Hello: I am ready to purchase a good quality slide scanner. Any comments, thoughts, recommendations out there? The selection is rather limited it appears. Like to stay around $1000.00 or under.
Primarily used for digital filing, websites and small prints.
I am new to the forum and group, looking ahead to good feedback.
Thanks,
Fitz
Ely, MN.
Posted by Phillip Noll on April 7, 2009 at 4:37 PM
If you are scanning multiple formats (35mm, 6x7, 4x5, etc.) the Epson V700 would be a good one that fits your budget.
Looks like a good choice in your price range ($475 @ B&H ).
This scanner has Digital ICE, which removes dust and scratches and is a necessity in order to minimize the time spent with an image editor removing those flaws.
Digital ICE slows the scan time down, but is well worth the extra time. Note that most scanned images need to be optimized with an image editor (color correction, sharpening, etc.) in order to achieve the very best results.
If you'll be scanning on 35mm only, the Nikon LS-5000 will beat the V700 hands down. I have an LS-4000 and the Epson 4990, each the predecessors to the LS-5000 and V700 and can speak from experience and provide examples. Once I got the Nikon, I've never even thought about scanning 35mm on the flatbed. The image quality is better, but so is the functionality of the scanner. The Nikon has an analog gain control which allows you to alter the exposure in the scan to recover shadows and highlights. There isn't any way to alter the exposure on the flatbed.
There are additional used options. I purchased my LS-4000 for $300 at a local photo consignment shop. Nikon's Coolscan V is a rebadge of the LS-4000 after the LS-5000 was released. Minolta's Elite Scan 5400 I and II were strong competitors before Sony bought Minolta's photo business and dropped the scanner line. Minolta, Nikon, Polaroid and Microtek also made medium format scanners.
There isn't any way to alter the exposure on the flatbed.
Sure there is. Both the Epson and the SilverFast software that's bundled with the scanner offer tone curves, brightness/contrast and histogram adjustments, offering much more control than the analog gain feature (which I had with the Coolscan IV).
The Epson scanner will work just fine for your intended purposes (digital filing, websites and small prints)and will allow batch scanning of your negatives, as opposed to the dedicated film scanners.
Would you consider a 12x18" print small? I ask because I'm probably going to end up having to get a new slide scanner again, and the size I mentioned is as large as I can print at home. I had read about the Epson V700 before, but wasn't sure how it would do with slides.
What scanner are you using now?
The link that Phillip provided could help you more than I in regard to image quality with the V700. There's no doubt that a Nikon film scanner will provide better image quality as Mel noted. Just seemed to me that for Fitz's purpose, the V700 would do the job.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on April 8, 2009 at 12:38 PM
I've done a lot of scanning with both flatbeds and the Coolscan 4000. For 35 mm film, I would strongly encourage the use of a dedicated film scanner such as the Nikons. Sharpness and color will be a big step up on the dedicated scanners. I'd also try to buy good equipment, not the cheapest thing that B&H offers - otherwise you may as well get a flatbed. The Nikon Collscan V would be high on the list, plus Canon made some decent dedicated scanners.
For 4x5 or large sheets of film, the better flatbed do pretty decent job, with the V700 being a good recommendation.
I've never tried to scan 120/220 film, so I can't really comment on using a flatbed for that. The Coolscan 9000 ( I think that is the correct model) will scan MF to 6x9 but it is about twice your budget. It is a nice machine.
If you have any thoughts or need to scan larger then 35mm, the flatbeds do an excellent job too. I have only used Microtek flatbeds for years to scan 35mm, 120, & 4x5 using the Silverfast software John has mentioned. As far as I know the Microtek's are no longer available here in the U.S. With that said the Epson's are also a good choice IMO.
I can't say enough good things about the Nikon Coolscan 4000 and its successors. I have scanned hundreds of slides and negatives with very good results. The software - almost as important as the scanner itself - is very good.
Two criticisms: you cannot easily batch process (Applescript will get you close on a Mac). And you must keep the scanner slide door closed to minimize dust on the sensor; it's pure hell to clean.
But except for those two issues,the Coolscan 4000 is exceptional.
Sure there is. Both the Epson and the SilverFast software that's bundled with the scanner offer tone curves, brightness/contrast and histogram adjustments, offering much more control than the analog gain feature (which I had with the Coolscan IV).
I really don't mean to take an argumentative stance on this. But those adjustments do not adjust exposure.
The tone curve does not provide the ability to truly adjust the scan exposure and it can make a VERY big difference in situations where either the image capture or the development begs for this capability. The simplest case to explain the usefulness of this feature is when a slide is underexposed by a half stop. There may be very dense shadows and the scanner will not be able to capture that information in its default setting. However, with a boost in the gain (lamp brightness or exposure), we can penetrate a little more of the shadow detail and recover additional information (though it will typically cost in the highlight details). And it can be used in the opposite direction for mild overexposure. Slide films are an extreme example because their density range really challenges CCD scanners like the Nikon and Epson. The analog gain moves the entire curve left and right in parallel and I find that to be very useful. The gain does not function in the same way as a curves or levels adjustment. In fact it is one of the few scanner adjustments that is truly valuable.
