Menu
What's new
The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

What to do?

C

cam

Active member
fotografz said:
For those on a budget and aren't scanning all that many films but like to keep that option open creatively, there may be a dedicated 35mm scanner for you @ $239.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._OpticFilm_7300_35mm_Film.html#specifications

I have no idea if this scanner is any good or not, but the specs look decent (7200 dpi un-interpolated, and a 3.5 D Max) and the reviews seem to look pretty good._Film_Scanner.html[/url]

Again, I don't have a clue as to the "real" performance of these dedicated film scanners but would strongly suspect they are not made for any kind of volume and are more for the occasional scan, but at those incredibly low prices it may warrant further research. If anyone has any experience with these please add your comments.
Click to expand...
this is the one we have and i promise to report back as soon as i use it properly -- i.e., have a shot i really like and care to properly dicker around with it.

for quick scans to see what you've got, it's brilliant if a little tedious and slow. for more complex scans, my "other" isn't convinced but he's waiting for me to try as i have more patience with these things.

it looks like the sun may finally show itself and i really want to play around with my 75 Lux so hopefully i'll have something decent, at least, to show for it by next week.... i promise to report back.
 
N

nei1

Guest
"A good photographer can get great images from mediocre equipment provided he knows it's limits. But it is a struggle to get really high quality scans from mediocre scanners and the results will never match what can be achieved with a higher quality scanner.

No matter how good you are in PhotoShop, doing major color correction, dodging, burning, touching up dirt & scratches, and then sharpening - all just to get an image that matches your original slide to use as a starting point is a terrible waste of time. Yet that's exactly the corner that a mediocre scanner paints you into.":lecture:



Ill shut up now,...........Neil.
 
jonoslack

jonoslack

Active member
nei1 said:
A good photographer can get great images from mediocre equipment provided he knows it's limits. But it is a struggle to get really high quality scans from mediocre scanners and the results will never match what can be achieved with a higher quality scanner.

No matter how good you are in PhotoShop, doing major color correction, dodging, burning, touching up dirt & scratches, and then sharpening - all just to get an image that matches your original slide to use as a starting point is a terrible waste of time. Yet that's exactly the corner that a mediocre scanner paints you into.:lecture:.
Click to expand...
What's this 'colour' stuf of which you speak?

nei1 said:
Ill shut up now,...........Neil.
Click to expand...
Surely not:ROTFL:

on a more serious note.
Actually, as discussed earlier - the reason I lost the will to live in my last venture into film is that it was taking me above 2 hours to scan a film using my Nikon 5000 . . . and of course, as per normal, one wouldn't really be interested in more than half a dozen shots (if lucky). That means that 1hr 40 minutes is simply wasted time.

If you can get 80% of the quality from a V700 in 10 minutes, then you can pick out those special 6 (if you're lucky) and deal with them in 20 minutes on a better scanner (sounds like 1.1/2 hours saved). That time is really important to me, but what is even MORE important is the perception of wasted time (which I really hate).
 
N

nei1

Guest
There are quote marks around this ,its from an article on minolta scanners not written by me.What you say has its logic and if I could afford to have both a V750 and a minolta5400 then I would;..but if I could only afford to have one then convenience does not enter the equation,it would be like paying a fortune for the latest enlarger and using a milk bottle bottom as a lens.You wouldnt expect to get the clarity you like by using such a lens on an M8.This is an obvious exageration but in this case valid.Were all talking about an ellusive quality of film that "siver effex pro"etc cant really copy(obviously);.....well if you dont extract every possible nuance from the film that "ellusive quality"will be left behind.


As for wasting time,it is time consuming and the files are huge but after the first scan it can be worked on while the second is running.................Neil.


Ill shut up now(smile)
 
C

cam

Active member
nei1 said:
"A good photographer can get great images from mediocre equipment provided he knows it's limits. But it is a struggle to get really high quality scans from mediocre scanners and the results will never match what can be achieved with a higher quality scanner.

No matter how good you are in PhotoShop, doing major color correction, dodging, burning, touching up dirt & scratches, and then sharpening - all just to get an image that matches your original slide to use as a starting point is a terrible waste of time. Yet that's exactly the corner that a mediocre scanner paints you into.":lecture:
Click to expand...
i'm speaking for myself only (though i do agree with Jono here -- what colour?) -- if i have a truly stupendous shot, chances are good that i'll take it around the corner and have it professionally scanned.

in the meanwhile, i'd rather have a low-priced mediocre scanner that allows me to see what i'm getting (including checking my baby steps in home developing and my constant amazement at the amount of dust we seem to have in our loo, um, er, drying room) as i learn. it makes far more sense than pouring hundreds (thousands?) of dollars i don't have into a scanner when i haven't taken any shots to show i'm worthy of it.

a great scanner isn't going to make me a better film photographer any more than an updated M would. have pity on us that don't have all your knowledge and experience in the film arena, Neil.
 
