Negative Scanners

[FocalSpeed]

Here is a question, would using a 35mm Film SLR with a good negative scanner give quality results? I was told by some photographer that if I get a good negative scanner I could get very very pleasing results, how true is this?

Some info would be appreciated, thanks!

[Jesper]

Yes, you can get great results, if you get a good scanner - but these can be expensive. You'll certainly get better results than scanning prints with a flatbed scanner - a print is a copy of the negative, in which much of the dynamic range and some of the sharpness is already lost.

The more expensive scanners have a system called ICE (or FARE on Canon scanners like the FS4000). The scanner doesn't only scan visible light, but also infrared. The image on the negative or transparency is invisible under infrared light, but dust and scratches on the film are not. So with the information from the infrared channel, the scanner can see where the dust and scratches are on the film, and can repair them automatically.

You will still see film grain in your scanned images, even with the most fine grained films. Images from a 10D at ISO 100 to 400 are much cleaner than what you'll get with a film scanner.

Also, don't underestimate the amount of time it will take you to make high-res scans. Most film scanners are not really fast.

If you look at the cost, the price of a film scanner, film and processing can quickly add up to the price of a DSLR, so in the long run it's not much cheaper to continue using film and scanning it than to get a DSLR. A good scanner like the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 costs more than $800, almost the price of a Digital Rebel!

[nosquare2003]

You will still see film grain in your scanned images, even with the most fine grained films. Images from a 10D at ISO 100 to 400 are much cleaner than what you'll get with a film scanner.



Neat Image can also be used to clean them.

[scottbergerphoto]

I use the Nikon CoolScan IV which was replaced by the CoolScan V. They are excellent scanners. The V is 4000dpi, more then enough resolution for an 8x10. The included scanning software is excellent(Nikon Scan). I don't suggest trying to scan anything over ISO 100 due to noise. I have a Canon 10D. It is a great camera but not as fast as my F5. If I need alot of speed or just want to use film/slides, I use my F5 and the scanner. I don't know what will happen if I get the 1D MarkII.
Regards,
Scott

[Belmondo]

I'm currently on the market for a CoolScan V, but can't find one anywhere. I've checked B&H and Adorama, and locally, Samy's. I'd appreciate if anybody knows where they might have some in stock.

[bikerider]

I have an epson 3200 photo flatbed scanner with neg adapters and using the bundled silverfast software. scans at 300dpi produce 25meg files, more than enough for A3 prints. I've found this a very cost effective way of archiving years of trannies and negs.

[mvrekum]

Yes, you can get great results, if you get a good scanner - but these can be expensive. You'll certainly get better results than scanning prints with a flatbed scanner - a print is a copy of the negative, in which much of the dynamic range and some of the sharpness is already lost.

The more expensive scanners have a system called ICE (or FARE on Canon scanners like the FS4000). The scanner doesn't only scan visible light, but also infrared. The image on the negative or transparency is invisible under infrared light, but dust and scratches on the film are not. So with the information from the infrared channel, the scanner can see where the dust and scratches are on the film, and can repair them automatically.

You will still see film grain in your scanned images, even with the most fine grained films. Images from a 10D at ISO 100 to 400 are much cleaner than what you'll get with a film scanner.

Also, don't underestimate the amount of time it will take you to make high-res scans. Most film scanners are not really fast.

If you look at the cost, the price of a film scanner, film and processing can quickly add up to the price of a DSLR, so in the long run it's not much cheaper to continue using film and scanning it than to get a DSLR. A good scanner like the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 costs more than $800, almost the price of a Digital Rebel!

I own a Canon FS4000 for a couple of years and I am considering to get a digital SLR next to my analog SLR. Yes, you do get very good results from a negative scanner. Scanning with 4000DPI results in an image equivilent to a 20 megapixel digital camera!!! E.g. filesizes of 128MB per image !!

However, you must understand that it gives you a lot of work. The biggest drawback on scanning is time.
Not only do you have to (let someone) develop your films, you also have to scan each image, color correct it and clean it up (w/ NeatImage in my case).
I scan all my images at 1000DPI for archiving and/or web publishing. If I really like an image for print (A4 size) I scan it at 2000DPI. Do I realy, realy like it, I scan it at 4000DPI and order a print. On 4000 DPI you can order poster size images.

With a digital camera you have your images instantly on your PC. Color correction might be needed sometimes. So this saves you lots of time.

So I do agree with Jesper. If you have the choice, go for the DSLR.

Martin