Flatbed vs Dedicated Film Scanner

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steven Kefford
  • Start date Start date
S

Steven Kefford

Hi,

With Canon dropping their dedicated film scanners, are flatbeds now as
good as dedicated film scanners for scanning film?

Steve
 
Canon never revised their film scanner designs since they were introduced
about 4 years ago. Canon film scanners probably have not even been
manufactured for several years and were simply sold from warehouse stock.

There are very few high end flat bed scanners that can yield results from
35mm materials that compare to dedicated film scanners for anything other
than snapshot quality work. However if you do not understand the whys or
appreciate what you are seeing than the quality issue is a non-starter.
 
Steven said:
Hi,

With Canon dropping their dedicated film scanners, are flatbeds now as
good as dedicated film scanners for scanning film?

Steve
Click to expand...

So far I've been delighted with my Canon 4200F scanner. I'm comparing
it to the results I'm getting with this scanner and the results I got
with my Polaroid SprintScan 35 film scanner scanning both slides and
negatives. Actually the amount of correction I'm doing using the
flatbed scanner is much less than I was doing with the film scanner, so
the total time involved is less. So far I've only been displaying the
results of the flatbed scanner on a monitor or editing them in
Photoshop, but that was usually what I did with the output of the film
scanner too.

Bernie
 
It could be that the pictures I have held in my hands done with film
scanners were done by people who did not know how to use their dedicated
film scanners.
However, I have done some tests with my Epson 2450 of some of my negatives
that I have printed in a darkroom and MY results are very good. My ultimate
test will be of course to show the scanned negs to another photographer or a
gallery owner and see if the results of my flatbed scanner passes the
muster.
Before I got my Epson2450 at Goodwill ($20.00 ! ! !) I did a workaround with
a scanner with no provision for a transparency adapter. Here is a link to a
page showing what I did:
http://www.tom-elliott-photography.com/hp-scanner.html
So that being the case, IMHO if you know your software YES flatbeds do rival
and surpass the film scanners.
Have fun.
Yours truly,
Tom Elliott
 
It could be that the pictures I have held in my hands done with film
scanners were done by people who did not know how to use their dedicated
film scanners.
However, I have done some tests with my Epson 2450 of some of my negatives
that I have printed in a darkroom and MY results are very good. My ultimate
test will be of course to show the scanned negs to another photographer or a
gallery owner and see if the results of my flatbed scanner passes the
muster.
Before I got my Epson2450 at Goodwill ($20.00 ! ! !) I did a workaround with
a scanner with no provision for a transparency adapter. Here is a link to a
page showing what I did:
http://www.tom-elliott-photography.com/hp-scanner.html
So that being the case, IMHO if you know your software YES flatbeds do rival
and surpass the film scanners.
Click to expand...

You *are* joking I hope?
 
Joking about what?
The $20 spent on the scanner? No.
Quality? No. I have a photographer friend who had a dedicated film scanner
and as a challenge I took his slide and scanned it on my HP Rube Goldberg
setup and my scan was better than his scanner AND he also had a slide copy
lens and tried to use it and could not. It was the Sony, I think, that you
screwed on the front of a 50mm lens. I got great copies of slides negs etc
for video and pics to use in a monthly B&W newsletter.
The aim of the statement was to illustrate one can have the VERY best in
hardware and not not get good results. The "nut" behind the wheel makes all
the difference. I have read on these newsgroups how some buy the best
hardware and software and complain the combination is junk. And as you know
(I read your valuable posts all over the net) just because one has the best
is no guarentee the hardware will work together or that the softeware will
be mastered.
I really like and use Kodaks ProCD system for jobs my current hardware
(Epson 2450) can not do. I delivered a 16x20 Color portrait that consisted
of two ProCD scans, one for the head and one for the body. It was done on
35mm. I have always had good "luck".
The Hollywood shots were all done on 35mm tri-x pushed to 1,000asa - D23 1:1
@ 65F. Minimal agatation. For all my available light shots I have been
pushing tri-x to 1,000asa since 1958. Now when I have controll over the
lights or I know I will have more light I use the appropiat film/chemistry.
I have yet to use a dedicated film scanner, and as I learn more and "see"
more, and have more experience I will no doubt change MHO. In the meantime:
ProPhotCd and my Epson2450 work for me and my clients.
 
I take it you mean flatbeds that cost approximately the same as the
dedicated consumer film scanners, no. Professional flatbeds, starting at
well over $15k, however, very much outperform consumer film scanners. That
is they give professional results.

Dane
 
Eastside said:
I take it you mean flatbeds that cost approximately the same as the
dedicated consumer film scanners, no. Professional flatbeds, starting at
well over $15k, however, very much outperform consumer film scanners. That
is they give professional results.
Click to expand...

The Aztek Plateau comes to mind. :)

Fernando
 
Wow, you guys are tough. ;-)
Anyhow I think that my comments reflect my present state of experience and
demonstrate a willingness to learn. So, in that vein, if you know of someone
here in the Miami, Florida, area that is willing to demonstrate, head to
head my scans of one of my negs done with my system and then take that same
neg and do a scan on their system I am for it. Meanwhile small pictures,
8x10 and smaller my system, larger up to 16x10 and larger, then PhotoProCD
by Kodak.
Have fun,
Yours,
Tom "not legally blind" Elliott, really
 
Joking about what?
The $20 spent on the scanner? No.
Quality? No. I have a photographer friend who had a dedicated film scanner
and as a challenge I took his slide and scanned it on my HP Rube Goldberg
setup and my scan was better than his scanner
Click to expand...

The either his scanner was crap or he was an incompetent user.
 
Back
Top