Film scanner (are the cheap ones any good?)

I have an old EOS film body that I've used to shoot a few rolls of Ilford HP5. I've developed them myself at home.

Does anyone have advice on a film scanner or is there a thread on that (I've searched). Are the cheap ones any good? There are quite a few models on amazon that are £50-100 though I didnt see one that looked inspiring. I'd like quite a few megapixels, considering I'm used to 22Mp I dont really want to work with 5Mp images, 10-15 would be ok.

I can recommend the Canon 9000f because I can get the most out of it using a different scanning technique. The scanner is cheap, about $150+. Here is my technique. This is the result of months of scanning and experimenting.

Ok great some things to think about! Thanks for the help.

Epson has one under 100$. V330. I used it - works perfect.
Switched to V500 which is under 200$, to support MF scan. Works even better.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/kf095/847357506​5/

Figured I'd cross post this here...

I ended up with the V600, which, upon a lot of reading seemed to be the way to go for my needs and how much money I wanted to spend. This bird pic

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …istopherbrian/8​543607576/

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I don't have time to fiddle with it now but a quick preliminary run with VueScan made an immediate difference in terms of colour, dynamic range and sharpness. The review here said it would. Definitely noticeably better. Relieved and pleased. It can output to raw too. Not sure if that's going to translate into some latitude or not. Will have to test that out later.

You might try a used Nikon, Canon, Polaroid, or Minolta dedicated film scanner off Fleabay. Even the older 2700 DPI models will extract more from the film than most any flatbed. It looks like they can be had for ~$100 and up, depending on how patient you are. Get a $10 SCSI card too - most of them were hopeless when running on USB.

I see the Canon FS4000 is selling for a little over $200. FWIW, I'm fairly happy with mine. The out-of-box color needs help, but the scanner does a good job with resolution and tonality. I'd be happy to scan a few of your negs if you like.

I just bought a scanner yesterday. I'm not looking to purchase anything else until I'm sure this won't do what I want. And like I said, VueScan appears to be a viable solution to my problem.

ions wrote in post #15698623
Figured I'd cross post this here...

I ended up with the V600, which, upon a lot of reading seemed to be the way to go for my needs and how much money I wanted to spend. This bird pic


International Bird of Mystery by Christopher Brian's Photography, on Flickr

is my very first scan with the V600. It's from a 35mm negative using default settings on the Epson scanner software and minimal efforts in Lr4. I am mildly pleased with that result and confident I had made the right scanner choice. Until today. I scanned one of the 120 negatives that I had the lab do previously for comparison. This is their cheap scan which I think they run through a Coolscan 9000 on what I assume is a low-fi setting. I think I pay something like $6 for a 120 roll to be scanned. Yes, I know Burlington Camera is more expensive than options in the city that are immensely inconvenient to me and not worth the extra hassle. Anyway, I figured since the files I got from them were only a couple MBs and it is their budget scan that my V600 would be a bit closer than it is.

Here is the comparison:

I'll let you guys figure out which is which, I think it's kind of obvious. Anyway, I'm hoping that when I get the time to follow the link and advice that TooManyShots gave here and here. I'm hoping that refining my process I'll be able to get a bit better. But how much? This result is kinda disappointing, I didn't think my baseline would be so low compared to a Coolscan on its lowest settings. The difference in dmax is apparent and I'm disappointed in the colour as well. Perhaps because it's darker the colours look muddier? Though there is a difference in detail, it's close enough to where I want and will probably be fine once I figure out the scanners sweet spot, get the anti reflective glass and figure out a better holder system. I'm more disappointed by the Dmax and colour difference. Are my expectations too high?

At those size, I couldn't tell which one is better. The only apparent difference I saw is the ambient sunset glowing light. Of course, if I were you, I won't compare my photos with a Nikon Coolscan. The price difference is just too astronomical. The current used market price is around $3k.

We started a discussion about film scanners on this thread, with results of trying to capture film emulsion graininess. I showed an example of Canon 8800F flatbed showing grain in an 8x10 print, yet the same grain was greatly 'smoothed' in scanning the same neg. https://photography-on-the.net …?p=15668832&pos​tcount=103

Later in this thread, another person posted examples of a relatively low cost film scanner, the Plustek 8100, and its ability to capture film grain even when scanning the negs.

If you simply scan an entire neg and look at the resulting entire image, you have no idea of how well or how poorly it handles small details and grain patterns inherent within the emulsion.

TooManyShots wrote in post #15699550
At those size, I couldn't tell which one is better. The only apparent difference I saw is the ambient sunset glowing light. Of course, if I were you, I won't compare my photos with a Nikon Coolscan. The price difference is just too astronomical. The current used market price is around $3k.

Sure, it's an unfair comparison I just didn't think the Coolscan would school the Epson just by being in the same room. Anyway, the major difference I see is that tone difference and how much darker the trees are, it's not the detail I'm too worried about. That is pretty close to what I want. I think, ultimately, what I'm seeing is the difference in dmax and will have to learn to accept it. You have said the following in a couple threads around here, to paraphrase you, there is no good mid range scanner. It baffles me that no one is making a good $500ish film scanner. The V700 appears very nice but I can't justify the cost of it. If I had a bit of VC money I would look into that problem because I think there's a niche market that would eat up a decently priced capable film scanner.

Anyway, hopefully I'll get a chance to play with the V600 again soon using Vuescan as it appears to be capable of satisficing me.

Plustek 8100. Best value in 35mm scanning. WAAAAAY better results than a flatbed, for not much more money.

See the other thread Wilt posted above for my direct comparison with a 35mm HP5+ neg on the Plustek and a 9000F (which I use for medium format, with good results).

I also use a 9000f. It's suitable for medium format, but the results with 35mm are less than desirable. I have ANR glass for it, too.

What I don't like about Plustek filters is that it's an active process. You need to be there to manually push the film holder in to scan the each frame.

Medium and large format film scanned with epson V700

edge100 wrote in post #15700407
Plustek 8100. Best value in 35mm scanning. WAAAAAY better results than a flatbed, for not much more money.

See the other thread Wilt posted above for my direct comparison with a 35mm HP5+ neg on the Plustek and a 9000F (which I use for medium format, with good results).

I regret not getting the 8100 last night (on sale for $50 less 'til yesterday). But I've made a couple big purchases recently and couldn't afford it.

Picked up an M3 and 50mm Summicron DR that I sent to Sherry Krauter and a 500cm with an 80mm CF in the last 2 weeks. I'll probably hold off on developing any 35mm film until I can afford a Plustek and just stick with shooting with the Rollei and 'blad for now.