Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Neg scanner

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Neg scanner

    I haven't found an affordable neg scanner for my 120, 2 1/4" negs. Just wondering if anyone else has found a scanner that is decent, or a vendor that does good work affordably. The scanners I have found don't have a glass holder and the print is blurry because it has nothing hold it flat. Even National Camera Exchange did a blurry job and the scanner they used is for sale at the store around for $200.

  • #2
    Look at epsom. They have some good stuff. If you need model nos. let me know, I'll share
    What others think of you is none of your business

    Comment


    • #3
      Both the Epson and the Canon flatbed scanners with the light lids have film holders that do not put the film against the glass. I have a canoscan that does a beautiful job on smaller scans that are suitable for 8x10 printing and has a holder that will take a 2.25 neg. Double check on the lower end versions as some only take mounted 35mm slides or 35mm film in their holders. There is a $700+ epson I've been eyeing recently that goes to 8x10 film because we do a lot of 4x5 color transparency scans. (I do not work for either Canon or Epson.)

      Pretty much any more if you want glass contact slide scanning, you have to find someone with a drum scanner or an old Lanovia or something. I'm going to be very sad when those are gone. You can't even find any of the dedicated film feed-in models for anything bigger than 35mm any more. I used to have an old Polaroid scanner that did 3700dpi scans of 35mm that was the balls, until the sensor developed a stitch...and Polaroid went toes up.

      Depends on what you want to do with the images and what you consider reasonably affordable.

      Comment


      • #4
        I have an Epson v700 flatbed photo scanner that does a reasonably good job scanning film larger than 35mm. I've scanned everything from 2.25x2.25s to 4x5s. It might be the model PrintDriver was referring to since it seems like it was somewhere around $700 or a bit more. It's not as good as a drum scanner, but still quite usable to make prints.

        Larger format CCD film-only scanners always were hard to come by and a bit expensive. Now they seem to be downright rare -- almost as rare as drum scanners. Digital photography has killed the market for them, and it's reaching the point where all the old color transparencies are starting to fade and shift colors, which reduces the need for them even more. Just a couple of months ago, I threw out several thousand 35mm and 120 Ektachromes that had gone bad.

        Comment


        • PrintDriver
          PrintDriver commented
          Editing a comment
          Yeah, that's the one B. But like you say, the call is less and less and it really won't scan for large use.

          Sorry to hear about your image loss.
          Bet most of them were Kodak too. The JFK library here in Boston is in the process of rescuing a whole bunch of color imagery from the 60s shot on Kodak color material that is deteriorating really quickly. Many of the archival repositories have put their stuff in deep cold storage already. Places like the National Archives and the Library of Congress now have serious wait times (up to 8 weeks) if you need to make an appointment with a piece of film off-site in cold storage so it can be duped. Don't ask what it costs either.

          While I was mad for a long while at Corbis snapping up a lot of old archival photography that used to be in free sources, I'm kinda happy Mr. Gates has lent his philanthropy toward cold-storing at least some of that irreplaceable photography.
          Last edited by PrintDriver; 04-08-2014, 07:23 AM.

      • #5
        Thanks for the info all. Seven hundred is steep. Miss those drum scanners they are rare and hard to find and costly.

        We need a scanner Coop! LOL I wonder if there any night classes in neg scanning? Or maybe I could get a part time job doing scanning somewhere and quit when my negs are all done. I used to be a quite hobby photographer when I worked at a professional lab way back. Got all my stuff done free and I have tons of landscape photos that I would love to get digital. I have waited so long for something to turn up that was affordable.

        Comment


        • PrintDriver
          PrintDriver commented
          Editing a comment
          You probably waited too long.
          I know none of my vendors who have lost their large format scanning are replacing them. Old Tech now. Not worth the outlay.
          What's your general location? I could do some checking...

