Choosing a first Scanner

[Mark D Segal]

Very interesting Alan, and a lot of painstaking work involved. Once you settle down with a combination of equipment and processing technique that trots them out the way you want them you'll be cool with that. I was fortunate insofar as my negatives and slides are flat enough that DoF can handle them; but since we published the article, I hit upon using museum glass to definitely assure sufficient flatness. It does not distort, it's crystal clear (if kept clean) and I'm seeing no Newton's rings with it. But my set-up is vertical, with the media lying on a light table, so that helps. All that said, I've been doing a lot of testing work lately and I'm finding those old Minolta (5400) and Nikon (Super Coolscan 5000ED) scanners are really hard to beat for overall resolution of fine detail. From the two camera solutions I've seen first hand to date, they are no more than "as good as", usinf fine equipment, but that's saying a lot, and there is considerable saving of time. What's more, there's always scope for incrementally upgrading it as newer lenses and sensors hit the market, whereas once you leave the world of $400-$2000 scanners, you're into $15,000 - $20,000 scanners - no joy there!

[Alan Smallbone]

Pardon me for asking this and I am not trying to hijack the thread, I too have been looking at scanners to scan in my 35mm stuff and some medium format, mostly 6cm x 6cm and I was looking at the V600 as an inexpensive solution. Anyone used one of the V600's?

Thanks,
Alan

[Mark D Segal]

Pardon me for asking this and I am not trying to hijack the thread, I too have been looking at scanners to scan in my 35mm stuff and some medium format, mostly 6cm x 6cm and I was looking at the V600 as an inexpensive solution. Anyone used one of the V600's?

Thanks,
Alan

Much depends on what you intend to do with the scans. Is it just to share photos on the internet, is it to keep a digital archive without any specific purpose, is it to print them, and if so, to what likely maximum dimensions? All this matters to what equipment would be adequate.

[Alan Smallbone]

To scan and have digital copies, printing not any larger the 11x17, but probably not all that much printing, mostly to maybe display on the web. It is all ancient stuff and maybe some older negatives. Nothing larger than 6cm x6cm in film size, mostly 35mm. I really do not want to spend $1K or more on a super scanner, and probably most of the images are not going to be that great, mostly just for making digital copies and my own curiosity. From reading the specs the V600 looks like V750 but with smaller image scanning size, I don't need to do 4x5 transparencies.

Thanks,
Alan

[Mark D Segal]

OK, on that basis - I haven't heard anything about the Epson V600, but I have heard good things about the Canoscan 9000F Mark II (Canon). As I haven't owned or used either I can't give you a first-hand recommendation, but for what you want to do, generically from the specs, either of them would likely be OK. If I were you I'd buy from a shop which will take it back if you don't like it after a few days.

[Alan Smallbone]

Thanks Mark, Amazon stocks it so I may get it from them.

Alan

[Doug Fisher]

I recommend the Epson over the Canon due to the Epson's slightly higher film suspension height (less chance of Newton Rings) and more user friendly standard software.  With that said, you really are pushing/exceeding the limit with a flatbed to scan 35 mm with the intent to print at 11x17".  A lot depends on what each person considers acceptable.

Doug

[Mark D Segal]

I recommend the Epson over the Canon due to the Epson's slightly higher film suspension height (less chance of Newton Rings) and more user friendly standard software.  With that said, you really are pushing/exceeding the limit with a flatbed to scan 35 mm with the intent to print at 11x17".  A lot depends on what each person considers acceptable.

Doug

Hi Doug - yes I agree that 11*17 for those scanners really would be at the outer limit, but I got the impression the OP's intention is to minimize expenditure and make few prints that size, hence my feedback. Interesting comment on the Epson's film suspension, but in respect of overall image sharpness (within their limits), would you rate those two scanners differently?

[Alan Smallbone]

I probably would not do a lot of 11x17 printing. It is mostly just to scan the film, probably most of it is not worth doing really high end scans, hence not worth spending the money on a high end scanner, but I would like to get some of it online. The Canon looks interesting. I will do some research and read reviews. Thanks again for all the great advice.

Alan

[Alan Klein]

You can see my V600 scans, both 35mm and 6x7 on my Flickr site link.  The shadows do seem to choke up a bit with 35mm but overall does a fairly good job.  I use the Epsonscan software that came with it.  You can get a pretty decent 11x17 with the MF film. 

[Mark D Segal]

You can see my V600 scans, both 35mm and 6x7 on my Flickr site link.  The shadows do seem to choke up a bit with 35mm but overall does a fairly good job.  I use the Epsonscan software that came with it.  You can get a pretty decent 11x17 with the MF film. 

Hi Alan, I'm interested in seeing your choked-up shadows - and more generally the overall image quality. Grateful if you could provide the direct link to the relevant photos. It's not in your post.

[Alan Smallbone]

Mark,

Click on his link to the web on his LuLa profile. That is how I found them.

Alan

Thanks a lot for letting us know about them.

Alan

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks Alan, I did that, but there's lots of photos - time's too tight for searching and guessing, so I just wanted a direct link to a couple of examples Alan Klein is concerned about.

[Doug Fisher]

>>but in respect of overall image sharpness (within their limits), would you rate those two scanners differently<<

In terms of sharpness, I had a hard time seeing an appreciable difference between the Canons and Epsons with the models I bought for testing.  Feedback from my customers has a consistently higher level of frustration with the Canoscan software though.  Newton Ring complaints are higher too.

Doug

[Mark D Segal]

My experience is that scanner manufacturers are best at making scanners and software developers are best at making software. I take it for granted with any of these products that serious users are best off with bespoke third-party software. In this particular case, SilverFast's multi-exposure may be particularly useful, but I can't say first-hand as I haven't used this scanner. Anyhow, all these software products are available for free demo download and I would advise readers, whether they buy one product or another, to test them with demo versions of alternative software.