UK at £2,600 is already excessive for my budget but it seems that anything cheaper would not be high quality enough for archiving. It looks as if I also have to purchase Silverfast at extra cost.
Please don't suggest sending it to be scanned by a company...it could cost me far more, won't be cleaned etc. and may get lost in the mail. And the flatbed scanners don't seem good enough.
Does anyone have any suggestions for an alternative or advice on whether this is a good investment? I use a mac plus CS4 for processing.
 
Scanning 12 x 35mm slides at 3200dpi takes about 20 minutes on most £150 - £200 flatbed film scanners. If you had to spend say 6 hours per day scanning, you could get through about 216 per day, which means 7000 will take about a month.

If you're willing to put this sort of time into archiving your slides digitally, then you can't go wrong with something like a Canon 8800F or Epson 4490 but the Epson V700 and V750 are probably the kings of the flatbed film scanner world at the moment and highly respected.

If it were me and I didn't plan on scanning any more after I'd finished my archiving, I'd select my best slides (this may amount to 5-10% of all of them), and get them professionally cleaned and scanned.
 
HPix said:
I want to scan my archive of more than 7,000 35mm slides at a high resolution. Researching film scanners brings up the Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 Ed but also that it is being discontinued and unsupported. The cost in UK at £2,600 is already excessive for my budget but it seems that anything cheaper would not be high quality enough for archiving. It looks as if I also have to purchase Silverfast at extra cost.
Please don't suggest sending it to be scanned by a company...it could cost me far more, won't be cleaned etc. and may get lost in the mail. And the flatbed scanners don't seem good enough.
Does anyone have any suggestions for an alternative or advice on whether this is a good investment? I use a mac plus CS4 for processing.
Click to expand...

Well if you are archiving to show images on a computer screen you don't need anything expensive, and if your slides are Kodachrome then they are good for about 120 years, you wont beat that with digital files on a hard drive or CD etc.
And I agree with ekimeno (surely all the 7000 slides are not winners) and select the best for the lab.
 
If you can't stretch to the Coolscan 9000 I'd suggest you go for the 5000, which will also accept the bulk slide adapter (as far as I know this isn't available for the Coolscan V), this accepts 50 slides at a time which means you don't have to hover round the scanner and you can get on with your life while it does its thing.

The 5000 pops up on Ebay fairly regularly for about £800 and if you only intend to archive your existing collection when you're done you can stick it back on ebay probably without losing any money as they hold their value very well.
 
Thanks for the advice...I don't honestly think the flatbeds are high enough quality and I'm a bit worried about the Coollscan 5000....will it be ok on snow leopard? I am prepared to scan my slides slowly- would rather have them at high quality as I use them for printing...
 
I bought a cheap slide scanner off ebay, it was only £80 or so new and I got it for just over £30.
I scanned just over 150 slides on it and then played with them in photoshop to clean them up etc etc.

it worked well and got good results. Probably made a difference that the pics where just snap shots and not pro/good amature pics

spike
 
Chaz Photos said:
where you get this info can you back up such a statement
Click to expand...


No proof as kodachrome shots have not reached their 120th plus birthday, it's all estimation. But for a start my own kodachromes are 40 years old stored at UK room temps and are excellent, and here's proof dust and all:-
The little boy is 43 now:-
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/img367.jpg

Plenty of older kodachrome shots going back to WW2 ....so have a think where will your jpgs be in 40 plus years time. And the last time I read about kodachrome it's ESTIMATED you could get a yellow colour shift in 150 years.....but if you want to store kodachrome on a shelf over the cooker it probably wont last too long.
 
excalibur2 said:
No proof as kodachrome shots have not reached their 120th plus birthday, it's all estimation. But for a start my own kodachromes are 40 years old stored at UK room temps and are excellent, and here's proof dust and all:-
The little boy is 43 now:-
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/img367.jpg

Plenty of older kodachrome shots going back to WW2 ....so have a think where will your jpgs be in 40 plus years time. And the last time I read about kodachrome it's ESTIMATED you could get a yellow colour shift in 150 years.....but if you want to store kodachrome on a shelf over the cooker it probably wont last too long.
Click to expand...

But you have not supported your statement about digital files.
 
***But you have not supported your statement about digital files***

lol I'll get back to you in 120 plus years time, but in the meantime you could search in google about the worry of preserving digital media for the future.
 
Back to my question.....!!! Is the nikon coolscan 9000 worth the expense and is it supported with mac/snow leopard?
I have reduced my archive of thousands down to 7,000 so far (35 years of photojournalism) and really do need to archive in high quality...do the flatbeds really scan for high quality archiving? I don't want to spend hours in photoshop upgrading.
 
I have used the Coolscan 8000 quite a bit and the results are much better than the flat beds I have access eg. the Epson v700 and 4490, both highly regarded flat beds.

