Scanning

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by m Ransley, Jan 21, 2006.

  1. m Ransley

    m Ransley Guest

    I will be getting a scanner+printer or scan, fax, copy, print machine
    to convert Kodachromes and fine grain 35 film , the Kodachromes start
    from 1947 so there are thousands of good ones to pick from. Do I need a
    dedicated film scanner and printer to bring out the quality I have or
    can one of the new 400$ Canon-Epson-HP machine do me justice in the
    Scan-Print department. Im sure there are tradeoffs in the all in one
    units.
    m Ransley, Jan 21, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. m Ransley

    miles Guest

    m Ransley wrote:
    > I will be getting a scanner+printer or scan, fax, copy, print machine
    > to convert Kodachromes and fine grain 35 film , the Kodachromes start
    > from 1947 so there are thousands of good ones to pick from. Do I need a
    > dedicated film scanner and printer to bring out the quality I have or
    > can one of the new 400$ Canon-Epson-HP machine do me justice in the
    > Scan-Print department. Im sure there are tradeoffs in the all in one
    > units.


    I have yet to see any home color printer capable of producing excellent
    results at a price equal to or lower than a photo shop. The paper and
    ink costs are still just too high. I just use a scanner and take the
    images to a photo shop to be printed. Much cheaper with great results.

    Another option depending on your camera is to get a 35mm slide mount for
    it to convert to digital.
    miles, Jan 21, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. m Ransley

    m Ransley Guest

    I know the cost is higher that is not my concern, I see 400$ photo
    scanners, 400$ photo printers, then 400$ fax, copy, scan, print
    machines, I want the control and the possibility of a all in one unit as
    I need fax and copy . The issue is trying to get the best out of
    Kodachrome, maybe I need all three machines
    m Ransley, Jan 21, 2006
    #3
  4. "m Ransley" <> wrote:
    >I know the cost is higher that is not my concern, I see 400$ photo
    > scanners, 400$ photo printers, then 400$ fax, copy, scan, print
    > machines, I want the control and the possibility of a all in one unit as
    > I need fax and copy . The issue is trying to get the best out of
    > Kodachrome, maybe I need all three machines


    Flatbeds are getting better, but they're not there yet. Here's the Epson
    4870 vs. the Nikon 8000.

    http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original
    http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325/original

    Kodachrome is, apparently, hard to scan, but the latest Nikon scanners (V,
    5000, 9000) are claimed to do better than earlier scanners.

    If your old film is worth scanning, you'd probably be happiest with either a
    Nikon 5000 or Konica-Minolta 5400, but Konica-Minolta is getting out of the
    photography business, so it's not clear what's happening with that scanner.
    The Nikon V would be a close second.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Jan 21, 2006
    #4
  5. m Ransley

    Steven Toney Guest

    speaking of scanner flim/slide

    I have many hundreds to thousand of slides to scan for myself and from a few
    friends

    I have KM Dimage dual Scan IV -- that does ok for 4 slides at a time

    but for doing many I think I'm going to buy something that can do more
    slides at a batch
    thoughts on the

    Braun Multimag 4000 scanner or the Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED with the 50 slide
    batch accessory

    the 1st is roughly 1250$ and the Nikon stuff is 980$ + 450$ for the batch
    slide add-on

    so the nikon is 200-300 more



    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:dqtk0k$u59$...
    >
    > "m Ransley" <> wrote:
    >>I know the cost is higher that is not my concern, I see 400$ photo
    >> scanners, 400$ photo printers, then 400$ fax, copy, scan, print
    >> machines, I want the control and the possibility of a all in one unit as
    >> I need fax and copy . The issue is trying to get the best out of
    >> Kodachrome, maybe I need all three machines

    >
    > Flatbeds are getting better, but they're not there yet. Here's the Epson
    > 4870 vs. the Nikon 8000.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original
    > http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325/original
    >
    > Kodachrome is, apparently, hard to scan, but the latest Nikon scanners (V,
    > 5000, 9000) are claimed to do better than earlier scanners.
    >
    > If your old film is worth scanning, you'd probably be happiest with either
    > a Nikon 5000 or Konica-Minolta 5400, but Konica-Minolta is getting out of
    > the photography business, so it's not clear what's happening with that
    > scanner. The Nikon V would be a close second.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >
    Steven Toney, Jan 21, 2006
    #5
  6. m Ransley

    tomm42 Guest

    m Ransley wrote:
    > I will be getting a scanner+printer or scan, fax, copy, print machine
    > to convert Kodachromes and fine grain 35 film , the Kodachromes start
    > from 1947 so there are thousands of good ones to pick from. Do I need a
    > dedicated film scanner and printer to bring out the quality I have or
    > can one of the new 400$ Canon-Epson-HP machine do me justice in the
    > Scan-Print department. Im sure there are tradeoffs in the all in one
    > units.


    All depends on what you need, the Epson 4990 will do a good job if you
    are not printing over 8x10. If you want max detail then then Minolta
    5400 or Nikon 5000 is your answer. The Epson is a flatbed scanner and
    can do 12 slides at a time. The Minolta 5400 can do 4 and I'm not
    ertain about the Nikon. Kodachrome may be a problem, as the emulsion
    structure is very different from Ektachrome type slide film.
    Printing is a whole different question, good home printing has a little
    learning curve. Some folks are happy going the Walmart/Cosco route. I
    have never been happy with their prints. Depending on how many you are
    going to print, I don't print many so I'm happy to do my own. Printers
    such as the Epson R1800/R800, 2400, and the HP designjet series do a
    great job and are worth looking into.

