To scan or not to scan

Marc

Marc

TPer Emeritus
Suspended / Banned
Messages
34,670
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok, for my next question. I took the last roll of film I shot to Boots and got them to print the photos and scan them to CD. Have to say, wasn't very impressed with the quality of the scan so was wondering how easy it would be if I were to get the film developed only and scan the negatives myself. So the question is, who here gets the developers to scan their negatives and who scans them themselves? Also, what should I watch out for should I want to purchase a negative scanner?

I know that I'm probably getting a little ahead of myself here as, despite the fact that I've loaded a film into the OM10, I haven't actually taken a shot yet but the question was burning a hole in my brain. :wacky:
 
I've only ever had a dev + scan service once, at a local Snappy Snaps. Probably not the best sample, but I was disappointed by the size and quality of the result.

Always done my own ever since. I got better than Snappy Snaps quite easily. However, it is a fairly steep learning curve to get the best results.
 
I do my own scans, but I'll pass on offering advice on scanners as there are people here with wider experience. Plus I normally use 5x4 black and white negative film, which is probably the least demanding. Of course, it will depend on both how demanding you are in terms of quality, and how much you intend to enlarge (or print, if you prefer). I'm happy with an Epson V700 for up to A2 from 5x4 (I haven't printed larger).
 
fabs said:
Ok, for my next question. I took the last roll of film I shot to Boots and got them to print the photos and scan them to CD. Have to say, wasn't very impressed with the quality of the scan so was wondering how easy it would be if I were to get the film developed only and scan the negatives myself. So the question is, who here gets the developers to scan their negatives and who scans them themselves? Also, what should I watch out for should I want to purchase a negative scanner?

I know that I'm probably getting a little ahead of myself here as, despite the fact that I've loaded a film into the OM10, I haven't actually taken a shot yet but the question was burning a hole in my brain. :wacky:
Click to expand...

Marc we used to copy slides with a slide copier thing like a lens on the camera put the slide in point at a light and shoot don't know if you can still get them.or what make it was :)
 
The V500 is a popular starter scanner and produces very good results for little pennies I bought mine used for £65
 
Mr Bump said:
The V500 is a popular starter scanner and produces very good results for little pennies I bought mine used for £65
Click to expand...

I've just bought a V550 so I can scan 35mm and 120mm negs. I have had outside developers develop and scan my films with a variety of results but I wanted to keep it all in house. I have always used a flat bed scanner so know nothing of dedicated film scanners except a 120mm scanner is way too expensive for me .. even 2nd hand. From my experience Epson and Canon are on a par with each other in the flat bed market it's all down to personal taste.
 
fabs said:
Ta for the replies, looks like home scanning is the way to go.

Will have a look at what's out there as far as scanners are concerned.
Click to expand...

For me, home scanning is the absolute worst! I try to do everything right in camera and then send my rolls off to a lab I trust, so that they come back ready to go.

I spent many hours scanning my own films in the past, but I just don't have the time to fully master the scanning craft; I have other things to be doing.

Personally, I'd recommend sending a roll or two to UK Film Lab for dev and scan. Even if you plan to eventually scan yourself, UKFL provide feedback to you regarding your exposures (e.g., under/over), which is useful as you get going with film, and they do great work.
 
It also depends how much film you plan on running.
I do about 5-6 rolls a month of mixed 35/120 and get developed to negs @ Peak I then do my own scanning.

My scanner was cheap so it paid for itself with a few months.
I am looking to upgrade in a few months so then I will have to be rational about costs.
currently its the epson V700 in the frame.
 
I do a bit of both, I tend when I send C41 away to Photo express I get them to scan as over the three years I have been using them I have not had a problem,it just saves me time.

The 120 and 35mm that PE cannot handle I send to AG, I always scan myself (V500 now), saves a lot of money and I can control the process and try to maintain an output that I like. You have to want or enjoy the process as it can be very time consuming.

(y)
 
I do both....scan myself and, occasionally get them scanned at the lab...... scanning seems to take me a long time, and I'm sure I'm not getting the most out of my scans...I use the V500
 
Try a Asda superstore...good enough for posting on the net and quite good A4 prints. Ok spots sometimes need a touch up also maybe the results on the CD are too bright and contrasty and need adjusting, but for £3 includes dev, index, scan to CD, in a nice folder.... it's a bargain esp when in the week they will do it in 35mins while you shop.
I'm happy over the years using Tesco then Asda and my folders are linked to my computer for cross\quick ref.


