Hmmm. Interesting question. To some extent, I think this may depend partly on how and where one wants to use that designation in self promotion. For example, I have a good many awards at the local, regional, state, and one at a national level. If I am doing a weekend art show, I would be comfortable using the term “award winning photographer”. The label would be in sync with the environment and clientele I would be marketing to. However, I would not feel comfortable using that label if I decided to make a foray into leading workshops, for example, where my clientele might be largely national or even international. My awards would be below the level one might expect for that venue; although true technically, using that term would be somewhat misleading.

I guess I’m saying that the term is properly, and best used in venues in which the clientele being marketed to corresponds with the highest level at which the photographer has consistently received awards or public recognition.

You can use a scanner, or you can use a camera and a macro lens to rephotograph the film. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages. Of course, you can also use a service bureau, but good ones are expensive and inexpensive ones are usually AWFUL unless you have really low standards.

I used to run an elaborate film scanning operation in a major school portrait company (from 2000 to 2005, when we were transitioning from film to digital capture at the camera). I also used to run an audiovisual production lab in a corporate setting, where we used slide duplication setups... essentially rephotographing film on film. So... Having done it both ways, I know the pros and cons of each method.

It is difficult to find a flatbed scanner that makes REALLY SHARP scans. But flatbeds DO often have Digital ICE software, which can remove dust spots and surface scratches from some types of film, and other software routines that attempt to restore the original color of faded prints, slides, and negatives. A dedicated film scanner is usually nice and sharp, but also likely to be slow, outdated, incompatible with modern operating systems, and considered obsolete by its manufacturer, unless it is VERY expensive.

Re-photography with a macro lens can yield great results quickly, but generally requires post-processing of raw files for the best quality. It is my preferred method, because I don't have the money for a really good dedicated film scanner, and I already have what I need to copy slides and negatives with my camera and a macro lens. Here is what you need, from one end of the setup to the other:

Digital camera on an adjustable slider
Macro lens capable of copying an area of a slide or negative SMALLER than the slide or negative
Plano-parallel negative carrier or film holder or slide holder or all three
Color accurate light source (PHOTO quality CFL or LED lamp with really even diffusion material in front of it)
Suitable rig to hold it all in alignment

Old slide duplicators such as the Bowens Illumitran 3 can be used. An enlarger color head, inverted, with a film holder over the light source, can be used with a conventional copy stand for the camera setup. Or, you can build your own rig. Photograph the film with the emulsion facing the lens. FLIP the image in post-processing. Then INVERT the image or REVERSE the CURVES. Then crop it. Then adjust color and tonality with every tool that works for you. Much of this can be handled with a Lightroom preset, or a Photoshop Action. Then you tweak, spot, etc.

Whichever method you prefer, I recommend a StaticMaster brush, Ilford Antistaticum cloths, Dust-Off or similar "canned air" and Photographic Solutions PEC-12 film cleaner be parts of your film cleaning toolkit.

The Nikons haven't been for sale for years. They used older ports and software. I think the fastest version available used Firewire 400. The Software that came with probably will not work on any current Mac so you will have to see if VueScan or something else will. The real problem with the Nikons was they broke a lot. That was the reason Nikon gave for stopping production. Minolta also had a good scanner back in those days but probably has the same problems.

I have scanned a number of photos, slides and negatives using the Epson flatbed scanner. It works ok. Biggest issue was cleaning them so I didn’t have to spend months in post erasing dust spots. I certainly can't purchase an expensive camera or take them into a drum scanner as I'm not a 1 percent-er. Not sure how well the slide duplicator route works. Do you need to have a macro lens to use them? And there are a lot of them out there most from brands I've never heard of. Any suggestions for a Canon T4i?