Kiriakos

My question is addressed to those owing and using scanners type Digitnow, Jumbl, Wolverine etc and not the ones owing flatbed full scanners the likes of Epson, Canon etc.
Can you please comment about the quality of the scanned images and if you are happy with them. Try not comparing to flatbeds.
Thank you

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I have a Plustek scanner, which is a dedicated film scanner and not a flatbed. I got it mostly to scan old B&W negs, and I am pretty satisfied with the scans. But I still can't get prints quite as good as my darkroom prints from the negs, especially with over or underexposed negs.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Unless you go to a very expensive Hasselblad Flextight scanner (over $25,000), no scanner is going to give you as good a quality as a macro photograph of the slide or negative.

Using a high megapixel count full frame dSLR, bellows, and the best macro lens available for it (capable of between 1:1 and 4:1 (4X) reproduction ratios), coupled with a color-correct, highly diffused light source, you can photograph film images and retain nearly everything you would see in an analog print. Even better, you can record in raw, manipulate in software, and retain more of the brightness range and color saturation than you could ever have printed optically.

Even a Micro 4/3 camera and some junk from my garage can do this:(below)

Note the clouds in the scene of horse drawn carriage tours of Charleston, SC. I could never see those details in a silver halide print. But I could capture the negative in raw mode, invert the image curves, and adjust in Lightroom's Develop module or Photoshop's ACR (same thing, really), to get this. The original was a 35mm Ilford HP5 negative developed in ID11+.

(Download)

Frayud Loc: Bethesda,MD

I have an old Wolverine F2D that puts images onto an SD card. Used it once. The images were terrible. Too much contrast. I have since switched to a copying devise using my Sony A6000 and and old Vivitar f2.8 55mm auto macro, (originally used on my Olympus OM4) now sporting an e-mount adapter. The images are acceptable if not showing the absolute crisp color and sharpness of the original Kodachromes. Where needed, a little touch-up in Photos or its extension into Affinity with its ability to erase objects and perform Intelligent Fill-In does wonders. I now copy and discard the slides. Several thousand to go.

rfmaude41 Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)

There are execellent drum scanners that are as good and cost a fraction of the Hassy. For dedicated scanners, think Canoscan or or the Nikon CoolScans.

Kiriakos

Hey guys, I mentioned before what I am specifically interested about. Do not point me to 3000$ and 4000$ machines.
Thanks

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I would recommend you look up such scanners on Amazon.com and read the user reviews. Also check out this article: http://www.toptenreviews.com/computers/peripherals/best-slide-to-digital-image-converters/

The cheap, under $250 scanners are not going to give you a state-of-the-art capture. They MAY give you an *acceptable* reproduction, if you are not picky about dirt, dust, scratches, color, contrast and brightness range, resolution high enough for large prints, and other technical attributes. If you just want snapshot-like reproductions and images for web posting, they may suffice.

Most of the truly decent film scanners (such as the Nikons) have been discontinued and are no longer supported on modern operating systems and hardware. Flatbeds are still common. Plustek still makes some dedicated film scanning units.

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

Having used a Canoscan for many years ---
I FULLY AGREE WITH YOU !!

ervinada Loc: Hollywood, Florida

I own a Pacific Image Prime Film XA Slide & Negative Scanner coupled with LaserSoft Imaging's "Silverfast Archive Suite 8" scanning software (Ai Studio + HDR Studio). I am quite pleased with the results using this combo and have used it to archive a large number of nature slides. Total cost for the scanner and software comes in at around $900.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Prices are all over the place. One reasonable one is the new Kodak Scanza film scanner. Others would be the Canon CanoScan 9000F Mark II. Others would be Braun, Pacific Image, Plustek, and Wolverine.

Dale40203 Loc: Louisville, KY

Was an effects filter applied to this image?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yes.

Dale40203 Loc: Louisville, KY

I was expecting to see something of the grain in the negative since you were responding to a question regarding film scanning, and you specifically refer to details in the original film.

brent46 Loc: Grand Island, NY

Go to this link for my solution to scanning slides/negatives:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-448681-1.html

lsimpkins Loc: SE Pennsylvania

The latest issue of Shutterbug has a review of the Kodak Scanza. My take away is that the time I would spend on such a project would make it worth spending more on a scanner (or using my flatbed) to get better results. I think I will also try the light table & macro route. Of course, the Scanza may meet your needs, since you didn't state the intended use of the output.