Of course any re-scanning I do have the backup of the V750 or 4180
 
Last edited:
The set up takes a minute or so (negative holders can be fiddly, and film strips can be curly and unwilling to go where you want them!), as well as making sure dirt/dust is gone with a rocket blower.

The time consuming part is the actual scanning apparatus going across the negative and turning it into digital data.
 
fabs said:
Thanks again all, a lot for me to think about. What is it that takes time about scanning? I take it that it isn't just a case of sticking the negs in, hitting the button and voila? I actually quite enjoy the processing of digital photos so I'm not averse to spending time on it.
Click to expand...

For me 35mm scanning is soooo boring, and you do have to make sure the neg and glass is clean otherwise you end up touching up the spots.....and spending £500 on an Epson 750 flatbed scanner you will only get results for detail equivalent to a 4-5mp digital camera.
Well I like to keep my 35mm colour neg film costs to a reasonable level, otherwise with money no object just pay what it costs to get the best lab to dev and scan 35mm at the highest resolution, but then medium format with a good flatbed scanner would\could equal the results and be a lot cheaper ;)
 
freecom2 said:
The set up takes a minute or so (negative holders can be fiddly, and film strips can be curly and unwilling to go where you want them!), as well as making sure dirt/dust is gone with a rocket blower.

The time consuming part is the actual scanning apparatus going across the negative and turning it into digital data.
Click to expand...

Ah right, makes sense.
 
excalibur2 said:
For me 35mm scanning is soooo boring, and you do have to make sure the neg and glass is clean otherwise you end up touching up the spots.....and spending £500 on an Epson 750 flatbed scanner you will only get results for detail equivalent to a 4-5mp digital camera.
Well I like to keep my 35mm colour neg film costs to a reasonable level, otherwise with money no object just pay what it costs to get the best lab to dev and scan 35mm at the highest resolution, but then medium format with a good flatbed scanner would\could equal the results and be a lot cheaper ;)
Click to expand...

Ok, so is a flatbed scanner much better than a dedicated film scanner? This is the sort of thing I mean.
 
Those things are hopeless by all accounts, just a web-cam-in-a-box. If you've got a good DSLR (i'm guessing you do) you could try getting a slide copier for your negs failing that a flatbed is a good budget option and proper dedicated film scanners start around £200.
 
fabs said:
Ok, so is a flatbed scanner much better than a dedicated film scanner? This is the sort of thing I mean.
Click to expand...

There's three main types of film scanners;

1. The scanner you linked to. These are rubbish, offer poor quality as they are basically a webcam and a light source. These are cheap for a reason.
2. Flatbed scanners - Epson V370, V500, V600, V700, Canon 8800F etc. These are more than adequate for 35mm and, if they offer medium format support, are usually pretty good. For many people, this is the best compromise between price/performance.
3. Dedicated film scanners (what you linked to isn't really a proper dedicated film scanner). Plustek 8xxx scanners, and older scanners like the Nikon Coolscan and Minolta Dimage. These excel at the formats they support, but are limited to doing purely negatives (you can't scan prints or documents like normal flatbed scanners). They also tend to be more expensive than flatbed scanners, although the Plusteks are well priced.
 
I know there are various different opinions on this and I can only speak from my own point of view, but I have to be honest in saying I find most 'high street' scans look absolutely dreadful. They're often processed to the point of looking like high contrast oversharpened digital images which destroys the character of the film and defeats the whole point of shooting on film in the first place. Personally I'd much rather scan myself and be in control of the whole process so the end result looks exactly how I want it to look, learning how to get the best out of your scanner can take a while and not everyone has that amount of free time but personally I wouldn't want it any other way.
 
I think you would be hard pushed to get a new (consumer) 35mm film scanner these days. I believe Nikon (for example) stopped some time ago. Should be plenty about second hand though...
Scanning can be pretty tedious, but small batches wouldn't be too bad.
Some tips here
 
steveo_mcg said:
Those things are hopeless by all accounts, just a web-cam-in-a-box. If you've got a good DSLR (i'm guessing you do) you could try getting a slide copier for your negs failing that a flatbed is a good budget option and proper dedicated film scanners start around £200.
Click to expand...

freecom2 said:
There's three main types of film scanners;

1. The scanner you linked to. These are rubbish, offer poor quality as they are basically a webcam and a light source. These are cheap for a reason.
2. Flatbed scanners - Epson V370, V500, V600, V700, Canon 8800F etc. These are more than adequate for 35mm and, if they offer medium format support, are usually pretty good. For many people, this is the best compromise between price/performance.
3. Dedicated film scanners (what you linked to isn't really a proper dedicated film scanner). Plustek 8xxx scanners, and older scanners like the Nikon Coolscan and Minolta Dimage. These excel at the formats they support, but are limited to doing purely negatives (you can't scan prints or documents like normal flatbed scanners). They also tend to be more expensive than flatbed scanners, although the Plusteks are well priced.
Click to expand...