If the CCD had the ability to fully cover the density range of common slide films with room to spare, then I would say analog gain was of less importance. The CCD simply has a very limited dynamic range and without the ability to shift the exposure, you'll often run into the limits of the sensor before you reach the limits of the film. Still the ability to shift the entire structure of the curve is a useful feature in my experience. The rest of the scan software adjustments can just be done in Photoshop often with greater ease. That said, I prefer to get it close in the scan and I usually apply color balance, levels, curves and some saturation adjustment in the scan software.
In addition to these concerns is the fact that the dedicated film scanners are much sharper and resolve much better than the flatbeds. In my experience this detail makes a significant difference in prints as small as 11X14 and will make some difference in smaller print sizes too. But I don't know of a good way to share the print results over the web.
I doubt it would make a difference in web sized details, but it does improve print quality.
For quality on a dedicated slide scanner, I'd say hands down go for the nikon LS-5000 Super ED; find one used on Ebay if $$$ are a huge concern. If you have a ton of slides to scan, get the batch scanning slide feeder. Worth every penny - 50 slides, one click. ta-da!
Wow, Thanks for all the feedback, being that 99% of my needs are 35mm slides maybe the Nikon is the best bet.....really appreciate the help....I'll let you know how it goes...nor i need to find one....Thanks, Fitz
Discussion
12 repliesPrimarily used for digital filing, websites and small prints.
I am new to the forum and group, looking ahead to good feedback.
Thanks,
Fitz
Ely, MN.
This scanner has Digital ICE, which removes dust and scratches and is a necessity in order to minimize the time spent with an image editor removing those flaws.
Digital ICE slows the scan time down, but is well worth the extra time. Note that most scanned images need to be optimized with an image editor (color correction, sharpening, etc.) in order to achieve the very best results.
There are additional used options. I purchased my LS-4000 for $300 at a local photo consignment shop. Nikon's Coolscan V is a rebadge of the LS-4000 after the LS-5000 was released. Minolta's Elite Scan 5400 I and II were strong competitors before Sony bought Minolta's photo business and dropped the scanner line. Minolta, Nikon, Polaroid and Microtek also made medium format scanners.
Mel-
Sure there is. Both the Epson and the SilverFast software that's bundled with the scanner offer tone curves, brightness/contrast and histogram adjustments, offering much more control than the analog gain feature (which I had with the Coolscan IV).
The Epson scanner will work just fine for your intended purposes (digital filing, websites and small prints)and will allow batch scanning of your negatives, as opposed to the dedicated film scanners.
Would you consider a 12x18" print small? I ask because I'm probably going to end up having to get a new slide scanner again, and the size I mentioned is as large as I can print at home. I had read about the Epson V700 before, but wasn't sure how it would do with slides.
Pete D.
No.
What scanner are you using now?
The link that Phillip provided could help you more than I in regard to image quality with the V700. There's no doubt that a Nikon film scanner will provide better image quality as Mel noted. Just seemed to me that for Fitz's purpose, the V700 would do the job.
For 4x5 or large sheets of film, the better flatbed do pretty decent job, with the V700 being a good recommendation.
I've never tried to scan 120/220 film, so I can't really comment on using a flatbed for that. The Coolscan 9000 ( I think that is the correct model) will scan MF to 6x9 but it is about twice your budget. It is a nice machine.
Two criticisms: you cannot easily batch process (Applescript will get you close on a Mac). And you must keep the scanner slide door closed to minimize dust on the sensor; it's pure hell to clean.
But except for those two issues,the Coolscan 4000 is exceptional.
I really don't mean to take an argumentative stance on this. But those adjustments do not adjust exposure.
The tone curve does not provide the ability to truly adjust the scan exposure and it can make a VERY big difference in situations where either the image capture or the development begs for this capability. The simplest case to explain the usefulness of this feature is when a slide is underexposed by a half stop. There may be very dense shadows and the scanner will not be able to capture that information in its default setting. However, with a boost in the gain (lamp brightness or exposure), we can penetrate a little more of the shadow detail and recover additional information (though it will typically cost in the highlight details). And it can be used in the opposite direction for mild overexposure. Slide films are an extreme example because their density range really challenges CCD scanners like the Nikon and Epson. The analog gain moves the entire curve left and right in parallel and I find that to be very useful. The gain does not function in the same way as a curves or levels adjustment. In fact it is one of the few scanner adjustments that is truly valuable.
If the CCD had the ability to fully cover the density range of common slide films with room to spare, then I would say analog gain was of less importance. The CCD simply has a very limited dynamic range and without the ability to shift the exposure, you'll often run into the limits of the sensor before you reach the limits of the film. Still the ability to shift the entire structure of the curve is a useful feature in my experience. The rest of the scan software adjustments can just be done in Photoshop often with greater ease. That said, I prefer to get it close in the scan and I usually apply color balance, levels, curves and some saturation adjustment in the scan software.
In addition to these concerns is the fact that the dedicated film scanners are much sharper and resolve much better than the flatbeds. In my experience this detail makes a significant difference in prints as small as 11X14 and will make some difference in smaller print sizes too. But I don't know of a good way to share the print results over the web.
I doubt it would make a difference in web sized details, but it does improve print quality.