Best method of digitizing 35mm slide film?

I suspect this might be the best (but certainly not ideal) sub-forum to inquire......

While I'm not yet interested or ready to get into processing my own 35mm film, I am interested in getting the most out of my slide scans. I shoot mostly Fuji slides. My local shop is good but not terribly cheap, and I can't assume I'll always be nearby.

Is there a high quality but reasonably priced scanner to be had, or must I deal with building a rig to capture slides with a DSLR?



Searching has netted me the Canon 9000F - any comment on how that holds up?

The best (not the cheapest) way if you want to do it yourself is to buy one of these and get the optional slide feeder attachment:

http://www.nikonusa.co​m …per-COOLSCAN-5000-ED.html

They've been discontinued for a couple of years, but will produce superior results compared to any multipurpose flatbed. Used they can cost as much if not more than when they were new ($2000+). Also the software that comes with it was designed for Win XP, so you need to either muck around to get it to work with Vista or Win 7, use XP Mode in Win 7 Pro or buy third party scanning software. I use XP Mode on my Win 7 Pro machine and it works great.

The other "best" solution would be to use a good scanning service. Maybe something like ScanCafe can give you the quality you want without breaking the bank.

I'm certain both Canon and Epson have flatbeds that can do a pretty decent job, or even produce excellent results if the emulsion is in good shape, the dynamic range of the scene isn't that great and you aren't going crazy with output size.

I work on weekends digitalizing the photo collection of my kibbutz's archives on a Canon 8800F. Although it claims to be capable of 4800 ppi, some web research that I did indicates that its true resolution for slides/negatives is only 1700 ppi, so I use it set to 2400 ppi. This is not great resolution and inadequate for high quality large prints (for comparison, the 5D Classic had around 3100 ppi sensor resolution) but is enough for most purposes the archive is likely to need. If larger versions should be required, I can probably do better resampling than the Canon software.
I don't know if the 9000F is any better or merely a change of number, but I suspect the latter to be the case.

Scancafe.com -- negative & slide scanning service

http://www.scandigital​.com 888-333-2808

http://www.scanmyphoto​s.com 949-474-7654

Bob_A wrote in post #16183693
The best (not the cheapest) way if you want to do it yourself is to buy one of these and get the optional slide feeder attachment:

http://www.nikonusa.co​m …per-COOLSCAN-5000-ED.html

They've been discontinued for a couple of years, but will produce superior results compared to any multipurpose flatbed. Used they can cost as much if not more than when they were new ($2000+). Also the software that comes with it was designed for Win XP, so you need to either muck around to get it to work with Vista or Win 7, use XP Mode in Win 7 Pro or buy third party scanning software. I use XP Mode on my Win 7 Pro machine and it works great.

The other "best" solution would be to use a good scanning service. Maybe something like ScanCafe can give you the quality you want without breaking the bank.

I'm certain both Canon and Epson have flatbeds that can do a pretty decent job, or even produce excellent results if the emulsion is in good shape, the dynamic range of the scene isn't that great and you aren't going crazy with output size.

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm more looking for a home-based product rather than a service, and one that doesn't break the bank like the Nikon. I suppose a Canon or Epson flatbed, or even a Plustek, is where I'll eventually land.

tzalman wrote in post #16183789
I work on weekends digitalizing the photo collection of my kibbutz's archives on a Canon 8800F. Although it claims to be capable of 4800 ppi, some web research that I did indicates that its true resolution for slides/negatives is only 1700 ppi, so I use it set to 2400 ppi. This is not great resolution and inadequate for high quality large prints (for comparison, the 5D Classic had around 3100 ppi sensor resolution) but is enough for most purposes the archive is likely to need. If larger versions should be required, I can probably do better resampling than the Canon software.
I don't know if the 9000F is any better or merely a change of number, but I suspect the latter to be the case.

Thanks for sharing, do you have any samples online? I have heard the 9000F was an upgrade in the flatbed game, but I could be wrong.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #16184586
Scancafe.com -- negative & slide scanning service

http://www.scandigital​.com 888-333-2808

http://www.scanmyphoto​s.com 949-474-7654

I don't live in the US, but thanks anyway.

In the Scancafe.com link:

http://www.scancafe.co​m …ity/door-to-door-tracking
7. A leading-edge scanning facility.
Being the global leader, we have scanning facilities in the USA (California), Asia (India) and Europe (Switzerland). Our scanning facilities are the world's largest. They are climate controlled, because high humidity environments can damage your originals surprisingly quickly. Access to the facility is closely controlled, and security guards patrol it, just as they would at a bank. It's also monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. And when your order is scanned & repaired, it is moved to a secure, specially fire-proofed room until ready for delivery.

I have a Nikonscan V on the desk between my printer and monitor. While I've probably not needed to use it for 2 years, its a superb piece of kit, well made and does a good job.

To find one you will need to scour the second-hand markets, because Nikon no longer sell them.