jonoslack

jonoslack

Active member
nei1 said:
There are quote marks around this ,its from an article on minolta scanners not written by me.What you say has its logic and if I could afford to have both a V750 and a minolta5400 then I would;..but if I could only afford to have one then convenience does not enter the equation,it would be like paying a fortune for the latest enlarger and using a milk bottle bottom as a lens.You wouldnt expect to get the clarity you like by using such a lens on an M8.This is an obvious exageration but in this case valid.Were all talking about an ellusive quality of film that "siver effex pro"etc cant really copy(obviously);.....well if you dont extract every possible nuance from the film that "ellusive quality"will be left behind.
Click to expand...
Well, fair enough (and I have no argument with the statement). Whether the V700 falls into that category is a moot point however - William seems to think it good enough to sell his coolscan.


nei1 said:
As for wasting time,it is time consuming and the files are huge but after the first scan it can be worked on while the second is running.................Neil.
Click to expand...
It isn't the time taken on the GOOD shots that I resent, it's the time taken on the BAD shots.

Of course, things are different for different people; what one can afford is relative, I could, for instance, say that 3 hours of my time will pay for a V700, but for me, what's more to the point is the irritation of the futility of wasting time. Even if I wasn't working for that 3 hours, it would be 3 hours shooting time/sleeping time/reading time/posting here time.

What stopped me shooting film the last time around was the amount of 'dead' time that it seemed to propogate.


nei1 said:
Ill shut up now(smile)
Click to expand...
:)
 
N

nei1

Guest
Cam,I have very much an idiots brief,the seat of my pants is indeed on its last legs,but if Im certain of a thing Ill say it.Its a lot of work even in photoshop to spot the print and get it as you like it,many hours at times,a good scan will give you the chance of a good print,a soft scan is just a waste of time........alllllll the best,,,Neil.
 
jonoslack

jonoslack

Active member
nei1 said:
,a good scan will give you the chance of a good print,a soft scan is just a waste of time........alllllll the best,,,Neil.
Click to expand...
Ah, but, the $10,000 question . . does the V700 produce soft scans? William says they're okay (so he's sold his coolscan)
 
N

nei1

Guest
Just William?I always preferred the Famous Five......coolscan v5 minolta5400 mk1:cool:
 
emmawest72

emmawest72

New member
Jono,

yes, the v700 produces softer scans than the coolscan but with some sharpening you get fantastic prints. For me print is the final step as I'm not interested in comparing scans at 200% on screen. Now if I had $10,000 i would also get an Imacon but this is not the case:)

Do you have any shops/people close by which could let you try them?

Cheers,
 
N

nei1

Guest
Theres something about that George...............wonder if shed let me touch her imacon?
 
S

Sapphie

Member
It's an old thread but I am wondering about what to do with the shelf full of files holding 35mm and MF trannies. The thought of slaving away scanning them gives me the jeebies. When I think I have hardly looked at this lot for over 10 years and, if I am lucky enough to live that long, would not touch them for another 10 years or more, you gotta wonder what the point is. We could do with a de-clutter, I might actually enjoy looking at the pictures once they have been digitised and then throw the originals away!

The Epson V700 still seems a good value option for doing this, though nearly £400 is a lot for me really for this task.

Just curious if anyone else has any thoughts on this or maybe alternative cheaper scanners these days?

Lee
 
F

fotografz

Well-known member
Huge waste of time, money and effort.

Pack them all up and let someone else scan them for you.

Prices range from 15¢ ea. to this company that scans on a high res Nikon 9000 with Digital Ice Pro, and then hand corrects each slide ... for 39¢ ea. but allows up to a 20% rejection refund. 1,000 slides for $390 less $78 rejection. Or do a quick light-box review and cull out junk and dupe shots to get the price down.

Convert Slides to Digital Pictures, Slide Scanning Service, 35mm Slides to DVD, Slides to CD,

Lots of happy campers have used this service, and lots of recommendations, including National Geo.

You will thank me ... :ROTFL:

Marc
 
chrism

chrism

Well-known member
There is some pleasure to be had in scanning, as long as you can take pride in a job well done - something that can be achieved with proper exploitation of software and hardware. If you can see what I mean by this and are not turned off by the concept, my advice would be to use the opportunity to re-select the best of the best of your stored slides and scan only those. On the other hand, if you shrink from the thought, go with a commercial service. I might have a slightly abnormal viewpoint, since I find myself with five film scanners and remain curious about the promised MF Plustek....:rolleyes:

Chris
 
S

Sapphie

Member
Well the Plustek Opticfilm 120 is available to pre-order in the UK for £2000. So I guess £400 for the Epson flatbed doesn't seem so bad after all.

Yes, I have lots of dupes but lots of precious singles too - and I can't tell how 'good' they are until they are magnified somewhat, perhaps by scanning!

Of course the premise that to buy a largish scanner to sit on the desk so that I can throw away all those slides is a false one.

I'll not live long enough to listen again to all those CDs on the shelf either, except maybe if I just start now ...

Lee
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top