Scanner for photos and film

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Cams, Nov 19, 2007.

  1. Cams

    Cams Guest

    I'd like to go through my shoe boxes of photos and negatives and
    digitize them all. I'm looking for advice on the best way of going about
    this.

    I'm looking to scan everything, rather than cherry picking individual
    images, then process everything when it's done. Is there a particular
    scanner that folks recommend for doing this relatively quickly and
    easily? Ideally I'd like to have the capability of scanning prints as
    well, in cases where I have prints but no negatives.

    I have both regular 35mm film and APS cartridges. Windows or Mac is
    fine.

    My internet research seems to indicate that the Epson Perfection V700
    or V750 would be good candidates but I'm not sure whether there is a way
    to deal with APS film on these scanners. Also, my retailer of choice
    would be Pixmania (they have a Luxembourg page on their site and I'm in
    Luxembourg until January). However, I note that the one they have is
    listed as a V750 while many sites found through Google are referencing
    the V750-M. I can find no comparison of these two or indication of
    whether it is indeed just an updated name for the same model. Does
    anyone know whether the M version is more recent?

    Thanks in advance
    Cams
    Cams, Nov 19, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Cams

    ray Guest

    On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:57:12 -0600, Cams wrote:

    >
    > I'd like to go through my shoe boxes of photos and negatives and
    > digitize them all. I'm looking for advice on the best way of going about
    > this.
    >
    > I'm looking to scan everything, rather than cherry picking individual
    > images, then process everything when it's done. Is there a particular
    > scanner that folks recommend for doing this relatively quickly and
    > easily? Ideally I'd like to have the capability of scanning prints as
    > well, in cases where I have prints but no negatives.


    You can't do it 'relatively quickly and easily'. If you have very many,
    which it sounds like you do, it will be very time consuming no matter what
    equipment you choose.

    >
    > I have both regular 35mm film and APS cartridges. Windows or Mac is
    > fine.
    >
    > My internet research seems to indicate that the Epson Perfection V700
    > or V750 would be good candidates but I'm not sure whether there is a way
    > to deal with APS film on these scanners. Also, my retailer of choice
    > would be Pixmania (they have a Luxembourg page on their site and I'm in
    > Luxembourg until January). However, I note that the one they have is
    > listed as a V750 while many sites found through Google are referencing
    > the V750-M. I can find no comparison of these two or indication of
    > whether it is indeed just an updated name for the same model. Does
    > anyone know whether the M version is more recent?
    >
    > Thanks in advance
    > Cams
    ray, Nov 19, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Cams

    ChrisM Guest

    In message ,
    ray <> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

    > On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:57:12 -0600, Cams wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> I'd like to go through my shoe boxes of photos and negatives and
    >> digitize them all. I'm looking for advice on the best way of going
    >> about this.
    >>
    >> I'm looking to scan everything, rather than cherry picking individual
    >> images, then process everything when it's done. Is there a particular
    >> scanner that folks recommend for doing this relatively quickly and
    >> easily? Ideally I'd like to have the capability of scanning prints as
    >> well, in cases where I have prints but no negatives.

    >
    > You can't do it 'relatively quickly and easily'. If you have very
    > many, which it sounds like you do, it will be very time consuming no
    > matter what equipment you choose.
    >


    Yes, it might take a while to do, but 'relatively' means compared to
    something else, so it might take him (say) 1 months worth of effort with a
    decent set-up, but that's relatively quicker and easier than taking 6 months
    with the wrong equipment...

    --
    Regards,
    Chris.
    (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
    ChrisM, Nov 19, 2007
    #3
  4. Cams wrote:
    > I'd like to go through my shoe boxes of photos and negatives and
    > digitize them all. I'm looking for advice on the best way of going
    > about this.
    >
    > I'm looking to scan everything, rather than cherry picking individual
    > images, then process everything when it's done. Is there a particular
    > scanner that folks recommend for doing this relatively quickly and
    > easily? Ideally I'd like to have the capability of scanning prints as
    > well, in cases where I have prints but no negatives.
    >
    > I have both regular 35mm film and APS cartridges. Windows or Mac is
    > fine.
    >
    > My internet research seems to indicate that the Epson Perfection V700
    > or V750 would be good candidates but I'm not sure whether there is a
    > way to deal with APS film on these scanners. Also, my retailer of
    > choice would be Pixmania (they have a Luxembourg page on their site
    > and I'm in Luxembourg until January). However, I note that the one
    > they have is listed as a V750 while many sites found through Google
    > are referencing the V750-M. I can find no comparison of these two or
    > indication of whether it is indeed just an updated name for the same
    > model. Does anyone know whether the M version is more recent?
    >
    > Thanks in advance
    > Cams

    I use a dedicated slide/negative scanner and a separate photo scanner for
    prints etc.

