# Film Scanners - any user recommendations?



## FarQinell (Apr 13, 2012)

I have thousands of old black & white foll film negatives (6x6, 6x7 and few 6x9 and 645 and some 35mm Kodachromes) to scan and upload.

Can anybody please offer recommendations (Canon, Nikon, Fuji etc) for few good ones to choose from - from first hand experience?


----------



## CanineCandidsByL (Apr 15, 2012)

I'm fairly happy with my Epson Perfection V700 Photo, and they have a V750 for wet process scanning.

However, it is a slow process and I don't have much scanner experience outside of this model, so I'd take my own comments with a grain of salt.


----------



## Superka (May 1, 2012)

Nikon 8000 is the best choice. Nikon 9000 is much faster, but is not as sharp as Nikon 8000.


----------



## mws (May 1, 2012)

I just put up a post about this the other day. I went for the Canon 9000F. It's not a dedicated film scanner, it's a flatbed that also does film, but for under $200 the price was right. I've also heard good things about the Epson V600 at the same price point. For my limited use (shoot film for fun now and then) it seemed like it would be good enough. Seeing as you have several thousand shots to scan you may want to go for a dedicated film scanner.


----------



## pdirestajr (May 1, 2012)

A great budget scanner for $200USD is the Epson v600. For digital sharing/ archiving and small prints it's fantastic.




re-BOOT, Brooklyn NY by Philip DiResta, on Flickr


----------



## BillyBean (May 1, 2012)

I have a Nikon Coolscan IV, which is a 35mm dedicated negative scanner. If you have a lot, a dedicated negative scanner is going to produce much better results, and be easier to use, than a flatbed scanner with a converter. The key thing to realise is that its not an issue of pixels - its about the dmax - the dynamic range if you like. These things are expensive for a reason.

You mentioned both black and white and Kodachrome. Be aware that all scanner types can struggle with these two negative types. Black and white negatives that have been traditionally developed (i.e. not a C41 process) will not tolerate an infrared channel scan, which means you cannot remove dust and scratches automatically. If your negs are dusty, therefore, think carefully about post-processing, because regardless of what the scanner maker says, you could hit issues. As for Kodachromes, these also have challenges, because (so far as I understand it) they have quite a 3 dimensional makeup physically, which means that getting the scan in focus can be challenging (you can actually see this structure if you look carefully at the neg). And the colour balance is different too, though that's easily addressed. Nikon scanners have a Kodachrome setting which works pretty well - I've scanned thousands of Kodachromes from the 1950s and 1960s with excellent results - there is a very slight softening, but post-processing sharpening addresses this quite well, and Kodachromes survive very well compared to other negatives, so the overall outcome is excellent. (of course, one should really talk about positives, rather than negatives, in the case of Kodachrome...)

There is a Rocky Nook book on scanning slides and negatives, which is pretty good.

According to Lightroom, I have scanned about 10,000 old negatives and slides, dating back to the 1950s. So I can heartily recommend the Nikon scanners (even though I shoot on Canon kit...). They crop up second hand quite regularly. No one makes decent negative scanners new anymore...


----------



## TexPhoto (May 1, 2012)

My vote is: Weed out the 10-100 photos you really want, and have them professionally scanned. This is a slow tedious process, and your results will not be as good as professional results.

I did use a Nikon 8000 a few years ago, and thought the process is very slow, it produced good results. Maybe buy a used one, then sell it after.


----------



## swannd (May 1, 2012)

I haven't had a lot of experience with other scanners, however I have had good results with a CanonScan FS4000 that I picked up second hand. Combine this with VueScan software, and calibrate it. I purchased a Kodachrome and a Fuji IT8 target as i shot Kodachrome for many years, and then transitioned to Provia. Again its only good for 35mm (or APS!).

Swanny.


----------



## kbmelb (May 1, 2012)

I use to use the Nikon CoolScan 8000 and it did a great job but at a very slow rate. The best results were with multi-pass scanning, especially with 35mm. I found four passes worked best. Never used the 9000.