The big problem with the flatbeds is that the scanner and lamp glasses always seem to have some dust on their undersides which you can’t get to, so you are always scanning the dust inside the scanner. I am sure people will tell you there flat beds are immaculate inside but this is my experience with a number of different units.

It is much easier to blow the dust of the neg when using the Coolscan so you get much cleaner images. With the Coolscan 8000/9000 you are paying a lot for the fact it will also do medium and large formats. If you are only doing 35mm I would look at a second hand Nikon coolscan IV or similar. They sell for about £400 used and can produce the same resolution as the 9000. The dmax is not quite as good as the 9000 but is better than the Epson v750.

Once you get the coolscan set to produce the images you want you should be able to produce consistent results without photoshop.

I would not want to scan 7,000 slides though.
 
excalibur2 said:
***But you have not supported your statement about digital files***

lol I'll get back to you in 120 plus years time, but in the meantime you could search in google about the worry of preserving digital media for the future.
Click to expand...

It not me who is worrying about them its you who think they will not last.
I am happey that they will last, with digital you can copy and you do not lose ANY detail with film if you wish to copy then you will have loss
 
Thanks AH5168 for your advice...seems difficult to keep to the subject for discussion! The problem for me now is finding the equipment...the coolscans are hard to find and Iv'e already lost 2 bids on ebay.
Can anybody answer my question on compatibility of Coolscans/Mac/Snow leopard?
 
I have a Nikon coolscan ED V which I think works well you get a resonable scan resolution and I think the quality is good, and is worth a look it.
 
The Nikon scan software that comes with the coolscan may not work with snow leopard, but you can use 3rd party software that will.
VueScan is available for Mac, in fact some peeps prefer it to nikons own and use it by default whatever OS they run.
 
excalibur2 said:
.......but I'm a film user, and have my negs going back to 1960 here's some I've scanned recently that are at least 40 years old:-

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/img323.jpg
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/chris673-1.jpg

Good luck with your jpgs in 40 plus years time.
Click to expand...

Seriously, you have one copy and think its secure because that one copy is hard to break.

I have 4 copies of everything, in different buildings, I will eventually get a remote online backup so I don't have to worry about a flood that takes out the house and workshop
 
I think he's talking about the longevity of film v digital disc storage, not chance.
You can have 11tybillion disc copy's but will any of them still be readable in even 10 years...:shrug:
Discs and digital media, for all its convenience, seems a little fragile by the nature of its complexity.
 
david1701 said:
Seriously, you have one copy and think its secure because that one copy is hard to break.

I have 4 copies of everything, in different buildings, I will eventually get a remote online backup so I don't have to worry about a flood that takes out the house and workshop
Click to expand...

LOL But I've scanned all my negs so I too can have 4 copies of everything, in different buildings and not have to worry about a flood that takes out the house and workshop.
But you can't rely on an online backup as if they went bankrupt they are not going to worry about your jpgs, you can try and sue a bankrupt company for loss of files, but you would be wasting your money.
 
excalibur2 said:
LOL But I've scanned all my negs so I too can have 4 copies of everything, in different buildings and not have to worry about a flood that takes out the house and workshop.
But you can't rely on an online backup as if they went bankrupt they are not going to worry about your jpgs, you can try and sue a bankrupt company for loss of files, but you would be wasting your money.
Click to expand...

yeah but they have to go bankrupt at the same time as something destroying my pc and server in the house and backup in the workshop (far enough away to be safe from fire)
 
Thanks joxby - helpful advice..didn't want to get into discussions of 120 year old Kodas, I'll be long dead!
I think I may grit my teeth and go for the 9000 and then re-sell. It's the only one I seem to be able to get hold of.
Just hope the software works.
 
I'm not up on 35mm scanners, with 7000 frames to scan, you could do with a bit of automation.
If we're looking at 4000dpi and you don't want a flatbed, you need to research Coolscans, Minolta's, and maybe Microtek/Polaroid 35mm offerings.
You will pay a premium for the 8000 & 9000 coolscans because they have M/F capability, but they may have the best bulk scan accessories, I dunno.
I'd be looking at a 35mm only scanner with a bulk mounted slide feeder, that is likely to be a 5000 or a Minolta or.........some pro Fuji kit.

:)
 
HPix said:
Thanks joxby - helpful advice..didn't want to get into discussions of 120 year old Kodas, I'll be long dead!
I think I may grit my teeth and go for the 9000 and then re-sell. It's the only one I seem to be able to get hold of.
Just hope the software works.
Click to expand...


You never did say what size prints you would need after scanning.
erm and you weren't impressed with my Kodachrome shot, well it was scanned with a s/h Epsom 2480 scanner for £8.
And unless your slides were taken with excellent lenses you'd be wasting your money and time scanning at high resolution and anyway a print is your weak link.
 