    There may well be combination scanners that will do both equally well, but I
    would think that the quality of the finished scan will be a compromise.

    I stand corrected if I am wrong about this.

    Dennis.
    Dennis Pogson, Nov 19, 2007
    #4
  5. Cams

    ray Guest

    On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:00:25 +0000, ChrisM wrote:

    > In message ,
    > ray <> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
    >
    >> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:57:12 -0600, Cams wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> I'd like to go through my shoe boxes of photos and negatives and
    >>> digitize them all. I'm looking for advice on the best way of going
    >>> about this.
    >>>
    >>> I'm looking to scan everything, rather than cherry picking individual
    >>> images, then process everything when it's done. Is there a particular
    >>> scanner that folks recommend for doing this relatively quickly and
    >>> easily? Ideally I'd like to have the capability of scanning prints as
    >>> well, in cases where I have prints but no negatives.

    >>
    >> You can't do it 'relatively quickly and easily'. If you have very
    >> many, which it sounds like you do, it will be very time consuming no
    >> matter what equipment you choose.
    >>

    >
    > Yes, it might take a while to do, but 'relatively' means compared to
    > something else, so it might take him (say) 1 months worth of effort with a
    > decent set-up, but that's relatively quicker and easier than taking 6 months
    > with the wrong equipment...


    IMHO - with the 'wrong equipment' it can't be done.
    ray, Nov 19, 2007
    #5
  6. Cams

    Ali Guest

    Scanning negatives is not a quick process if you do it yourself and
    expensive if you get someone else to do it.

    I done mine over about 6-8 months, running the scanner in the background and
    feeding it a new strip about very every half a hour. Part of the process
    was the scanning, but if you include the ICE process (to remove dust and
    scratches), it takes longer. It worked out about 6-8 minutes per frame
    (scanned at 16 bits per channel, max resolution, with ICE and saving as
    TIFF, which were about 140MB each). 6-8 minutes may not sound like much,
    but if you have thousands of photos, it's a big task. Also, this is just
    the scanning process, there is also the post production to think of, which
    will probably be about the same, unless you batch process.

    I used a Nikon film scanner myself, which was handy because it allowed me to
    just feeding the strips straight into the scanner without having to mount
    them in a holder first. Before scanning, I would clean with a lint free
    cloth, then blow the negs with a pressurized photographic air blower. Mind
    you, my negs were already in very good condition, as I stored them in
    special folders.

    I done as you are planning to do and scan everything, then sort them
    afterwards, although I didn't scan any photos that I knew were definitely
    binners.


    "Cams" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > I'd like to go through my shoe boxes of photos and negatives and
    > digitize them all. I'm looking for advice on the best way of going about
    > this.
    >
    > I'm looking to scan everything, rather than cherry picking individual
    > images, then process everything when it's done. Is there a particular
    > scanner that folks recommend for doing this relatively quickly and
    > easily? Ideally I'd like to have the capability of scanning prints as
    > well, in cases where I have prints but no negatives.
    >
    > I have both regular 35mm film and APS cartridges. Windows or Mac is
    > fine.
    >
    > My internet research seems to indicate that the Epson Perfection V700
    > or V750 would be good candidates but I'm not sure whether there is a way
    > to deal with APS film on these scanners. Also, my retailer of choice
    > would be Pixmania (they have a Luxembourg page on their site and I'm in
    > Luxembourg until January). However, I note that the one they have is
    > listed as a V750 while many sites found through Google are referencing
    > the V750-M. I can find no comparison of these two or indication of
    > whether it is indeed just an updated name for the same model. Does
    > anyone know whether the M version is more recent?
    >
    > Thanks in advance
    > Cams
    >
    >
    Ali, Nov 19, 2007
    #6
  7. Cams

    Mark Roberts Guest

    Ali wrote:

    >Scanning negatives is not a quick process if you do it yourself and
    >expensive if you get someone else to do it.


    Scanning negatives or slides is a classic example of the
    quality/speed/price choice: You get to pick any two of the three.


    --
    Mark Roberts Photography & Multimedia
    www.robertstech.com
    412-687-2835
    Mark Roberts, Nov 19, 2007
    #7
  8. Cams

    Frank ess Guest

    ray wrote:
    > On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:57:12 -0600, Cams wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> I'd like to go through my shoe boxes of photos and negatives and
    >> digitize them all. I'm looking for advice on the best way of going
    >> about this.
    >>
    >> I'm looking to scan everything, rather than cherry picking
    >> individual images, then process everything when it's done. Is
    >> there a particular scanner that folks recommend for doing this
    >> relatively quickly and easily? Ideally I'd like to have the
    >> capability of scanning prints as well, in cases where I have
    >> prints but no negatives.

