I really need a hand here. I have an older EPSON scanner that is more of a flatbed and with an annoying adapter plugged in and some other adapters and adjustments, it becomes a film scanner. It's time for a change. I need a reasonably price, truly reliable film scanner to get my negatives into photoshop. I'm not technically savy when it comes to scanners so I need something simple. I am also usins a MAC so USB and MAC compatible would be perfect. Any suggestions would truly be appreciated. Sincerel

-- Gabe (egabe@earthlink.net), May 15, 2002

Answers

Nikon LS4000.

-- David Cunningham (images@dmcphoto.net), May 15, 2002.

I really don't know what you mean by «reasonably priced» but I don't think you can go wrong with something like the Nikon IV ED. But be careful. Good scanning of negs does require some learning, and software wich comes with the Nikon scanners (Nikon Scan 3.1) is not very easy. The pdf manual, for one, is a shame it's so unclear. Also, I've had problems wiht it in Mac OS 9.1, not in OS 9.2. Go figure. And it plugs into Firewire. Good luck.

-- Olivier (olreiche@videotron.ca), May 15, 2002.

Canoscan 4000US. Half the price of a Nikon LS4000. USB and SCSI.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 15, 2002.

Gabe I am not that knowledgeable on this topic, but I can give you my feedback on my experience. I own an Epson Perfection 1650 and it is quite ok. If you can afford it, go for the next model up (forget the name), as it is meant to be much better. For scanning to get shots on the net, the 1650 is sufficient.

Unfortuantely I have the following problems. 1. It doesn't have a turn off switch. it stays on with power saver making a noise and having a light on at all times- annoying. 2. It has a lot of trouble scanning dark slides (negs are better). Sometimes I need to repeat scanning (previewing) many times and rearranging the slide order and angle. 3. Sometimes It makes funny noises and I need to scan again.

Otherwise, most of the time, it functions quite well, and the software is relatively easy to use. It is also quite cheap too.

Below is an example of a scanned image. Taken with M6, 35/1.4 Asph at f/4 1/50 sec with Nikon SC-17 cord and Sunpak Softlite 1400a mini flash.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), May 15, 2002.

It's got to be the Nikon 4000ED - the ONLY 'affordable' desktop scanner that can make neg scans look as good as tranny. If the cheaper V is a copy of the old LS2000 stay away from it as it just can't make an acceptable job of negs ( I have both a 2000 and 4000). Nikon software is horrible - but the latest 3.2.1 release ( last Dec) is just about acceptable. The trouble is you need this to do negs properly. They also give you a Firewire card with the scanner so it should run on any desktop Mac (ex earlier Imacs). IMHO it's not worth trying to save money on a film scanner - the more information you can extract ( in a coherent manner) from a neg/tranny means less work later on in an Image editing program like Photoshop. I was doing some batch scanning of negs on my 4000 last night - all they needed was cropping as the output is so good.

-- Johann Fuller (johannfuller@hotmail.com), May 15, 2002.

Gabe, I use an old scanner HP Photoscan. I think it is more than adequate for web use and simple to use. I have resisted getting a newer scanner, foolishly because; a. I sit in front of a terminal 8+ hrs a day on my day job. and b. I will need to upgrade computers to use a better scanner. Both bogus reasons not to get a better scanner. I have looked at the gamut of scanners out there and read umpteen reviews. First I thought I needed the Coolscan 4000 at $1600, then because money is always part of the equation I thought I would maybe get the midrange Nikon scanners at around $800. Currently I am leaning toward the Dimage Elite II because of its high dynamic range for that price point $659 @ B&H with fire wire. An attractive alternative for medium weight with good quality use is the Epson 2450 flat bed scanner @ $400. I think you need to consider four things when upgrading your scanner; fairly high performance computer with at least 256 and preferably 512 RAM, newer higher quality Scanner $300- 1600, good scanner software and Photoshop, and a high quality Photo printer (Epson 890/1280, Canon or HP) $300-500. Good luck.

-- Gil Pruitt (wgpinc@yahoo.com), May 15, 2002.

Don't even think about getting anything other than a dedicated film scanner (this means stay away from flatbeds with tranny hoods) unless you are only doing rough scans to put on the web. Get demo's on the scanners in your price range - and get demo's with neg film - this is crucial! most scanners can deal acceptably with tranny - the only difference being in sharpness and shadow detail. Getting neg to look right is another matter it needs good software and hardware to be able to extract and expand the very compressed tonality of a neg.

-- Johann Fuller (johannfuller@hotmail.com), May 15, 2002.

For top quality with a consumer product, have a look at the Canon Canoscan FS4000.

Optical res. of 4000 dpi, 4.2 density range at a price a little more than half the one for the Nikon 4000. Connectivity through USB or SCSI. Works with PCs and Macs.

