Film scanners...

[bruggemj]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe we should start a club within GG of all the film users. All two of us!


[/ QUOTE ]

Make that three.....
I have also considered buying a slide scanner instead of a DSLR. If I understand the whole
MP concept correctly, for a little over half the price of a DSLR, I can get a pretty high MP scanner.

If I am completely confused someone tell me.

Joe

[Bonner]

Add in the cost of the film and processing for the volume of work you do over the life of the camera. Do the math then compare with one $60 1 GB card.

Scanning is going to give you a 2nd generation of the image and quality suffers with that due to scratches, dust and the process itself. I have better things to do with my time than scan every image on a scanner.

I use 1GB memory in my digital slr and get 576 shots on normal mode ($60 now at BestBuy). I see every shot and can see exposure with the histogram overlay. And as for the environment, I no longer pour developer, fixer and stop bath into the drain from both the film development and printing session.

The last time I used film (6x7 camera) I had to tell the model to wait while I reloaded after 15 shots! This is not good when you just get into the session.

I know I will get shot down by film shooters but I maintain that money is not the reason to stay with film. My last film camera purchase was a Mamiya 7 and the lens cost more than most dslrs with a kit lens.

Go ahead, let me have it.

Jim (30 year film shooter)

[Bob_S]

[ QUOTE ]
I use a Nikon coolscan IV and love it but, it does 35mm only.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have one too and I can't seem to get decent scans out of it. Do you use the Nikon Scan 4.0? or some other scanning software?

[Driftwood]

Hi Art,

I am in a similar position to Sam in that I am also looking for a scanner that will scan from medium format transparencies. I have been considering the Epson 4990 because of the price, specification and good reviews, but would like to know if you are using one yourself.
Specifications are one thing, but nothing beats personal experience.

I would love to hear from someone who is currently using one of these scanners to scan film.

[Art]

...the Epson Perfection 3200. For what I do now, this scanner is good enough for me. (Shut up Hackman...inside joke) If I get more photography time, I'll get the Epson 4990 or 5000 or whatever model they come up with then.

Art.

[Clacey]

I use the Nikon Scan 4 software on a Mac.

[SamBeasley]

Hmm, well, for what I can afford anytime soon, the Epsons are sounding pretty nice. I hadn't known about 'em -- I'll be sure to give 'em a look.

Thanks Chip!

Sam

[SamBeasley]

Well, as much as I hate to admit it, Jim (Bonner) is right about what he says concerning the pros/cons of film/digital (and this is coming from a die-hard film user). I don't think price is so much a factor as what you're willing to put into it timewise and (the most important part to me) the look of the images. Usually by just looking at an image on screen I can tell if it started life as film or digital, and nine times outta ten I prefer the film version. It just has a different feel to me... The other reason I tend to like film is the fact that it doesn't blow out highlights as readily as digital, too (even though because of a screw-up on my part I slightly blew out the highlights on my last shoot anyways [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]).

Now I've said around here many times I use both film and digital, just depending on what I'm doing at the time. Weigh the pros and cons of each and decide which way you wanna go. Film's more time consuming, more costly (film development, chemicals, etc.), no instant feedback, etc. etc... but I still like the way it looks better. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Sam

[Hawaii_Mike]

Sam,

I'm in the same boat with you. I'd shoot more medium format if I could get better scans. I've put serious thought into getting a Nikon Coolscan 8000ED / 9000ED Scanner or the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro but their $2k price tag has always put me off.

Just noticed a new product coming out - the Microtek ScanMaker i800 with DIGITAL ICE Flatbed Scanner. It has 4800 dpi high resolution and a advertised dMax of 4.0. I owned one of the first Epson flatbed scanners that also could scan film, and it really put me off how much work you needed to do to get a good scan from a negative. Anyway, I'm waiting for the reviews on this model and am hoping that the technology and price point is catching up with my expectations and budget.

Aloha from Hawaii,
Michael

[ChipBulgin]

[ QUOTE ]
Go ahead, let me have it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. (not really) [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I agree with you in that money is not the reason to stay with film. If film were cheaper most of us would be using it, because for 90% of people it all comes down to money. The best reason to use film (color film, anyway) is for the color space. Film has at least twice the color gamut of current digital technology. With digital, you're still color-limited by the printer. Once the printers catch up then you're color-limited by the camera's image sensor. That's not to say that they'll never catch up or surpass film, but right now film still has wider tonal ranges and richer colors. It's like the difference between the box of 24 crayons and the box of 64 with the built-in sharpener. Fortunately, except for the professional stop-light photographers out there (try to accurately match the red and green LED's of the new generation stop-lights with a digital camera), most of us can't see where current technology is deficient. For skin tones, yellows, oranges, and blues, digital is more than adequate. It rocks, actually. It's in the greens and reds where there's still work to be done.

Now, as soon as you scan the film or go to publication with your original chrome, you lose the color advantage of film because you're now limited by the same digital technology or the color-space of the professional printing industry. If you've ever seen an artist's work reproduced in a book or publication and then seen that same artist's originals on display in a gallery, you'll know what I'm talking about.

I'll still take a professionally-produced 30"x40" Cibachrome (Ilfochrome now) over anything you can punch out of any type of digital printer. But that's just me, and I'm definately anal-retentive. I still do my own contrast masks and print my own Ilfochromes. That being said, I've seen some samples of what the new Epson 7800 and 9800 printers are capable of and they are stunning. Their D-Max exceeds the D-Max of Ilfochrome on Epson's glossy paper. Iteresting times ahead, indeed.

Oh, and if you're not putting that Mamiya 7 to good use let me know. I'll bet ole' Bessy still has a few good images left in her. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

-Chip