    >
    > You can't do it 'relatively quickly and easily'. If you have very
    > many, which it sounds like you do, it will be very time consuming
    > no matter what equipment you choose.
    >



    ray is right as rain: if you embark on such a project, be prepared to
    become a slave to it. Often worth it in the end, but wrenching
    drudgery when the excitement dies down.

    My recommendation, as usual, is to buy good equipment (to be resold at
    the end), learn to use it properly, and have an intern learn your
    techniques and choices. Make quality control checks from time to time,
    and revel in the hours /someone else/ is spending with your scanners.

    --
    Frank ess
    Frank ess, Nov 19, 2007
    #8
  9. Cams

    Guest

    On Nov 19, 5:13 pm, "Frank ess" <> wrote:
    > ray wrote:
    > > On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:57:12 -0600, Cams wrote:

    >
    > >> I'd like to go through my shoe boxes of photos and negatives and
    > >> digitize them all. I'm looking for advice on the best way of going
    > >> about this.

    >
    > >> I'm looking to scan everything, rather than cherry picking
    > >> individual images, then process everything when it's done. Is
    > >> there a particular scanner that folks recommend for doing this
    > >> relatively quickly and easily? Ideally I'd like to have the
    > >> capability of scanning prints as well, in cases where I have
    > >> prints but no negatives.

    >
    > > You can't do it 'relatively quickly and easily'. If you have very
    > > many, which it sounds like you do, it will be very time consuming
    > > no matter what equipment you choose.

    >
    > ray is right as rain: if you embark on such a project, be prepared to
    > become a slave to it. Often worth it in the end, but wrenching
    > drudgery when the excitement dies down.
    >
    > My recommendation, as usual, is to buy good equipment (to be resold at
    > the end), learn to use it properly, and have an intern learn your
    > techniques and choices. Make quality control checks from time to time,
    > and revel in the hours /someone else/ is spending with your scanners.
    >
    > --
    > Frank ess


    I had this question a while back, and it appears that the use of a
    film scanner appears to be the best solution. However, it will cost
    money to get a decent film scanner. I recalled that the brand name of
    scanner which someone suggested was either a Canon FS4000 (>$1000) or
    Nikon Coolscan (9000 ED is over $2000).
    In addition to the cost, there are other two major problems with film
    scanner: (1) 35mm film size is small, and any tiny dust of
    imperfections will be magnified (2) time involved - film negatives
    will be subjected to conversion to positive prints, and therefore will
    require skill similar to the old fashioned darkroom skill. Perhaps
    nowadays, it is much more automated and you did not play around with
    chemical agents. However, you need some knowledge about colour and
    therefore will end up doing things more that you planned to do.

    I was initially thinking about a cheap scanner, but I was advised
    against that and did not follow through. I ended up scanning colour
    prints in a cheap scanner. It is much cheaper, but still take time and
    quality is not that great. I did more than 1 regular postcard photo in
    one shot, and then crop them into the siez of the photos. I usually do
    it at 600 dpi or more, as the cropped image may be only a quarter of
    an 8x11 size or even less (if you crammed 6 postcard photos in the
    scanner screen of 8x11).

    I even wonder if it is still cheaper and less time if I just order the
    brand new prints from the negatives and then scanned the photos. It
    may end up cheaper than buying a $2000 scanner (plus extra time
    consumed). However, I have over 2000 photos to scan and if it cost $2
    each, it will cost $4000!. It is amusing to note that if you ask the
    photo lab to get digital files when you order your prints, it only
    cost $2 more for the whole 36 photos. However, if it already cut into
    6 strips, it is much more time for them to scan and get the digital
    files, and the technician has to insert them one strip at a time.
    Therefore the cost of $2 per photo. It is a time consuming job, either
    using regular print scanner or even more if you have to use a film
    scanner.

    Hope that this help. I never purchase that expensive Canon or Nikon
    film scanner. I heard that they are excellent, except expensive.
    Remember again.. a tiny speckle in a small size negative or a smudge
    will be magnified. Hoep that this help you. I do recall recently of an
    Epson V700 ($500) or V750 M Pro ($800), but I don't know whether they
    are as good as the more expensive Canon and Nikon film scanner. Note
    that there is another discussion in this same newsgroup about this
    same topic. Please read that one too.
    , Nov 20, 2007
    #9
  10. <> wrote:
    > On Nov 19, 5:13 pm, "Frank ess" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> My recommendation, as usual, is to buy good equipment (to be resold at
    >> the end), learn to use it properly, and have an intern learn your
    >> techniques and choices. Make quality control checks from time to time,
    >> and revel in the hours /someone else/ is spending with your scanners.
    >> Frank ess


    Sensible advice. Although finding an "intern" is probably impossible<g>.

