OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

Wow. Maybe another indicator of people flocking away from film? I see your Coolscan IV can be had on eBay for really cheap, and the higher res Coolscan V can still be found new for $3K or used for a few hundred. Something to keep in mind.

saichiez Loc: Beautiful Central Oregon

I spoke out against scanning in a previous post on this thread, BUT please note that I specifically spoke out against Flat Bed scanners in the price range up to, say $700.

I don't disagree with your statement here, but we should make sure the uninformed know that your scanner is a dedicated film scanner, which can readily out scan the majority of flat bed scanners that people are attempting to use to digitize film.

There is a marked distinction and improvement in "dedicated" film scanners over flat bed scanners. The two most important differences are in the film holders and path through the scanner. With a dedicated scanner, improvements are focus height of the neg/transparency, and curl removal of the film. These two issues are the "bane" of flatbed scanners and flatbed film holders.

Vero Beach Bum Loc: Vero Beach, FL

There seems to be a focus on scanning. What about film processing? A good lab will give you the best processing and decent scans. I have had some excellent shots ruined by CVS or Walmart.

kitcar Loc: Liverpool.Merseyside. UK

Wizard. Re' neg' scanners, I bought a neg' scanner (not expensive) in order to print some old neg's from years ago & was pleasantly pleased.
A while ago my Canon EOS mal-functioned & had to be repaired, so out comes my Pentax ME super, I then exposed, developed & scanned the film (no need for my darkroom) & was able to shoot some pic's I had promised.
Not being able to afford the stable of cameras that a lot of the forum members have, ( I know it's not the perfect answer) but in an emergecy, I still have back up.

Huddy Loc: Fitzgerald, GA

Sure am glad some are having success with film to digital transfers. I have an Ion cheap dedicated scanner that is in no way comparable to my Epson V500 with separate scanner in the lid for negatives and slides. I like it's results even though not as good as an expensive dedicated scanner. Could have gone with an attachment for my DSLR, but really don't want to put such heavy use on it when I can use my $36 old film camera and the new Epson scanner. In reality, I could have bought a used DSLR for dedicated use. Why didn't I think of that before buying two used film cameras and a scanner? I have to go with what I have.

wbym300 Loc: Wisconsin

When processing film I have the image put right to a cd and have had no problems duplicating or exceeding what digital will give me. The analog film will give richer colors and depth of field is identical. (Canon F-1 and nikon D600). Yes with my digital I have crossed over, The Nikon is superb but for back country stuff where it can get rough I like the simplicity of manual film. And with cd's it is easy to handle prints in the computer. thx

Take 5 Cinema Loc: Canoe BC

This is very interesting! You say that Nikon 9000 scanner creates a better image from film. What kind of film, ISO rating, negative, slides, B&W? In what ways is it better. Colors, less pixilated, more latitude - what? Very interesting - I would really like to know. And your comments about the scanner too!

Thanks
Take 5

dar_clicks Loc: Utah

-- An experienced local photographer once remarked that it wasn't a matter of film or digital being "better" but "different!"
-- I shoot digital and also some film once in a while just because I enjoy it.
-- It will take some patience to get onto digitizing negatives. I've found that to be rather fussy. Film also requires time spent repairing the image to remove spots and scratches, even if developed from a good shop.
-- Digital is a lot "cleaner" than film (I'm comparing 35 mm sizes in all my remarks here and presuming scanning film to digital). There is a lot of grain in many consumer films. Some of the really fine-grained films, like Kodak Ektar 100 are quite clean, though. You can enjoy the grain if you prefer (hey, it's a look) or clean some of that up, e.g., with Photoshop noise-reduction plug-ins.
-- The finished look from film can be different from digital in ways that not even the simulated filters in some software can quite replicate.
-- Do what you enjoy! Film. Digital. Both. Whatever. Your choice will be right for you even if it isn't for someone else.

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

When you scan you basically are creating a digital file.
If you use an enlarger to make a print there is no conversion process. A photographer once told me that there is a difference because the silver halite crystals are at different levels in the emulsion, so film gives a different look.
I've always wondered what the difference is between a film camera processed wet was compared to a digital camera or a digital scan.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

Jer, my understanding is that when the dyes are applied to film, they are randomly placed, like spray painting. Digital processing involves rows and columns of equally spaced, evenly sized pixels.

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

That's right. I just wonder how different prints would look.

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

You have been enlightened by your digital experiences and when going back to old school technology you can now see the inferiority of it. Congrats!

Anytime you can keep a photo in the digital domain from camera sensor all the way to the print head that controls how much ink comes out of how many holes, you are going to have a better output (assuming the same or higher resolution than 11MP of 35mm film) than going through another piece of glass in a scanner and picking up environmental deterioration like dust and print paper imperfections as well as fading and aging from sun and humidity.

saichiez Loc: Beautiful Central Oregon

The dedicated versions of film scanners (neg or transparency) do TWO things well that you don't get with flatbeds. Before mentioning those two things, first understand that we are talking about a scanner this is designed at the upper levels of quality for one intended purpose, Scanning ONLY film.

Because of this, the two things that assure highquality scans are and absolute path through the scanner at an optimal focus height from the film, and a neg/transparency scanner that removes the curl out of the film, for focus across the width/length of the neg.

These are the two most frustrating factors in attempting scans with flat bed scanners, even at the Epson V750 level, to the point that some people use a special liquid on the glass of the flat bed and scan wet to flatten the film. Others who try flat bed scanning often buy aftermarket film holders that employ better focus height adjustments and/or ANR glass to flatten the film.

Nikon 9000 scanners (when you can find them used) often sell on eBay for $3000 and up, and prices are rising.

Amazon shows Nikon 9000ED scanners starting at $4295.00 used and they list new prices at $6299 (doubtful if they have suppliers who have stock however)

You can buy one hell of a lot of expert or professional drum scanning for select images for much less than that.

However, the Nikon 9000 does set a benchmark for scanner capability and quality.

dar_clicks Loc: Utah

One difference that affects appearance of highlights which was relayed to me is that film can more gradually reach the brightest value it can record while digital abruptly arrives at a cutoff. This is merely hearsay on my part so I'd like to hear more about recording and printing differences of film vs. digital from someone who knows more about it. The differences are probably quite subtle or indistinguishable to most of us, but perhaps can be exploited to good effect by those who really know what they are doing.

Huddy Loc: Fitzgerald, GA

Thanks all for your input. Very interesting....Dan