    Tom
    tomm42, Jan 21, 2006
    #6
  7. m Ransley

    m Ransley Guest

    A scanner that sounds good at 600$ is the MicroTek Scan Maker i900 dual
    scan bed 3200dpi Dmax @4.2. It comes with Scan Wizard pro, Digital Ice.
    LaserSoft SilverFast Ai6 and Kodack color management. I think it does 12
    slides at a time.
    m Ransley, Jan 21, 2006
    #7
  8. m Ransley

    rafe b Guest

    On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:27:21 -0600, (m Ransley)
    wrote:

    > A scanner that sounds good at 600$ is the MicroTek Scan Maker i900 dual
    >scan bed 3200dpi Dmax @4.2. It comes with Scan Wizard pro, Digital Ice.
    >LaserSoft SilverFast Ai6 and Kodack color management. I think it does 12
    >slides at a time.



    If your interest is in slides, avoid the Microtek.

    Get yourself a Minolta 5400, or a Dimage film
    scanner. The Microtek is not in the same league.
    Trust me on this.

    If the appeal of the Microtek is the ability to
    scan several slides at a time, consider the
    Epson 4990. It holds eight slides at a throw,
    or four 35mm filmstrips. It's rated at 4800
    dpi, and I'd say "realistically" delivers about
    half that. It's around $400 at places like Amazon.

    The Epson also comes with Silverfast.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
    rafe b, Jan 21, 2006
    #8
  9. m Ransley

    Tesco News Guest

    "m Ransley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I will be getting a scanner+printer or scan, fax, copy, print machine
    > to convert Kodachromes and fine grain 35 film , the Kodachromes start
    > from 1947 so there are thousands of good ones to pick from. Do I need a
    > dedicated film scanner and printer to bring out the quality I have or
    > can one of the new 400$ Canon-Epson-HP machine do me justice in the
    > Scan-Print department. Im sure there are tradeoffs in the all in one
    > units.
    >


    Hi.

    An "All in One" is by definition a Compromise.

    If you want quality results you need a Film Scanner. If you want to produce
    good Quality Prints from your scans you need a Quality Photo Printer.
    Neither of these will be cheap.

    You may also need a flatbed scanner for generating Faxes from documents, or
    scanning the odd Print or two, but neither of these functions require high
    quality, so you should be able to get one of these for very little cost.

    Roy G
    Tesco News, Jan 22, 2006
    #9
  10. m Ransley

    m Ransley Guest

    Should each slide be scanned individualy , will a batch film scaner not
    give optimum results since no two photos are equal. I would think
    negatives batch scanned would be best. Scanning 1000 old slides
    individualy will take forever.
    m Ransley, Jan 22, 2006
    #10
  11. m Ransley

    rafe b Guest

    On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 07:59:25 -0600, (m Ransley)
    wrote:

    > Should each slide be scanned individualy , will a batch film scaner not
    >give optimum results since no two photos are equal. I would think
    >negatives batch scanned would be best. Scanning 1000 old slides
    >individualy will take forever.



    If you're interested in the best possible scan,
    you need to treat each slide or negative
    individually.

    If your need is to archive thousands of
    slides, a compromise may be required.

    I can't tell you which way to go. It's your
    life, and your time at stake.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
    rafe b, Jan 22, 2006
    #11
  12. m Ransley

    Steven Toney Guest

    I agree it is better to do each slide separate, hence my original post on a
    choice of scanner to hanlde more than 4 slides at a time
    see below: anyone use the braun or nikon with 50 or so slides at a time in a
    btach scan mode..

    Is there a preferred technigue for cleaning \ dusting slides -- canned air,
    camel hair brush -- some specific cleaning soultion and swabs??

    speaking of scanner flim/slide

    I have many hundreds to thousand of slides to scan for myself and from a few
    friends

    I have KM Dimage dual Scan IV -- that does ok for 4 slides at a time

    but for doing many I think I'm going to buy something that can do more
    slides at a batch
    thoughts on the

    Braun Multimag 4000 scanner or the Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED with the 50 slide
    batch accessory

    the 1st is roughly 1250$ and the Nikon stuff is 980$ + 450$ for the batch
    slide add-on

    so the nikon is 200-300 more


    "rafe b" <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 07:59:25 -0600, (m Ransley)
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Should each slide be scanned individualy , will a batch film scaner not
    >>give optimum results since no two photos are equal. I would think
    >>negatives batch scanned would be best. Scanning 1000 old slides
    >>individualy will take forever.

    >
    >
    > If you're interested in the best possible scan,
    > you need to treat each slide or negative
    > individually.
    >
    > If your need is to archive thousands of
    > slides, a compromise may be required.
    >
    > I can't tell you which way to go. It's your
    > life, and your time at stake.
    >
    >
    > rafe b
    > www.terrapinphoto.com
    Steven Toney, Jan 22, 2006
    #12
    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. =?Utf-8?B?WmVyb2JpYXM=?=

    Scanning Wireless Lans

    =?Utf-8?B?WmVyb2JpYXM=?=, Oct 19, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    441
    =?Utf-8?B?WmVyb2JpYXM=?=
    Oct 19, 2005
  2. Lost & confused

    Scanning my disk for errors

    Lost & confused, Jun 12, 2004, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    497
    =?Utf-8?B?Qm9iYnk=?=
    Jun 17, 2004
  3. Joe
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    432
  4. =?Utf-8?B?QWxleA==?=

    Wirless preinting and scanning.

    =?Utf-8?B?QWxleA==?=, Feb 13, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    444
    David T
    Mar 5, 2006
  5. Guena

    No email scanning with AVG antivirus

    Guena, Aug 18, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    565
    Mr_Bill
    Aug 18, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page