Chris Hunter
(K=25634) - Comment Date 6/26/2006
|
Use a dedicated film scanner, such as a Nikon Coolscan V or a Konica Minolta Dimage. If you want quality and have lots of slides, get your own dedicated transperancy scanner for 400-600us
|
|
|
|
Dave Holland
(K=13074) - Comment Date 7/4/2006
|
Well, at first you could have your photodeveloper give it a try. Ask for high quality scans and see what they can do. Usually they do an average to poor job, you may need to shop around. If you are going to archive and maybe print later from the file, then you need really high quality scans. If you just plan to post to the net without much photoshop or cropping you need a lot less detail. Then think about how many pics you will want to scan over the next few years. If you plan to do it yourself, calculate the cost of equipment, and don't forget the time it will take. If it is going to be less than a few hundred slides, it may be cheaper to hire someone else to do it. I have a Minolta 5400 which does a great job, but it is expensive and time consuming.
|
|
|
|
Rashed Abdulla
(K=163889) - Comment Date 7/4/2006
|
I use Nikon Coolscan ED for my 35MM films and I use the Ipson Perfection 4870 when I need to scan my 6X6, 6X7 or 4X5 inches films.
I find both scanners reasonably sharp depnding of course on the original source.
All of the best .
|
|
|
|
John Clarke
(K=16) - Comment Date 7/5/2006
|
For high quality results you need to either pay to get your neg's or tansparencies professionally scanned or get a good quality dedicated film scanner like a Nikon Coolscan V (they scan neg's or trannies). Whilst the Nikon scanners make a good job without too much tweaking, do not underestimate the learning curve you will face. Scanning to get the very best results possible requires time and patience and, even when you understand what you are doing, the process itself is time consuming.
Do a search for film scanning on the photo.net forums.
|
|
|
|
Rashed Abdulla
(K=163889) - Comment Date 7/5/2006
|
I do not really find film scanning is a waste of time or diffcult to acheive, i been film scanning for a long time now , film Nag. 35mm 6x6,6x7 or 4x5 Inches sheet films out of my view camera. As I said earlier, as long as the original source is sharp the result will vary a little .
Of course, technically speeking there is a different ,the question is , how much different is there, will depend on how much different we would allow to occur, and weather or not that different will have a great impact on our need of the scanned work or not.
of course if some one could have his hand on one of the Drum Scanners, then he have reached the Pro. standard of scanning and he will get the obtimum result.
All of the best.
|
|
|
|
Rashed Abdulla
(K=163889) - Comment Date 7/5/2006
|
Photo.net would never be as good as usefilm.com where education materials are needed or sources of information’s required by any members. We are very lucky on UF and proud to say we have all we need under one umbrella and under one lovely community.
Please check this Nikon site for this film scanner
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=7&grp=701&productNr=9236
ot this for Epson film scanners
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/ProductCategory.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=-8172
|
|
|
|
Clay Turtle
(K=-42) - Comment Date 7/15/2006
|
Been there & done that! My advice, go with a flat bed if money is hard.
I went short term with having scans made by photoprocesser's, a good scan isn't too bad but pricey when you are paying for a cd [700megs] to get a 5 to 50megs file! Dedicated film scanners are a great way to get a decent file but cost. For a $100.00 to $200.00 you can get a decent flat bed with film adapters which was my best bang for the bucks.
Slides & prints of negatives are the best scan approach for now. I had a photo (neg) of a otter swimming in a lake. Went to photoprocesser but they didn't do drum scans of 35mm? A high (their)Nikon Coolscan didn't give the details so I had a photo (emulsion) print (enlargement) made which I scanned on the flat bed. Got best detail that way but later I did find a place to get drum scans of 35mm. done.
|
|
|
|
Clay Turtle
(K=-42) - Comment Date 7/15/2006
|
Oh, if you want to scan negatives, run a search for Gimp 2.2 software, it has settings for the different emulsion base used by different film manufacturers.
|
|
|
|
James McGinnis
(K=6045) - Comment Date 7/26/2006
|
I have a Minolta Dimage slide scanner that I'm willing to sell. I shoot digital and MF so I have no further use for the DiMage scanner. I'm going to get a Canon scanner that does MF/35mm and standard flat bed print work.
If you're interested in the Dimage...??
|
|
|
|
James McGinnis
(K=6045) - Comment Date 7/26/2006
|
Oh...this scanner will scan negatives as well as positives (slides) It's great for 35mm stuff but that's all it does (actually, with an adapter it will do APS...but I've never tried it)
|
|
|
|
James McGinnis
(K=6045) - Comment Date 7/26/2006
|
One last post and then I'll leave it alone:
http://www.megacameras.com/product/Konica-Minolta-DiMAGE-Scan-Dual-IV-Film-Scanner-6094-ad-froogle.html
That's the scanner I have. Of course, I can beat that price because mine is used.
Sorry for the multiple posts. Not trying to "bum rush" you on a sale. It's there if you're intersted, if not...Ebay here I come!!
|
|
|
|
Kambiz K
(K=37420) - Comment Date 7/31/2006
|
simply buy the specalized film scanner, like Minolta one!
|
|
|
|
Christopher Robinson
(K=139) - Comment Date 10/14/2006
|
The best transfers are from the Nikon Coolscan ED... it's still expensive (somewhere around $1,600?), even though the prices are dropping, but if you can afford to pop the dough, you'll never be sorry. Just take the time to read the instruction manual that comes with it and it'll work like a charm every time.
Quality-wise, it's the next best thing to a $30,000 drum scanner. In my opinion.
|
|
|
|