Ok, once again, all makes sense. I'm guessing that the scanners that come as part of the all-in-one printers would be anywhere near as good as the flatbed scanner listed above?

PMN said:
I know there are various different opinions on this and I can only speak from my own point of view, but I have to be honest in saying I find most 'high street' scans look absolutely dreadful. They're often processed to the point of looking like high contrast oversharpened digital images which destroys the character of the film and defeats the whole point of shooting on film in the first place. Personally I'd much rather scan myself and be in control of the whole process so the end result looks exactly how I want it to look, learning how to get the best out of your scanner can take a while and not everyone has that amount of free time but personally I wouldn't want it any other way.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what I've heard elsewhere

john-oh said:
I think you would be hard pushed to get a new (consumer) 35mm film scanner these days. I believe Nikon (for example) stopped some time ago. Should be plenty about second hand though...
Scanning can be pretty tedious, but small batches wouldn't be too bad.
Some tips here
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll have a look at those
 
Most of the "flatbed scanners" that people refer to are actually flatbed scanners that come with holders for film negatives, and often have a part that is backlit so the negatives are correctly exposed when scanning - a normal document can be scanned in any flatbed because the light from the scanning apparatus hits the paper and is bounced back, but with a negative that doesn't happen. So no, the scanners in an all-in-one wouldn't do the job either.
 
The sad part of all this is:- it's estimated there is UP TO 20mp of detail on a 35mm neg and no one has invented a cheap way of getting it all off. :(
 
freecom2 said:
Most of the "flatbed scanners" that people refer to are actually flatbed scanners that come with holders for film negatives, and often have a part that is backlit so the negatives are correctly exposed when scanning - a normal document can be scanned in any flatbed because the light from the scanning apparatus hits the paper and is bounced back, but with a negative that doesn't happen. So no, the scanners in an all-in-one wouldn't do the job either.
Click to expand...

Thought it might be something like that, thanks.

Looks like i0t could cost more than I envisioned then. Mind you, I've just bought a 135mm lens so I've now acquired a full frame camera and 3 primes for under £150 so I an't complain. :D
 
fabs said:
Thought it might be something like that, thanks.

Looks like i0t could cost more than I envisioned then. Mind you, I've just bought a 135mm lens so I've now acquired a full frame camera and 3 primes for under £150 so I an't complain. :D
Click to expand...

Look for some of the older Epson scanners - 4490, 4990, 4180. There are lots of scanners that can be picked up relatively cheaply!
 
Marc, I first bought a scanner of the general type you pointed to. It was very fast and very convenient... but the quality was truly dreadful. Happily (!) it had a light leak as well and so I was able to return it with free return postage!

I next bought a Plustek 35mm scanner, which you run (like all better scanners, AFAIK... drums etc aside) tethered to your computer, with a variety of scanner software. I have scanned thousands of old slides, black and white or colour negatives. It's a little fiddly, but you can set a scan going and then go back in the next advert break (or whatever), check and advance to the next frame. It works very well for black and white negs, reasonably well for most slides (although old Kodachrome, any Velvia and some Provia slides can cause problems with shadow areas, and sometimes weird colour casts). Colour negative film can be more problematic because of the underlying orange colour of the film substrate. There are various ways of fixing this, often through film presets in the controlling software, and they work variously well. Sometimes I get really good results, sometimes I get colours I just don't like. I'm not good at fixing colour casts in later PP (eg Aperture).

For my current 35mm stuff, I tend to send C41 colour and C41 black and white to Photo Express, as Adrian does, as they do a "medium resolution" scan (2000 dpi, good for a 6"*9" print) for a very good price (£4.50 per film with the TP discount) with their processing, and their quality has been excellent for me. Most other companies are quite expensive for scanning; AG is one of the cheapest, IIRC, but they have also been much slower in my experience, so 35mm black and white or slide tends to go to Peak and I then scan it at home. It will normally be scanned the day it gets back to me.

