Recommend gear to digitize 35mm snapshot negatives?

[David Arnstein]

I have a few hundred snapshots that I would like to digitize. I have
both negatives and prints available; the prints are mostly 5x7 inches.

It is better to scan the negatives than the prints, right? The photos
are only "snapshot" quality, generated by an Olympus Stylus Zoom 115 35
mm camera.

I'm wondering how much scanner I need. Speed isn't important, but I
would like to achieve image quality that is at least as good (subjectively)
as my pile of 5x7 prints.

Is a flatbed scanner a good idea? It would be convenient, since I could
use the scanner for other purposes. But I could go with a film scanner
if that is what I need.

What scanner is recommended for this application? Thanks in advance
for suggestions.

 

[keyes04]

Is a flatbed scanner a good idea? It would be convenient, since I could
use the scanner for other purposes. But I could go with a film scanner
if that is what I need.

Wayne Fulton has a very nice piece on this at:

http://www.scantips.com/basics12.html

The whole site is excellent,for that matter (just strip out
"basics12.html" in the URL for the home page). He basically says that
if you can afford it, a film scanner is the way to go ideally, but
that a flatbed with a transparency unit in the lid (or separate) can
be OK for some purposes. Personally, I'm archiving over 50 years
worth of slides for family purposes, and am rather satisfied for that
purpose with my older Epson 1650 and Vuescan.

But for some of my "prize" <g> negs and slides, I'd rather have a
dedicated film scanner I think. Plus, it's just plain
S...L...O...W... with the flatbed (and I've got an Athlon 3000+ with a
gig of RAM). But money is an issue at this end, so we're making do
with the flatbed (and rather pleased).

C.R.

 

[Don]

I've used both a Minolta Dimage film scanner and an Epson 1640 with a
transparency adapter. The film scanner is definitely better by far. The
problem with flat bed scanners is that the focus is fixed and usually not
well positioned. If you scan a test target you will usually find that you
never achieve the advertised "optical resolution." It may lay down 2400
dpi, but not resolve anything near that.

A good film scanner has both autofocus and manual focus. I've found that
the autofocus works reasonably well if the film is fairly flat. If the film
or slide is badly cupped, most autofocus systems focus on the middle. You
can often improve on that with manual focus.

The disadvantage to the film scanner is, of course, cost. Expect to pay
$600-$1000 for a good quality film scanner, whereas you can get a latbed
with a film adapter for about $200-$300.

BTW, make sure the film adapter has a separate illumination source in the
lid. I once had an HP scanner with a "film adapter" that was nothing more
than a mirrored corner reflector to reroute the regular illumination source
over the top of the film. It wasn't worth using.

Don

 

[David R]

You did a great job at listing your needs!

Yes film is generally better than prints so long as they are in good
condition.

Ask yourself "what is the quality of my film?". Is in excellent
condition or is it old and perhaps scratched up and even worse, MOLD?
Also ask yourself if this is something that will easily become a major
hobby of yours or if it's just a short project.
Finally ask yourself, "do you have a few slides and film but mostly
prints or is it evenly spaced between?".

I really like the line up from Epson. They make quality flat bed
scanners at all price ranges. I suggest you look at the following.

Epson 3170 ($200). If you're mostly prints and your film is in good
quality.
Epson 4870 ($450). If you are obsessive or you will be scanning a lot
of film, some prints, or the it's evenly matched but the quality is
poor. This scanner has DI (digital ice). DI has been around for a
few years supporting dedicated film scanners. Recently it has moved
into the flat bed scanner market supporting film and prints. Epson is
the first to use DI that supports both film and prints.

I have the Epson 3200. It's a great scanner that came before the 3170
and 4870. I also have a Minolta F-2900 that is a dedicated film
scanner with DI. I purchased it off ebay used. I use my 3200 for
prints and medium format film and the 2900 for slides and 35mm film.

Listen to what others may say. I'm just one voice. Do a search in
google on these products like Epson, 3200, 3170, 4870, Digital Ice.
Go to www.pcworld.com and read their reviews. Also look at
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/ and their reviews.

Good luck and don't stop asking questions.

 

[Raphael Bustin]

I have a few hundred snapshots that I would like to digitize. I have
both negatives and prints available; the prints are mostly 5x7 inches.

It is better to scan the negatives than the prints, right? The photos
are only "snapshot" quality, generated by an Olympus Stylus Zoom 115 35
mm camera.

I'm wondering how much scanner I need. Speed isn't important, but I
would like to achieve image quality that is at least as good (subjectively)
as my pile of 5x7 prints.

Is a flatbed scanner a good idea? It would be convenient, since I could
use the scanner for other purposes. But I could go with a film scanner
if that is what I need.

What scanner is recommended for this application? Thanks in advance
for suggestions.

Get a used film scanner on eBay -- one of the
many decent 2700 dpi film scanners from
Polaroid, Nikon, Minolta or Canon that were
current about three years ago. You can
probably get one of these for well under $200.

Eg., Polaroid SprintScan Plus, Canon FS2710,
Nikon LS-2000, LS-30, etc.

You really need a dedicated film scanner to
do justice to 35 mm.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Maris V. Lidaka Sr.]

I agree - a filmscanner is the way to go. Check out eBay, for example

<<http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?cgiurl=http://cgi.ebay.com%
2Fws%2F&krd=1&from=R8&MfcISAPICommand=GetResult&ht=1&SortProperty=MetaEndSor
t&query=nikon+ls-30>>

Maris

 

[David R]

How is he going to scan his prints with a film scanner?

 

[JMooreTS]

How is he going to scan his prints with a film scanner?

The original question included:

" I have both negatives and prints available"

 

[Andy Salnikov]

You did a great job at listing your needs!

Yes film is generally better than prints so long as they are in good
condition.

Ask yourself "what is the quality of my film?". Is in excellent
condition or is it old and perhaps scratched up and even worse, MOLD?
Also ask yourself if this is something that will easily become a major
hobby of yours or if it's just a short project.
Finally ask yourself, "do you have a few slides and film but mostly
prints or is it evenly spaced between?".

I really like the line up from Epson. They make quality flat bed
scanners at all price ranges. I suggest you look at the following.

Epson 3170 ($200). If you're mostly prints and your film is in good
quality.

I would not recommend this one. I had HP S20 which is rather old and
is not produced anymore (bought it last summer on eBay for $60). S20
can scan films at 2400 dpi and prints up to 5x7 at 300 dpi, but it has its
problems, noise is bad on dark slides. I decided to experiment with
something new and not very expensive and bought 3170 which has
advertised resolution 3200 dpi. After playing with it for two weeks I
decided
to return it. It might have better noise than my S20 and probably
marginally better color, but it's not even close to 3200 dpi. In fact my
impression is that its resoluton is even lower than S20's 2400dpi. Images
from negatives and slides are plain blurry.

Andy.