Recommendations on digital 35mm/slide scanners?

Hi,

We're looking at buying a scanner for 35mm negatives and possibly slides as
well. A friend recommended the Epson 3200 Perfection Photo Flatbed Scanner;
around $250 - $300, which is in the ballpark of my price range.

I was wondering if anyone out there has experience with this or other
negative scanners that produce high-resolution images of good quality? I
know that there are $10K scanners out there, but that's out of my price
range. I'm thinking about stuff that's suitable for professionals.

Thanks in advance for any and all advice.

Scott Smith
Blue Lilly Photography
http://www.bluelillyphoto.com

 

You will get scans from negatives and slides from the Epson flatbed, but
nothing in the same league as a dedicated film scanner. However these
can be 3-4x the prince of the Epson.

Consider the following half dozen from the current range film scanners:

Canon FS2720U
http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/fs2720/index.html

Canon FS4000US
http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/fs4000/index.html

Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV
http://www.minoltausa.com/eprise/main/MinoltaUSA/MUSAContent/CPG/CPGProdu
cts?cname=scan&fname=scan_dual&Mname=DiMAGE_Scan_Dual_IV

Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400
http://www.minoltausa.com/eprise/main/MinoltaUSA/MUSAContent/CPG/CPGProdu
cts?cname=scan&fname=scan_dual&Mname=DiMAGE_Scan_Elite_5400

Nikon Coolscan V ED
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=98&productNr=9239

Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=98&productNr=9238

Watch for the line wraps on some of those references.

You might still find the Nikon CS-IV and CS-4000 around in some places,
but be sure you don't pay more than the price of a CS-V for a CS-4000.

Things to look out for are a means of automatically removing dust and
dirt spots from the image, unless you plan to spend most of your spare
time manually cloning spots. The best versions are called ICE or FARE
and use a fourth colour channel, operating in the infrared, to detect
the blemish and correct it without degrading the rest of the image.

 

there is a little Polaroid program, PolaDSR, which can be used as a
plugin (PS) or stand alone that does the dust removal which negates the
need for ICE3. I use it with my Minolta Dimage Multi II.

Alan

 

The Polaroid plug-in is useful for traditional silver black and white
film, which ICE does not work with. However it is very much inferior to
ICE, resulting in significant loss of image quality by comparison. Like
all post processing clean-up filters it falls a long way short of
"negates the need for ICE". Perhaps, if you had a scanner which
provided ICE, you would appreciate just what a very long way short of
ICE that is!

 

If you were to look up the details you will find that 'ICE' is far more than
just a program. If your looking for a good scanner a Nikon the LS4 isn't too
expensive and they give away a S/H LS3 for about a third of the cost. There
are plenty of film scannners available S/H as people move up to DSLR's.
If you need good info look at the many tests available on the net.

replying)

 

How effective is the Polaroid software Alan? I've just ordered a Scan
Dual IV and plan on trying the Polaroid app once I get it.

 

Keep up at the back there - I made that issue perfectly clear earlier in
the thread when explaining what ICE was and did. ;-)

 

I have a Nikon Supercoolscan 4000 and it is excellent. I have a large
Epson (1600 Expression w/transparency lid)and the scans of 35mm are
truly lousy. Flat beds are good for 4x5 and fair for 2 1/4 and
terrible for 35mm.

I simply can't imagine that an Epson costing 1/4 of my Epson flat bed
is going to produce anything remotely usable.

Nikon, Minolta and others make film scanners for 35mm. I had a
Minolta Dimage which gave me very good scans (I thought) but they
weren't going to update the drivers for my model to use XP. I sold it
and bought the SuperCoolscan 4000 for $1700. Now I think they are
around $1500. Given what I was getting with the cheaper Minolta the
Nikon raised my quality to a much, much higher level.

Hope that helps.

Pete

 

I stand corrected Kennedy, I have only just installed this software and
admittedly have only used it on a couple of images so my comments were
premature and from others who recommended it to me and I possibly should
have said nothing until I'd tested it properly. After your comments I
don't think I'll bother and I withdraw my comment. I will stick to
manually doing the dust removal until I upgrade my scanner to the Multi
Pro. BTW I scan my trannies as soon as I get them home from the lab and
don't have many spots to remove then store all my images in archival
pages to keep dust to a minimum. If the lab is using clean chemicals
there shouldn't be many spots to clean up and I'd change labs if there
was lots.