I've only just started on 120; I bought a V500, mainly to scan my father's legacy DufayColor transparencies, but also to scan a few of my own. Generally I understand the quality of 35mm scanning on the V500 is less than scanning on a Plustek; that said, many on here use it for both and get perfectly satisfactory results with it. I've still got a few hundred packs of colour negatives from when our children were growing up to get through, so I'm not planning on selling my Plustek yet.

I've had process and scans done by Asda, Boots, Max S and Snappy Snaps, and the general quality has been variable. Somehow I just don't like the results; it's not only low res but usually over-sharpened.

Paul (@PMN) drum-scanned some of my father's DufayColors as an experiment, and the results were truly wonderful. They came as >100 MB TIFFs, though (but I could probably have asked for JPEGs), and I wouldn't want all my scanning to come that way. I did get a quote for doing the rest, but given the number I had, it was too expensive, so I perservered with the V500 and the results were good enough to make a photobook from them for my brother and sisters.

I'd quite like to try UKFilmLab, as RJ does, but by the time I've finished a film I'm quite impatient to get it back, and their 10-day turnround puts me off. It would be really good to get some exposure and other feedback from them, though.

Not sure this helps much, but my advice would be: DON'T on any account buy a scanner like the one you pointed to; if you're going to stick to 35mm then a Plustek or Reflecta scanner would be good, but if you see your future including medium or large format, then a V500 or V700 would be appropriate. Oh, and I'd suggest getting Vuescan Pro scanning software, as you'll then be able to use the same software on almost any scanner you buy in the future, including the one built into any all-in-one printer you've got!
 
PMN said:
I know there are various different opinions on this and I can only speak from my own point of view, but I have to be honest in saying I find most 'high street' scans look absolutely dreadful. They're often processed to the point of looking like high contrast oversharpened digital images which destroys the character of the film and defeats the whole point of shooting on film in the first place. Personally I'd much rather scan myself and be in control of the whole process so the end result looks exactly how I want it to look, learning how to get the best out of your scanner can take a while and not everyone has that amount of free time but personally I wouldn't want it any other way.
Click to expand...

^^^ This...

I've had maybe 3 rolls scanned to disc. 3 different high street outlets, all gash. Spent a few bob on a Canon 8800F and got better results within a couple of hours of faffing than the Asda/Boots/some other place that I can't even remember ones. Plus, with the amount of 120 that I shot in the first year, the Canon more than paid for itself. Bit ultimately, it's all about the control aspect for me. Why would I spend time choosing the right film type for a shoot, then spend ages over each and every shot, just to hand the film to the spotty oik behind the counter at Asda, only to get the film back looking like it'd been dried in a hoover bag, with a CD of scans of such low resolution anything past 4x3" prints were horrendous (I like prints of my shots - something to post on here is just a bonus!)

Nope, I'm a control freak - I want to have the choice of which developer to use (for the B&W), and I want to know that if the picture IS dusty, it was my own damned fool fault...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
If you take a look at my Flickr page http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenbatey and find the imaginatively named MFC24-006 (MediumFormatColour film 24, frame 6) you'll find that the original size version is a straight scan at maximum resolution from an Epson V700 scanner. I actually put it up in the first place as an example of what the results from this scanner were like. The real original is a 6x7 negative from a Mamiya RZ67, regrettably hand held.

Edit to add: despite the name, in this case it means it's in the colour negative file; the film was FP4, processed in Rodinal.
 
Last edited:
On the (now, all too) rare occasions that I shoot film, I get it D&Ped and scanned at wherever's cheapest on the high street. Yes, the scans aren't great but they're generally OK for enprints and to use as proofs to see which (if any!) shots are worth scanning properly. I now use a flatbed (Canon 9000?) for home scanning, far easier to use than the KonicaMinolta 35mm film scanner I used to use and IMO, the results are close enough to that too.

Scanning negs is not my favourite job though and never was! Firstly, after selecting which shots are worth the effort (usually only one or 2 per strip, if that!), one has to load the carrier which is fiddly. Next is the preview scan which may include a focussing pass. Now a pass (or 2, depending on ICE or equivalent) to take the actual scan and export it to PS. Now the almost inevitable PP work to fine tune the dust removal, correct any colour cast etc... A slide copier might be a lot easier!
 
skysh4rk said:
For me, home scanning is the absolute worst! I try to do everything right in camera and then send my rolls off to a lab I trust, so that they come back ready to go.

I spent many hours scanning my own films in the past, but I just don't have the time to fully master the scanning craft; I have other things to be doing.

