 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / June 2004please recommend a 120 film scanner
I bought a GA645 and i have so far found that the most economical way is to have film developed only at a mail-in lab, no prints, which is fine. Now though i would need a good scanner. What's the most economical but good scanner i can get? would it be one of the epson perfection flatbed ones with film holders? how would it work with negatives? P.S it would be great if it scanned 35mm too. > I bought a GA645 and i have so far found that the most economical way > is to have film developed only at a mail-in lab, no prints, which is > fine. Now though i would need a good scanner. What's the most > economical but good scanner i can get? Epson 4870. To the best I can tell, you'd be better off with a Canon 300D than with anything less than the 4870. > would it be one of the epson > perfection flatbed ones with film holders? how would it work with > negatives? My experience with the 2450 was that it was _happier_ with negatives than slides. High contrast slides flare. Don't know about the 4870. > P.S it would be great if it scanned 35mm too. If it scans 120, it'll scan 35mm. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > I bought a GA645 and i have so far found that the most economical way > is to have film developed only at a mail-in lab, no prints, which is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > P.S it would be great if it scanned 35mm too. I purchased an Epson 3200 earlier in the year and it does a pretty good job with 120 and 35mm film. It's a 3200 dpi scanner, but for an 'economy' scanner, it's not bad. I think the 3200 has been replaced by the 4870. billw > > I bought a GA645 and i have so far found that the most economical way > > is to have film developed only at a mail-in lab, no prints, which is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > good job with 120 and 35mm film. It's a 3200 dpi scanner, but for > an 'economy' scanner, it's not bad. :) Actually, it is not a 3200dpi scanner. At 3200 or more noise is an issue, but it always is. > I bought a GA645 and i have so far found that the most economical way > is to have film developed only at a mail-in lab, no prints, which is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > P.S it would be great if it scanned 35mm too. I use an Epson 3200 for MF scanning and find it adequate for a flatbed. It scans negatives from 35mm to 4x5 with the provided holders. In addition to the Epson, I'd recommend a MF film holder from <http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mfholderintro.html> I use it. It is exceptionally well built, precise. Nikon makes great MF scanners.  SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. << What's the most economical but good scanner i can get? >><BR><BR> I have to recommend the Nikon Super Coolscan 8000ED. It was recently replaced by the 9000ED so priced may be depressed for the 8000 by now. 4000 dpi, and well worth it. dan Hi, unless you intend to scan large amount of 120/200 format film, I would suggest you to get the Epson 4870 Photo scanner - excellent value for money. If you like, read my review which I published a short while ago at my website, which is: http://www.gnyman.com Rgds George Nyman > I bought a GA645 and i have so far found that the most economical way > is to have film developed only at a mail-in lab, no prints, which is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > P.S it would be great if it scanned 35mm too. >Hi, >unless you intend to scan large amount of 120/200 format film, I would >suggest you to get the Epson 4870 Photo scanner - excellent value for money. >If you like, read my review which I published a short while ago at my >website, which is: http://www.gnyman.com >Rgds George Nyman George, I love your site. Friendly and very very nice stuff on there. > Hi, > unless you intend to scan large amount of 120/200 format film, I would > suggest you to get the Epson 4870 Photo scanner - excellent value for money. > If you like, read my review which I published a short while ago at my > website, which is: http://www.gnyman.com > Rgds George Nyman George, After looking at your web site with the comparison of the 3200 and 4870, I have to say that the 4870 looks pretty decent. Thanks for posting that information. Regards, -Karl http://karlwinkler.com > I bought a GA645 and i have so far found that the most economical way > is to have film developed only at a mail-in lab, no prints, which is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > P.S it would be great if it scanned 35mm too. I'd suggest going with a "real" film scanner rather than a flatbed unit if you are concerned about really getting details in your scans. I've tried the Epson 2450 and 3200, but was not happy with the results except for B&W film (not sure why this is...) I've used the Nikon 8000 and now own the Mikrotek 120tf and feel that the investment is worth the results. YMMV -Karl http://karlwinkler.com >I'd suggest going with a "real" film scanner rather than a flatbed >unit if you are concerned about really getting details in your scans. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >-Karl >http://karlwinkler.com Hello, the price is out of budget for a hobbyist like myself. I guess i'll just have the images in which i care about maximum quality professionally scanned if i must, and this probably won't happy often. Okay, here's the situation, i would like to have the 120 color negative film developed only with no prints to save money (so buying an expensive scanner won't make sense, i won't print at home) and have it scanned to produce any image i can view on a monitor, even if it's an 800x600, what's the least expensive scanner you'd recommend? Alternatively, is there an alternative way to view color negative film than a scanner or prints? do you recommend i just shoot slide film and get a light box instead? thanks > Hello, the price is out of budget for a hobbyist like myself. I guess i'll just > have the images in which i care about maximum quality professionally scanned if [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > scanner or prints? do you recommend i just shoot slide film and get a light box > instead? thanks The Epson 3200 is adequate and cost-effective for hobbiest work. I recommend it. Find a good one with all the transparency holders and be happy. Regarding viewing color negative film - over time you will be able to preview the images just by looking at the negatives in good light. Believe it. Experience is everything in that regard. Slide film often has a d-max that the less expensive scanners simply cannot cope with. I'd stick to color negative and b&w. > Hello, the price is out of budget for a hobbyist like myself. I guess i'll just > have the images in which i care about maximum quality professionally scanned if > i must, and this probably won't happy often. You'll find that the cost of lab scans is so high that you can pay for your own scanner for less than it would cost to get even a single roll completely scanned at the lab. And your scans will be better than the scans from the lab. > Alternatively, is there an alternative way to view color negative film than a > scanner or prints? do you recommend i just shoot slide film and get a light box > instead? Slides are an excellent option in this case. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > I've tried the Epson 2450 and 3200, but was not happy with the results > except for B&W film (not sure why this is...) The software and driver makes a big difference on the scan. Silverfast does a pretty fair job of inverting negatives. I prefer now to invert it manually in Photoshop with a curves adjustment layer. > The software and driver makes a big difference on the scan. Silverfast does > a pretty fair job of inverting negatives. I prefer now to invert it manually > in Photoshop with a curves adjustment layer. I suspect the OP doesn't have Photoshop. It _is_ a spendy package. I recommend Adobe Elements to people who just cannot afford Photoshop at this time. Elements has a lot for the money if you get by the push-button stage, possibly incorporate Photoshop actions (there's a whole book on that subject). Another good resource for Photoshop users (that you already know of, Mike) is http://www.curvemeister.com/ The scanning software and driver provided with the Epson 3200 is quite good. Frankly, Mike, I can't stand Silverfast, but your recommendation gives me reason to look at it again. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.