If you want something cheaper you will have to settle with a dpi around 2000. In this range, Minolta scanners are terrific.

-- Xavier C. (xcolmant@powerir.com), May 15, 2002.

Ah, "reasonably priced". Now, there's a loaded word!

Like Johann, I use a Nikon Coolscan 4000ED. They are about $1400. The Coolscan IV is about $800. While I love the 4000ED and would buy one again, I believe that the IV is actually better value. The optics are identical to the 4000ED and both scanners were released at the same time (i.e. the IV is definitely not a copy of the older LS2000). The 4000ED is higher resolution that the IV (4000dpi vs. 2900dpi) and according the Nikon, the dynamic range of the 4000ED is better. The 4000ED also uses FireWire, where the IV uses USB.

But...

I don't think any of this makes much difference. I have both scanners in our lab, as well as a $15000 Imacon scanner and the two Nikons are very similar in quality (on 8 x 10 prints, I can't see the difference at all). Actually, the Nikons do a good job even against the Imacon.

What I would also suggest is that you start with the included NikonScan software but switch to VueScan (www.hamrick.com). NikonScan is more stable on the Mac than on the PC but both versions have very poor color management. VueScan is a superior product (and is about $40!).

Good luck with your decision.

Regards,
Fergus

P.S. Most of the scans at my site are from the 4000ED.

-- Fergus Hammond (fhammond@adobe.com), May 15, 2002.

Thats reassuring - I'm glad they didn't rebadge the LS2000 as the lower priced IV. I have just done a test of the neg scanning abilities of the Imacon 3 and although better than the LS2000 by quite a long way it's not quite as good as the 4000ED at getting the tonality and colour looking right but maybe I will have to play around with the film profiles a bit more. The same can be said of my experience with Vuescan - it just doesn't sort out the colours in neg film the same way as the Nikon software does although tranny treatment is identical. I think both the Imacon and Vuescan software seperates out the shadows too much at the expense of the mid tones and highlights - the Nikon seems to do the opposite which just looks more convincing?

-- John Griffin (john@griffinphoto.u-net.com), May 15, 2002.

I bought a Minolta Dimage Dual II over the weekend and took it back to exchange for a Nikon Coolscan IV last night. I've only done a couple of scans with the Nikon, but so far it blows away the Minolta. Bottom line: get a scanner with Digital ICE. You'll save yourself from going blind (and insane).

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), May 15, 2002.

"It's got to be the Nikon 4000ED - the ONLY 'affordable' desktop scanner that can make neg scans look as good as tranny."

This is hyperbole.

It all depends what size enlargements you want to do. I have the Minolta Dual Scan II and it produces great 6 x 4 and 5 x 7s. In practical terms there is no difference between this and the Nikon at these enlargements in my opinion. Some people think it goes up to 8 x 10. I am not confident of this, however. The point is : what do you require? You do not have to pay for the Nikon to get a good unit - as long as you do not push it past its capabilities. How much money do you have?

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 15, 2002.

Gabe,

Perhaps you know already that good scans come from experience and good craft, just like making good traditional prints requires skill, and even the best scanners can deliver bad results if you don’t know how to get the most from them. It’s true, though, that some equipment is better and easier to use than other. The scanner software is very important to getting good color and contrast even if the hardware is really good.

I use Silverfast and get great scans from color neg on an LS-30 (SCSI), a pretty much obsolete Nikon that you could get for around $450. (Buying one today, I’d go for the LS-40.) How good it works with other software I can’t say, as I haven’t bothered to try. (The latest Nikon SW will work with the older scanners, and a friend tells me it’s much improved – he relies less on Silverfast with his LS-40.) Even with Silverfast, I can always improve the image with brightness/contrast adjustments in Photoshop. Color is often very close to correct on Fuji and Kodak films.

Are you going to do highly detailed prints larger than 8x10? Or scan really dark slides? If not, the 4000dpi spec might be overkill; the 2700 pdi/26 Mb scans have more info than printers need at smaller sizes. Take the dynamic range figures with grains of salt, too. They are more often theoretical than meaningful in practice. None of the desktop film scanners are perfect, but the Nikons have had the best set of performance tradeoffs for non-technical photography. You will love the spot and scratch removal feature.

Good luck!

BTW – on the Nikons, use the manual film holder. I found much more consistent across-the-frame sharpness using that rather than the motorized film strip thing.

-- Carl (cpultz@earthlink.net), May 15, 2002.

hiya Gabe

You won`t beat a film scanner, I do a bit of MF and have bought my self a Nikon 8000( I`m not suggesting that you sport out for one) 4000dpi fromLeica lenses printed on 8x10 or larger will knock your socks off. so my suggestion is, maybe get something cheap but good enough for you to see the results from negs, select the ones you really fancy and get them scanned by a pro house ( you`ll be surprised how few you will actually want to print big) I did this at first and when i was starting to spend a lot on scans it was time to invest. Some of the print houses in the UK have started to offer quite high scans to disk as part of a package ( they used to be low res and not worth having) but lately they have realised that some of us require 25Mb scans and so have jumped on the band wagon.

