JohnFenimore Loc: Oceanside, Ca

Are flatbed canner good enough?

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Some are - though for slides or negatives the scanner needs to have a light source in the cover to illuminate from behind and a holder to keep the film flat - Epson makes some models that folks seem to like.

JohnFenimore Loc: Oceanside, Ca

Thanks

NickGee Loc: Pacific Northwest

My experience is that a flatbed scanner was not good enough (not for my needs, or to my eye, that is). I'm working a project scanning nearly 2000 B&W negatives that date to the 70s. To get the quality I needed I opted for a dedicated scanner ... this one: https://plustek.com/gbr/products/film-photo-scanners/opticfilm-8200i-se/.

Your choice will depend largely on the size of the project and the level of quality you hope to achieve.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Most excellent for prints and film of all formats.
Hard to beat.
Been scanning some old large odd format b&w under exposed negatives.
When done final product is amazing.
The series I just finished are from 1915.
Now started on some from around 1912.

therwol Loc: USA

Flatbed scanners are fine for prints. If you have small ones like 4x6 or Polaroids, the software that comes with them will allow you to scan more than one at a a time and make separate files of each print. Film is another story. None of them, including the Epson V7xx and V8xx scanners, can match the resolution of a dedicated film scanner such as the one suggested by another in this thread (Plustek). On the other hand, you may find the output acceptable. The Epson V600 is enormously popular and reasonably priced, and many on UHH have recommended it over time. The V850 is much better, but still not as good as a dedicated film scanner for 35mm film, plus it costs around $1300. It does have one advantage. It can scan large format film with outstanding results. I know from personal experience.

You can set up a rig to photograph prints or slides/negatives. A decent camera with a macro lens can match the results of the best scanners, but the setup has to be solid and aligned perfectly. One disadvantage is that when you photograph color negatives, you need third party software to convert the images to positive. The orange mask of color negative film presents problems when you simply try to reverse an image in a photo editor. Scanners designed to scan film can do this automatically.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The answer, in all of photography, and in life, is, IT DEPENDS

> upon your standards for reproduction quality

> upon the quality of the original

> upon the intended usage

> upon what your definition of "good enough" includes (speed? color accuracy? sharpness? absolute optical resolution?...)

As a former professional AV producer, I found my Epson V600 to be mediocre, compared to what I can achieve by macro photographing slides and negatives with my camera. The V600 is fine for 120 size film (6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 6x17 cm transparencies). Results from anything smaller range from "meh" to marginal. But then, my standards are pretty high:

As a former digital products manager for a major portrait lab, I ran a high volume, high resolution scan lab in the early 2000s. Maybe that spoiled me, because our scanners were amazing. (We had almost half a million dollars' worth of Kodak Bremson HR500 and HR500+ scanners, plus the IT infrastructure to run them.)

I sold my Epson V600 and built a homemade copy setup. I've scanned thousands of negatives and slides with it. Here's a 20-page illustrated white paper (PDF file) explaining what I do:

Camera Scanning.pdf opens in your favorite PDF reader.
Attached file:
(Download)

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I want to show what I mean regarding scanning.
Here is a 3 1/2 x 5 1/2 negative from about 1915 that I scanned the other day.
I took a photo of the neg to show how poor it is and posted it first.
I used a piece of paper behind it so the view from the window would not show.
Then I have posted the same negative using a scanner to get the image.

(Download)


(Download)