Alan

 

Mike, it was recommended to me but as I have just stated inreply to
Kennedy's post I haven't tested it properly. Here are some comments from
others who have used it:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003qUT
and
http://www.reasonableexpectations.com/scanner/digital_ice.htm
and here is where you can download this free:
http://www.polaroid.com/service/software/poladsr/poladsr.html

If you trial it let others know what you think

Alan

 

It's always a bit risky to come out and make a blanket statement about
some piece of equipment that might be someone's favourite. That said I
think in this instance it is safe to say the Epson 3200 will not give
you satisfactory results for your needs with 35mm given your last
sentence re professional use.

There's a new model out, the 4870, which most likely will do a better
job with 35mm than the 3200. But...it costs more than your budget and
is probably still not as good as using a dedicated film scanner, as
opposed to a flatbed, for 35mm. Actually I'll be able to confirm that
(or not) soon as there's one sitting on my desk next to the Nikon
Coolscan IV. I'm not expecting to be getting rid of the Nikon for 35mm
and my reason for getting the 4870 is purely for scanning medium
format (645 and 6x7) but of course I'll be tempted to make the
comparison. In fact for now I might be restricted to the 35mm option
because my poor little computer is absolutely shagged out trying to
cope with the file sizes that the Epson produces with m/format (not an
Epson problem just an unavoidable with larger format and higher
resolution).

For your requirements I'd be looking at the cheaper Minolta film
scanner or if you don't mind s/h look for a previous generation
scanner with ICE if you feel you need it (such as the Coolscan IV I've
got).

If you want some more info to help make up your mind over flatbed vs.
film scanner there's a review of the 4870 currently being done at
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson 4870/page_1.htm
Already he's established that the Epson gives him better 35mm scans
than his (old) Nikon LS1000. Not the most conclusive conclusion as the
LS1000 is the day before yesterday's scanner. Anything he says about
the 4870 you can probably knock 10% off to get an idea whether the
3200 would do what you want.

(Subliminal message....Get a film scanner).

Brian
(the other one)

 

The Polaroid plugin is useless, IMO.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

 

The Polaroid scratch/dust removal program
is a joke, IMO. Real ICE -- the kind that uses
an IR channel within the scanner -- is anything
but.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

 

Having recently tried the Polaroid plug-in I would absolutely agree with the
above. Often it seems to remove small amounts of highlight detail but misses
the larger, more 'obvious' dust pieces.

As an aside, I find that using a good quality wetting / anti-static agent on
films when processing makes for much cleaner negs and dramatically reduces
the amount of unwanted residue on my scans.

Roger

 

I disagree Rafe. I have had some very good results with it on
monochrome. I find the "Adaptive" option a bit tedious, taking far more
time to fix the image and then missing a lot of flaws, but apart from
that it does work - just not as good as ICE. ;-)

 

Alan,

that is reading a little too much into what I said. The Polaroid
program is good and, if you don't have ICE, it certainly among the best
around. It will certainly save you hours of retouching by hand, but it
does degrade the image quite visibly, especially if adjusted to catch
all defects, especially small ones. It would surprise you how much of
these small dust specks appear, even on a perfectly new slide, when
scanned at 4000ppi!

The Polaroid filter also misses most of the larger dust defects, but ICE
does seem to have a size limit too, leaving irregularly shaped peak
black and white artefacts when it encounters them - easily seen even in
preview, so easy to fix (usually such particles are easily visible to
the naked eye and blow off with a blast of compressed air). However the
Polaroid option is certainly not a substitute for ICE when scanning
colour emulsions. Since ICE doesn't work at all on traditional black &
white emulsions, it is amongst the best options available other than
manually retouching them yourself.

Anyway, I certainly wasn't intending to persuade you not to use this
software, just explaining that it doesn't make ICE redundant - in fact,
once you get an ICE scanner (a nice scanner?) you will wonder how you
ever got bye without it. ;-)

 

I might give it another try one of these days,
but it missed a lot of what it was supposed
to catch, and in the process softened the image
considerably and created odd artifacts... sort of
like sharpening halos, and "reflections" of
contrasty lines and shapes.

As I'm scanning 4x5 on a non-ICE scanner
(Artixscan 2500) I really miss ICE, and am not
pleased to be back in the realm of hand-
retouching.

I was hoping NeatImage would help, but it
doesn't.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com