      • #6
        Years ago my father bought a film scanner in scan in 10,000 plus 35mm slides but was quite expensive. Around the same time, I needed to scan in some 35mm film, was not near my father, and could not afford to purchase a scanner. Somewhere I ran across an adapter for a digital camera that would help you "scan" film. It had to be a camera with a micro setting where it would focus around two inches from the lens, which my point and shoot did, so I got it and tried it. (I think it was around $25) I was pleasantly surprised with the results, and my father thought it did just as good as well as his scanner and maybe even better at proper color saturation. I don't know if such a thing still exists or not, and I have forgotten any names.
        .

        Comment


        • #7
          I have a Canon Canoscan 800 series flatbed that does film, and it does a great jobā€¦PrintDriver recommended the model to me, and I've been really happy with it.

          <b>, that's a tragic loss. Sorry. I realize I have to step up my digitizing game.
          This post is brought to you by the letter E and the number 9. Those are the buttons I push to get a Twix out of the candy machine.
          "I put my heart and my soul into my work, and have lost my mind in the process."

          Comment


          • B
            B commented
            Editing a comment
            In this case, it was no loss to me since they weren't my photos. Apparently, the photographers back in the '80s and '90 where I work saved everything, and I mean everything. And it was all categorized by date instead of subject matter. In other words, if I needed a blurry, dirty transparency of nothing in particular taken in August of 1983, I could find it.

            Even so, it was a little weird hauling the equivalent of someone's life's work out to the dumpster.

          • Kayekaye
            Kayekaye commented
            Editing a comment
            Did the scans turn out nice? I am wondering about the contact and distortion? Are they really contacting with the glass and the cover?

        • #8
          I found something on Amazon for $169 Canon CanoScan 9000F MKII Color Image Scanner
          http://www.amazon.com/Canon-CanoScan...dp_ob_title_ce

          It is a new product and has some good reviews, but who knows. I might just try it. Has a 120 tray, looks like it holds a 4 neg strip so that's nice. Most of mine were cut in 4's to make a proof sheet.

          I hope I didn't wait too long. I guess if all else fails I will have to just get glossy prints of my favs and scan them in that way. I just didn't like the quality of the scan the last time I paid to have it done. They didn't even dust the negs or scanner, ew.

          Comment


          • #9
            If you need to scan 35mm slides and negatives only, go for a used Nikon Coolscan from eBay. Get the most expensive with USB port you can aford. Dedicated film scanner are much better than any flatbed.
            Nikolay Dimitrov
            No advertising in signatures allowed in the forum

            Comment

            Search

            Collapse

            Sponsor

            Collapse

            Incredible Stock

            Latest Topics

            Collapse

            • HotButton
              Comment on Flyer Crtitique
              HotButton
              It's just what I call it when people use an expression that actually says or means the opposite of what is intended; ''could care less'' would be another prime example.
              Yesterday, 11:44 PM
            • B
              Reply to Flyer Crtitique
              B
              That makes sense, I guess. Off is the inverse of on, which makes based off the inverse of based on. Got it. ...
              Yesterday, 08:50 PM
            • B
              Reply to Flyer Crtitique
              B
              Okay, I know what a colloquialism is, but what is an inverse colloquialism?

              Probrien, in addition to HotButton's comments, which I agree with, the ad is a bit confusing. Maybe it's lacking...
              Yesterday, 08:48 PM
            • PrintDriver
              Reply to Flyer Crtitique
              PrintDriver
              ''Based off'' is inverse of ''based on.'' ''Based on'' is a colloquialism.
              I think.
              I have not had enough to drink to play this game.

              o O
              Yesterday, 08:27 PM
            • pobrien
              Reply to Flyer Crtitique
              pobrien
              Thanks for the feedback. That all makes a lot of sense. I'll take these points and re-work things....
              Yesterday, 04:06 PM
            GDF A division of Mediabistro Holdings Adweek | Mediabistro | Clio | Film Expo Group Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy Copyright © 2016 Mediabistro Holdings
            Working...
            X