Personally, I'd recommend sending a roll or two to UK Film Lab for dev and scan. Even if you plan to eventually scan yourself, UKFL provide feedback to you regarding your exposures (e.g., under/over), which is useful as you get going with film, and they do great work.
Click to expand...

I would agree to this, and if I had the money would use UKFilmLab more often.

I home scan at the moment, but I find that each and every film is different which causes a lot of rescans and tweaking. Slide is the worst, Velvia will look beautiful in real life, but scanning it is a mysterious dark art only perfected by those who have made a deal with the devil.
 
TheBigYin said:
^^^ This...

I've had maybe 3 rolls scanned to disc. 3 different high street outlets, all gash. Spent a few bob on a Canon 8800F and got better results within a couple of hours of faffing than the Asda/Boots/some other place that I can't even remember ones. Plus, with the amount of 120 that I shot in the first year, the Canon more than paid for itself. Bit ultimately, it's all about the control aspect for me. Why would I spend time choosing the right film type for a shoot, then spend ages over each and every shot, just to hand the film to the spotty oik behind the counter at Asda, only to get the film back looking like it'd been dried in a hoover bag, with a CD of scans of such low resolution anything past 4x3" prints were horrendous (I like prints of my shots - something to post on here is just a bonus!)

Nope, I'm a control freak - I want to have the choice of which developer to use (for the B&W), and I want to know that if the picture IS dusty, it was my own damned fool fault...
Click to expand...

Well you could use Asda for "proofs" and any winning shot get a lab to scan, or scan yourself ;).........when you come to think of it, I wonder how many shots on a roll of film, processed and scanned by expensive labs, end up in the bin.:rolleyes:

One of my best 35mm shots ever was enlarged to about 16 X 20" print by a lab and the neg was dev at Boots. :jawdrop:
 
Last edited:
Sectionate said:
I home scan at the moment, but I find that each and every film is different which causes a lot of rescans and tweaking. Slide is the worst, Velvia will look beautiful in real life, but scanning it is a mysterious dark art only perfected by those who have made a deal with the devil.
Click to expand...

Which is why I use VueScan as the scanning software. I don't know if other scanning software has caught up in this respect, but when I started as far as I knew only VueScan let me keep the scanner raw data to reprocess to my heart's content without having to actually use the scanner at all. Scan once, reprocess ad infinitum (or at least until satisfied).

Velvia is well know for being high contrast, and that is what makes scanning very tricky. At worst, you can always make a couple of scans and use HDR techniques.
 
StephenM said:
Which is why I use VueScan as the scanning software. I don't know if other scanning software has caught up in this respect, but when I started as far as I knew only VueScan let me keep the scanner raw data to reprocess to my heart's content without having to actually use the scanner at all. Scan once, reprocess ad infinitum (or at least until satisfied).

Velvia is well know for being high contrast, and that is what makes scanning very tricky. At worst, you can always make a couple of scans and use HDR techniques.
Click to expand...

Well having to learn how to use Vuescan (and the other one I can't think of) just make home scanning more boring for Marc, when let's face it we would ALL really like to set the scanner on auto and get fantastic results easily ;)
 
But that could be turned round and phrased as "we would ALL really like to set the camera on auto and get fantastic results easily". I see it as part of the total photographic process that can only be skipped if we use slide film and project the results; otherwise with negatives you either get someone to print them for you, or you have to do the boring job of learning how to print. I don't enjoy scanning, but it isn't a lengthy job in my case, since I don't produce hundreds of negatives. A good thing really, since before adding more RAM to my computer a 5x4 scan took four hours per negative - and hence why I'm so keen on VueScan being able to scan once/reprocess many.
 
Blimey! I know from scanning a few of Dad's old 2 1/4 square slides how long it takes to clean them, 5x4s must be even worse! Been a while since I did any film scanning but I think the Canon scanner can output TIFFs which are close enough to raw for me! I do have plans to use film more this year - I've even done the rounds to see where's most cost effective for D&P&CD. Got several rolls of print film in the fridge, fresh cells in the bodies, just need a bit of paper telling me the government think I'm fit to drive again and off I go!
 
The computer was running Windows 2000 and had 512K of RAM. Quadrupling to 2 MB reduced the time. The point about raw over TIFF is that you don't rescan to change the settings - VueScan just rereads the data and does it in seconds, so changing scan settings to get the best result doesn't need a scan (or scanner, or negative). It does encourage you to experiment and learn, since there is no time penalty. I can change the built in film type, tweak curves, black points etc. and see the result at once.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top