    > I had this question a while back, and it appears that the use of a
    > film scanner appears to be the best solution. However, it will cost
    > money to get a decent film scanner. I recalled that the brand name of
    > scanner which someone suggested was either a Canon FS4000 (>$1000) or
    > Nikon Coolscan (9000 ED is over $2000).


    Uh, no. If all you need is 35mm, the Nikon Coolscan V is excellent and is
    under US$600 new.

    The Canon 4000 is discontinued and the Nikon 9000 is expensive because it
    also scans medium format up to 56x86mm.

    > In addition to the cost, there are other two major problems with film
    > scanner: (1) 35mm film size is small, and any tiny dust of
    > imperfections will be magnified


    This is only a problem with traditional B&W film, the ICE technology detects
    and fixes dust imperfections during scanning for color films and C41 process
    B&W films.

    > (2) time involved - film negatives
    > will be subjected to conversion to positive prints, and therefore will
    > require skill similar to the old fashioned darkroom skill.


    It's not that bad. You get a positive image from the scanner. But you do
    have to adjust it. It's very similar to the adjustments required during raw
    conversion: black and white points, contrast, and color temperature
    adjustments, noise reduction, resampling to size for printing, and
    sharpening.

    > Hope that this help. I never purchase that expensive Canon or Nikon
    > film scanner. I heard that they are excellent, except expensive.
    > Remember again.. a tiny speckle in a small size negative or a smudge
    > will be magnified. Hoep that this help you. I do recall recently of an
    > Epson V700 ($500) or V750 M Pro ($800), but I don't know whether they
    > are as good as the more expensive Canon and Nikon film scanner.


    The Epsons are roughly the same price or a bit more than the Coolscan V, and
    not as good. But they can scan up to at least 4x5 film.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 20, 2007
    #10
  11. Cams

    Cams Guest

    Thanks for the input. Since posting I discovered the dedicated scanner
    forum (where I ought to have posted!) - please forgive my newbie-ness!
    I spent a while reading the threads that interested me and learned a
    great deal. This thread has been helpful also, particularly with regard
    to learning the time required.

    I'm not really looking to scan images with a view possibly to printing
    ANY of them. In fact, the idea is to get rid of my existing prints and
    have everything archived and tagged digitally. So with the idea that I
    won't ever print any of my digital scans, would I not be able to scan at
    lower than maximum resolution and thereby speed up the process?

    I have several shoeboxes filled with a lifetime's worth of photos (say
    20 years?), many of which are not really worth keeping but might still
    be worth having low-res jpegs. A lot of them are still in the print-shop
    envelopes with accompanying negatives but I guess there will be a lot
    for which a) I have no negatives or b) which are not stored with the
    negatives.

    The original plan was to scan the photos first. This is because we are
    about to move house (in 6 weeks' time) and I wanted to get rid of
    several albums of photos. I would do the negative scanning process later
    on after we had moved and replace any scanned photos with the
    corresponding negative once/if found. Does scanning photos take as long
    as scanning negatives? And with regard to the Epson V7x0 scanners, is
    the V750 faster than the V700?

    Many thanks for the help. I'm very glad to have found these forums!
    Cams, Nov 20, 2007
    #11
  12. Cams

    ChrisM Guest

    In message ,
    ray <> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

    > On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:00:25 +0000, ChrisM wrote:
    >
    >> In message ,
    >> ray <> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:57:12 -0600, Cams wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I'd like to go through my shoe boxes of photos and negatives and
    >>>> digitize them all. I'm looking for advice on the best way of going
    >>>> about this.
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm looking to scan everything, rather than cherry picking
    >>>> individual images, then process everything when it's done. Is
    >>>> there a particular scanner that folks recommend for doing this
    >>>> relatively quickly and easily? Ideally I'd like to have the
    >>>> capability of scanning prints as well, in cases where I have
    >>>> prints but no negatives.
    >>>
    >>> You can't do it 'relatively quickly and easily'. If you have very
    >>> many, which it sounds like you do, it will be very time consuming no
    >>> matter what equipment you choose.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Yes, it might take a while to do, but 'relatively' means compared to
    >> something else, so it might take him (say) 1 months worth of effort
    >> with a decent set-up, but that's relatively quicker and easier than
    >> taking 6 months with the wrong equipment...