I think whatever scanner you choose check to see if it will do multi-pass scans. I imagine this is all software so you could check to see if Silverfast supports the scanner and buy their software to get multi-pass ability.


----------



## tron (May 1, 2012)

I have the Nikon Coolscan 5000 for scanning 35mm (my only NIKON item!)

It is very good! Since you have mostly medium format to scan the best would be a Nikon 8000 or 9000.

I assume it will be very expensive though...


----------



## RC (May 1, 2012)

From a similar thread a few days ago:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5636.msg107811#msg107811



RC said:


> Have the Canon 8800F, bought it specifically to scan my 35mm slides and negs. I also have an Epson Perfection 636 (SCSI interface), with slide and neg adapter. The Canon blows the Epson out of the water for slides and negatives--in fact that is why I bought the Canon. I see the 9000F on Amazon for $204
> 
> So far I have been very happy with the 8800F. My Kodachrome slides have turned out brilliant with all the rich colors and details. Even most of my Wife's over exposed Ektachrome slides (oops, she shot ISO 400 in daylight on a P&S in Europe) have been reasonably salvaged by tweaking software settings. Haven't tried scanning negs yet, still working on years of slides.


----------



## Kernuak (May 1, 2012)

I have a Nikon Coolscan V ED, from what I gather, the optical quality isn't as good as the Nikon 8000/9000, but it is significantly cheaper. However, one thing to be aware is compatibility. The software isn't compatible with Windows 64 bit and you have to download an update from the Nikon site, which is hard to find to work with Vista (presumably that would work with Windows 7). There may also be compatibility issues with later versions of Mac OS, so it's worth checking. This is all assuming that you can still get hold of Nikon film scanners, as Nikon were phasing them out, hence the lack oif updates. There may be some third party drivers available to enable continued use. Silverfast will give you the same functionality (probably more) as the Nikon software, but it still uses the Nikon drivers. I believe that VueScan enables continued use, but I'm not 100% sure and I haven't yet tried it. However, I haven't been entirely happy with the results, as the images look quite soft and noisy (there is a known fault on the V ED where the mirror gets covered in dust, requiring a nervously executed clean), so you may be better off with TexPhoto's suggestion of weeding out a small number for professional scanning.


----------



## Policar (May 1, 2012)

I really like the Nikon 9000, but it's fairly expensive ($4000-$5000 used). I am having some weird software issues with Silverfast and my Nikon 5000, and I wonder if compatibility might be an issue with the 9000, too, when using the newest software (on OSX). You need to scan using multi-pass or else there is a lot of noise, but the results are great otherwise. The glass carriers are a must; they sometimes give you Newton's rings but not so bad and they make flatness way better.

Just a warning...this will be a very slow process, especially if you use multi-pass. If you don't want to make big prints but are doing this for archival purposes instead, an Epson flatbed is way cheaper and, from what I've seen, not bad.


----------



## goretexguy (May 1, 2012)

I own and use the Nikon Coolscan V and it works great. 
With regard to Kernuak, I'm using 64-bit Windows 7 and have no issues with the latest Nikon drivers. I'm also using the stock Nikon software, which works well enough, rather than paying for the probably-nicer Silverfast.
I've had the scanner for several years now, and have handled both slides and negatives of Kodak, Velvia, etc. )I haven't done any B&W, though.) I've been very pleased with sharpness, color and resolution.
A word of caution: it does take some practice to get excellent results. Out of the box, expect odd color casts.


----------



## Kernuak (May 1, 2012)

goretexguy said:


> I own and use the Nikon Coolscan V and it works great.
> With regard to Kernuak, I'm using 64-bit Windows 7 and have no issues with the latest Nikon drivers. I'm also using the stock Nikon software, which works well enough, rather than paying for the probably-nicer Silverfast.
> I've had the scanner for several years now, and have handled both slides and negatives of Kodak, Velvia, etc. )I haven't done any B&W, though.) I've been very pleased with sharpness, color and resolution.
> A word of caution: it does take some practice to get excellent results. Out of the box, expect odd color casts.