Sorry//35mm trannies, Nikon lenses, mostly F Nikons, years of professional work and worldwide features/travel/studio etc. etc. Thanks for all the tips...just hope the good ones aren't mouldy!
 
Have a look for a magazine based scanner like

Reflecta DigitDia 4000

This uses a 50 slide magazine and just start and walk away - and an hour or so later you've got 50 scans done hands off... uses silverfast to batch correct. Not sure about SNowleopard - but have a google...
 
I've never had a problem with my Coolscan IV or 9000 running on my Mac with Tiger but I don't have Leopard so don't know if it will definitely work but SilverFast is certainly compatible with the 9000 and the 5000, which as I posted earlier I recommend as it has the bulk slide loader ... see here http://www.silverfast.com/product/Nikon/436/en.html
 
I will go with the 9000...having read all the blogs and tips!
 
Thanks for that tip for hybridphotos.com...Bril! Lots of info there! Thanks everyone for all the advice and a Happy New Year!
 
So it's February and my Coolscan 9000 arrived in a week...just after Christmas.
The first shock was the size - it takes up half my desk at a whopping 2 x 1 feet!
Second shock was the plastic cover which is very easily scratched. But for working on my iMac 24" with leopard it was really easy - just followed the set-up instructions and loaded the automatic 5 slide feeder....no problems and great reproduction. Phew!
Yes, definitely the right choice!
 
Guys, just to wade in on the longevity of digital storage, I think some of you have drastically missed the point.

First of all, briefly to qualify myself, I'm an IT director of substantial qualifications and experience and have directed and worked in data recovery over the years as well as having muchos first hand experience with backups, lost data, old data and so-forth. I'm also a competent programmer and understand all of the technical issues with long term digital storage, both software, firmware and hardware oriented.

As everybody knows a DVD, CD, floppy or hard drive has a very short lifespan. If you dump a load of images onto a DVD, don't expect them to be retrievable in 40 years. Heck, from my experience, give it 3-4 years and you're on dodgy ground.

But! This misses the ENTIRE point of digital.

Nobody would do that, unless they were entirely lazy or foolish. Instead, what you would do, is to keep all of your pictures on your computer in a folder labeled 'Pictures' (and presumeably within subfolders therein). Fear not, it won't "Clog up your hard disk" or "Slow your computer down", you have my assurances, and even in 15mp RAW files the space is cheap as chips.

Every time you buy a new computer, so the Pictures folder comes over with you. And once in a while you back it up onto an external HDD or somesuch, which you update once in a while and keep safely elsewhere.

And so the cycle of preservation continues, so that your Pictures folder goes with you for the rest of your life, hopping from one medium and computer to another, being copied to new filesystems as they emerge, never degrading in quality, always backed up, copied here there and everywhere.

JPG will not become unreadable in future because we 'forget how the format works', as some silly people suggest, and if at some point a superior format emerges, well you'll find it's a click of a mouse to convert thousands or millions of snaps to this new format.

So go easy, digital storage is indefinite, flexible and brilliant. If you don't back it up, then at worst you're in the same boat as film - a lost folder could mean lost pics.

Do back it up, and I see no reason your images won't last till the end of human civilisation without loosing a pixel - The only way film can achieve that, is if someone scans it.
 
loplyg said:
Do back it up, and I see no reason your images won't last till the end of human civilisation without loosing a pixel - The only way film can achieve that, is if someone scans it.
Click to expand...

End of human civilisation? Is that around the corner? :lol::lol:
 
Whatever you choose for quality 35mm scans avoid flatbeds. I have the Epson 4490 mentioned early on in the thread. I use it for 4x5, and then still much prefer to get my keepers rescanned with a Hasselblad/Imacon. The newer Epson V700 is only fractionally better the the 4490. 35mm E6 scanned at 4000 - 5400 ppi on my Minolta Dimage film scanner really shows up a flat bed scan. Even 6x6 scans are much better using a friends Nikon 8000. Most scanners perform very well with Vuescan, and it runs well in Snow Leopard 10.6.2.
 
Back on topic, - I bought a canon Canoscan 5600F which will quite happily do 4 slides a time at 4800 dpi resolution....... which is good enough for A3 prints quite easily....

Downside only does 4 a time - but doesnt take too long to do them..........

Upside - hell of a lot cheaper than mentioned above.

As previously mentioned............ do you need all 7000 scanned?

I'll do them for a good price! :lol:
 
***Guys, just to wade in on the longevity of digital storage, I think some of you have drastically missed the point.***

So how do you inform Joe Public, also I wonder what the losses are so far for digital media because of hard drive crashes, dodgy CD's, memory cards failing and so on, and what about all those prints from ink jets on cheap paper with no backup of JPG's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top