Harvey Guikema
(K=313) - Comment Date 10/24/2004
|
For med format and large format, I use a flat bed, very high resolution cost approx $1200.00 and for 35mm negs and slide I use Minolta elite 5400, cost was approx $800. Good question.
|
|
|
|
Phillip Cohen
(K=10561) - Comment Date 10/24/2004
|
For MF and 4x5 I use an old Leafscan 45, for 35mm I use a Nikon LS-2000. I used to use an Epson 1640 for large format however it just didn't have enough range to take care of the shadow detail in 4x5 tranparencies like the Leafscan.
|
|
|
|
Eveline Shih-Pitcairn
(K=4406) - Comment Date 10/29/2004
|
I use the Noristu film scanner for 35mm, 120 and 220 film at work (it's a printer that doubles as a scanner). Any larger (for large format purposes), I send out to be scanned by a lab that has an Imacon scanner. Would like one of those... $4-20K depending on the model.
|
|
|
|
Siddharth Siva
(K=3327) - Comment Date 11/1/2004
|
I have started sending them out to a lab to scan on an Imacon film scanner. They refer to this as a virtual drum scanner. I find these scans are considerably cheaper than drum scanning and of comparable quality.
|
|
|
|
Henry Viitanen
(K=173) - Comment Date 11/24/2004
|
Can you guys say good 6x6 film scanners?
I feel everyone is for 4x5 negs.
|
|
|
|
vaidotas
(K=218) - Comment Date 11/24/2004
|
I use Epson 3200 flatbed for all of my negs (4x3, 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x9, or even 9x12 cm) - still happy with it, see my portfolio.
|
|
|
|
Chris Lauritzen
(K=14949) - Comment Date 11/24/2004
|
I scan my 120 negs using a Minolta Multi Pro that I got for a steal on EBay about a year ago. Another option would be a Nikon 8000, with the newer Nikon 900 out the prices on the 8000 are dropping quickly. If you?re just going to be using it for 120 and larger then a good flatbed will work also. The Epson 4870 and the Microtek I900 are good options. Flatbed?s work ok on larger film but are not good at all for anything smaller unless your just going to use the scans for web posting.
|
|
|
|
David Burckhard
(K=45) - Comment Date 12/30/2004
|
For scanning on the cheap and on the fly where your output will be no larger than 8 X 10 or you'll only post on the Web, flatbed scanners such as Epson's 4870 will do nicely and all flatbeds will come well under $500. For much greater resolution and critical prints for display, a true film scanner is what you need. Expect to pay $2K for a decent one. The two to look at are the Nikon 8000 and the Minolta Multi Scan Pro. A lot of working folks are giving the nod to the Minolta. The Nikon has a lot going for it too. For about a thousand dollars more you can get a used Imacon which uses its "virtual drum" technique. Imacon is highly rated but highly priced. It's the last of scanners that a human type person such as yourself will be able to afford. You'd have to win big lotto bucks to afford a true drum scanner. These bad boys cost more than your house and your mom's house together. The drum scans often need a "wet" mount so you get true flatness without the need for glass mounts. You can get up to 12,000 dpi scanning. Of course you don't buy these. You take your film to the labs who have these. Expect to pay anywhere from $25 to $150 per scan but, hey, they might throw in a free CD and you'll need it because the file can be around 500 MB. Use this type of service when you plan on printing that special shot or, if you plan on selling a run of your special shot(s). Good luck.
|
|
|
|
Glenn Owens
(K=143) - Comment Date 12/30/2004
|
I bring my 6x6 to the local pro camera dealer and they scan for about $2 each plus$5 set up. Im looking at buying the nikon 8000 that sells on ebay for around $1300 currently, a new model is out (the 9000) so the price has dropped about $500.
|
|
|
|
nothing nothing
(K=557) - Comment Date 1/3/2005
|
I'm fortunate enough to work in a studio where they let me use their Imacon scanner. The model they have can scan up to 4x5. However, it costs as much as a car. When I don't have time in the studio, I scan in things at my high school with a flatbed Epson 3170. It has a film scanner built in, which can do 35mm, slides in holders, and medium format. Pretty neat scanner that can go up to 4800 I believe. It's awful slow when you go into really high resolutions though.
|
|
|
|
Ian Cameron
(K=1163) - Comment Date 1/4/2005
|
Hi the biggest I scan is 6x7cm I use an Epson Perfection 3200 it has a Dmax of about 3.4 which is below that of a good quality Velvia transparency (3.8). I have had exceptional results from this please look at my website, www.transientlight.co.uk. I have produced prints to 18 x 13 inches with a specially adapted sharpening routine and the results have been quite superb. The Epson is about $300 to $350. I will eventually go for a dedicated film scanner as I feel I can now justify the Nikon Coolscan 9000 with its increased resolution, sharper raw scan and Dmax of 4.8 the scans should be measurably better. Don't ignore the epsons though they really are pretty good, with care and a carefully selected negative/transparency.
All the best Ian Cameron.
|
|
|
|
Michael Sebastian
(K=179) - Comment Date 2/12/2005
|
I use a Nikon LS-8000 bought a year ago on ebay for around $1400. You can likely do better now.
If you go this route, ditch the crappy glass-less negative carrier that comes with it for med format. It is designed to grip the strip of negatives around its edges and *stretch* the curl out of the strip. This works fine for 35mm but not for 120 film. Expect to pay another $200 for the anti-Newton-ring-glass film holder. Once I did this, my complete and mysterious inability to get a sharp image from my Contax 645 disappeared!!
|
|
|
|
Chris Lauritzen
(K=14949) - Comment Date 2/13/2005
|
YOu might alo want to look into the wet mount holders for the 8000. I am hearing that this is also imporving the sharpness of the unit.
|
|
|
|