Good Luck in your pursuit

Dave c

-- D J Chilvers (davechilvers@btinternet.com), May 15, 2002.

Boy, what a loaded question that was. You might want to go to the filmscanners list and search the archives. ALso, go to Tony Sleep's page (he hosts the filmscanners list), he has the best test results on film scanners on the web.

First, decide what you want the sanner for. Web and smallish prints (up to 8x10)= less money. Up to 2400-2700 DPI is fine for 8x10 or below (I know because I used my HP Photosmart and Vuescan for several years getting GREAT 8x10's, but it didn't see into chrome shadows very well.) Lots of good options there from HP, Acer, Canon, Minolta, Polaroid, and Nikon. Prices from $400 to $1,000. More money = better name plus nicities like scratch reduction, film handling options, faster interface, more DMax, etc.

4000 dpi is the next jump. Options include Nikon, Polaroid, Canon, Acer, Minolta?, + others? Nikon offers the ASF ICE/GEM/ROC and has more media handling options, which are nice. Polaroid works a bit better with B&W and has more leeway for focusing bent media. Prices ~$1000-1500. Practical Dmax is similar with all of the above, even though the specs will say different. The others get good results, I don't have any experience though.

Skip

-- Skip Williams (skipwilliams@pobox.com), May 15, 2002.

OH, I almost forgot the interface issue. Forget USB for film scanners. Most shove way too much data across to be usable for USB. My Polaroid scanner will generate a 109 Megabyte file for 16bit 4000dpi scans! Firewire is the typical high-speed option for Macs. SCSI is stil used too. USB-2 will be viable later on, but not now.

Skip

-- Skip Williams (skipwilliams@pobox.com), May 15, 2002.

Gabe, for $449 you can get the excellent CanoScan 2720 (USB). I use it daily and the results are the best I have ever seen for everyday, short of billboard size, work. I have found it to be extremely reliable and very easy to use. Forget flatbed scanners for doing negs.

------------

-- Dayton P. Strickland (daytonst@bellsouth.net), May 15, 2002.

A second vote for the Minolta Scane Elite II. 2850 dpi, Firewire, Digital ICE, & adequate software. I just scanned 450 negs using this scanner & have blown 10% up to 11x14, the rest 5x7s & 8x10s. Quite fine, though 11x14s the max it'll go based on the 23MB file size. Highly recommended.

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), May 15, 2002.

I use a Minolta Scan Dual II and VueScan to scan formats up to 35mm. 2820ppi, dmax 3.2, 12bit quantization and $370 from B& H. That covers me in 35mm work up to a 13x enlargement (200 dpi+ output). It's a USB interface unit.

For less critical 35mm work, the Epson 2400 Photo is darn good and has the advantage of being able to scan up to 4x5" negs as well. 2400ppi, dmax 3.2, 16bit quantization and $380. USB and FireWire supported. Again, I drive it with VueScan.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), May 15, 2002.

Gabe; I am drowning in scanners!

Old Retired stuff: Scanport 8.5x11 300dpi for prints Mustek " 600dpi for prints Old but still in use: Mustek 11x17 300dpi for prints 2 1/2 years old but cool: Canon FS2710 for 35mm negs and slides 2 year old main workhorse: Epson 1200U 1200dpi 8.5x11 with transparency adapter for up to 4x5 Latest toy : Epson 2450 Photo 8.5x11 with transparency feature to 4x5 Odd Ball stuff: TWO 36" wide 400 dpi engineering scanners

One can get good results with a flatbed epson scanner; BUT one must master setting the highlight,shadows and curves settings to get great results..A dedicated negative scanner allows one to be ALOT more productive.... With my epson 1200U I sometimes scan B&W negatives using the "positive" transparency settings..I do a prescan and set the highlight and shadow areas..after scanning I invert the image... The canon 2710FS of mine is linked to my computer with a SCSI cable..It is real fast to scan negatives..The NIKON models have multi scanning features; this reduces the noise level in the shadow areas...; by scanning the image many times.. The basic Physics of detectors is that the noise level is higher in low light..Multiple scanning makes the shadow areas more uniform...; The coherence of the image in the toe of the D =logE curve gets better with multi scanning..

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 15, 2002.

Gabe, go here for comprehensive film scanner reviews. I shopped hard and settled on the Nikon Coolscan IVED. I am very pleased. As you will see from the reviews at this link, the IV is not a rebadged LS-2000. The IV is an entirely new generation. The US$700 or so that you will save over the LS-4000 will buy you a Leica lens. Good Luck. Doug

-- Doug Landrum (dflandrum@earthlink.net), May 17, 2002.