    >
    > IMHO - with the 'wrong equipment' it can't be done.


    For wrong, read not ideal rather than completely incorrect.

    --
    Regards,
    Chris.
    (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
    ChrisM, Nov 20, 2007
    #12
  13. Cams

    tomm42 Guest

    On Nov 19, 8:08 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    > <> wrote:
    > > On Nov 19, 5:13 pm, "Frank ess" <> wrote:

    >
    > >> My recommendation, as usual, is to buy good equipment (to be resold at
    > >> the end), learn to use it properly, and have an intern learn your
    > >> techniques and choices. Make quality control checks from time to time,
    > >> and revel in the hours /someone else/ is spending with your scanners.
    > >> Frank ess

    >
    > Sensible advice. Although finding an "intern" is probably impossible<g>.
    >
    > > I had this question a while back, and it appears that the use of a
    > > film scanner appears to be the best solution. However, it will cost
    > > money to get a decent film scanner. I recalled that the brand name of
    > > scanner which someone suggested was either a Canon FS4000 (>$1000) or
    > > Nikon Coolscan (9000 ED is over $2000).

    >
    > Uh, no. If all you need is 35mm, the Nikon Coolscan V is excellent and is
    > under US$600 new.
    >
    > The Canon 4000 is discontinued and the Nikon 9000 is expensive because it
    > also scans medium format up to 56x86mm.
    >
    > > In addition to the cost, there are other two major problems with film
    > > scanner: (1) 35mm film size is small, and any tiny dust of
    > > imperfections will be magnified

    >
    > This is only a problem with traditional B&W film, the ICE technology detects
    > and fixes dust imperfections during scanning for color films and C41 process
    > B&W films.
    >
    > > (2) time involved - film negatives
    > > will be subjected to conversion to positive prints, and therefore will
    > > require skill similar to the old fashioned darkroom skill.

    >
    > It's not that bad. You get a positive image from the scanner. But you do
    > have to adjust it. It's very similar to the adjustments required during raw
    > conversion: black and white points, contrast, and color temperature
    > adjustments, noise reduction, resampling to size for printing, and
    > sharpening.
    >
    > > Hope that this help. I never purchase that expensive Canon or Nikon
    > > film scanner. I heard that they are excellent, except expensive.
    > > Remember again.. a tiny speckle in a small size negative or a smudge
    > > will be magnified. Hoep that this help you. I do recall recently of an
    > > Epson V700 ($500) or V750 M Pro ($800), but I don't know whether they
    > > are as good as the more expensive Canon and Nikon film scanner.

    >
    > The Epsons are roughly the same price or a bit more than the Coolscan V, and
    > not as good. But they can scan up to at least 4x5 film.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan



    The Epson V700 does a decent job of scanning, the latest Nikon
    scanners are probably better, but I did put away my older Nikon LS2000
    after I got my V700, it was faster, had more dynamic range while
    sharpness was very close, sometimes the Epson won sometimes the Nikon.
    Oh yes the Nikon was just 3 months out of overhaul at Nikon Melville
    NY.
    The Epson can take 12 slides at a time and batch scan, and 24 35mm
    negs. 12 and 24 images is enough just to let the scanner do its thing
    while you can be productive at other things. Not sure of APS but isn't
    that the same width as 35? If it is the neg carriers can take the
    film. Each scan at 3200ppi for slides, negs will take 3 minutes,
    double that if you use Digital Ice. The Epson require a little setup
    to get the best sharpness out of the unit, but the work is rewarded
    with good scans. The scans are not shabby at all and for a project
    like you have this is probably the scanner you want.

    Tom
    tomm42, Nov 20, 2007
    #13
  14. Cams

    Ali Guest

    Take note or Franks post, that's good advise.


    "Frank ess" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > My recommendation, as usual, is to buy good equipment (to be resold at the
    > end), learn to use it properly, and have an intern learn your techniques
    > and choices. Make quality control checks from time to time, and revel in
    > the hours /someone else/ is spending with your scanners.
    Ali, Nov 20, 2007
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. G. Huang

    Flat Bed Scanner + Enlarger = Film Scanner?

    G. Huang, Jan 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    2,985
    ONiLX
    Aug 7, 2011
  2. Albert Ma

    epson (or others) flat bed scanner vs film scanner

    Albert Ma, Oct 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    634
    Michael A. Covington
    Oct 30, 2004
  3. Rick Baker
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,170
    Scott W
    Mar 17, 2006
  4. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    3,925
    Michael Benveniste
    Jun 13, 2006
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    838
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page