I never got around to trying different settings, so I doubt I got the best out of the software. I am interested about compatibility with 64 bit Windows 7 though and I'm wondering whether Nikon relented and updated the drivers, as it's probably been a couple of years since I investigated.


----------



## Liszon (May 9, 2012)

Hi, I have an urgent problem, maybe someone here can answer:

I recently purchased a Canon fs4000us 35mm scanner second hand, but it turned out faulty:
The official Canon service in Hungary said that the "motor turns out from its axle" - occasional error, sometimes its working for a couple of scans, but mostly results a corrupted scan session, and the unit hangs up with a loud noise.
The part could be replaced, but they dont have any spares, so they claimed its unrepairable.

The seller seems to be wanished, so I cant get my money back..

Can anyone recommend me an online shop, where I can still buy a spare motor for the fs4000, refurbished/working parts from disassembled machines would be fine also.

Please, if you can help me, share your ideas!


----------



## pwp (May 10, 2012)

Ever thought about using your camera? It's been a useful solution for plenty of photographers.

http://thedambook.com/downloads/Camera_Scanning_Krogh.pdf
http://www.dpbestflow.org/camera/camera-scanning

These links are a good starting point. Look around the www and you'll find plenty more relevant info & tutorials.

Paul Wright


----------



## dafrank (May 10, 2012)

There are several approaches you can take. If you want to really take a chance, scour used equipment sites on the net for an old drum scanner, complete with the old computer to run it. Forget about trying to run one of these with your current computer; you'll need to buy an old computer that's been running it all along - too many software and connector conflicts with recent hardware and OS's. An old Howtek, Fujifilm, ICG, Aztek (really a Howtek with different software), Screen, or even a Linotype-Hell. You should be able to get one dirt cheap, and if you can find a decent one in working condition with attached software, you'll have a tremendous tool. And, when you're done with your own work, you might even be able to do some work for hire. The good models made by these companies are still the best of the best at scanning film. The Imacon scanners are also very good and are sometimes referred to as "drum" scanners, but they aren't really that at all. They scan film on a slighlty curved open platen, but, at heart, their guts contain no more than very good versions of the same CCD line-scanner arrays that are found in almost every desktop slide scanner. Real drums use analogue photo-multiplier tubes, superior optics and superior film alignment - a whole different animal.

Going one step down and getting practical, a Nikon coolscan 8000 or 9000 will do a great job for what you want for both 35mm and 120 szie film. I use a 9000, and, if you are good at scanning you can get a result that is only a very very small step lower than most drums, but not the very highest end ones. The next practical step down from there is to use one of many excellent higher quality Nikon or Minolta scanners to scan your 35's and a good moderate flatbed scanner such as an Epson V600, V700 or V750 for larger film. I use the Epson V750, and for 120, 4x5", even 8x10", it does a way better than expected job, if you learn how to use it with skill; the results are more than acceptable for professional use. That is not the case with 35mm film; you must use a dedicated "slide" scanner like the Nikon 4000 or 5000, similar Minolta models, or a multi-format desktop like my Nikon 9000 to make really good scans of these. The reason the good flatbeds are sufficient for larger film is that they have to do less "work' in creating tdigitized images at lower reproduction ratios that the larger film formats allow.

One step below these scanners are the recent Chinese brands that are pretty close, but not quite as good as the old Coolscans; you can now buy these new in pretty much all the big online photo stores. They'll certainly be fine for your family image archives, but for art or commerce, the older scanners are preferrable

Last but not least, you can hire out your scans instead. If you have a huge number of frames to archive and you don't mind getting nearly all of them scanned at one time, at modest resolution and without true custom settings, you can probably negotiate a very low price per-scan with a reputable local or online lab. 

Good luck.


----------

