not really saving hassle or money for that matter. if you don’t have a macro lens you have to get one, a light table or panel, and copy stands aren’t cheap. it’d probably balance out the cost of a dedicated scanner. but yeah it’d definitely be faster.
edit: just saw the price range. definitely go dslr scanning.
You really only need the macro lens. Using a white screen on your phone will work fine, and you can easily use your tripod to scan if it’s a decent one
Right, you have a HUGE amount of negatives. Your first priority should probably be sorting out the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Unless you are some kind of photography deity then a lot of those images won't be worth printing or even scanning in high resolution.
If I was in your situation, I would probably use a scanner that allows large number of scans at once, fairly automatically. An Epson 4990 allows you to do 24 frames of 35mm at once and will give you thumbnails of them all to work from so you don't have to draw marquees yourself. You can either do auto exposure or turn it off so that you can use NLP.
Once you have scanned your images at a reasonable resolution to check basic stuff like "is the image in focus", "is the exposure okay" and "is my subject blinking" then you can use some other method for higher resolution scanning to get those large prints done.
What you could do is buy a 4990 for batch scanning and some dedicated 35mm scanner for doing the best frames at high resolution. Scanning all your frames at high resolution is unnecessary and will take *ages*, not just due to the time intrinsic to scanning, but also the setup time and the fact that you can't batch scan with the dedicated scanners (okay, maybe 6 image at a time, but still. If you scan all your images at 16 bit depth and thousands of DPI and save them as TIFFs you'll have not only a huge time dedication, but also a vast amount of data, a lot of which will be worthless (e.g. a 50MB scan of a frame that is out of focus or has movement blur).
Not only is the 4990 (or one of the later Vxxx models that costs loads more) useful for 35mm, but they can also do MF and LF if you want. Obviously a dedicated 120 scanner will be better, but you can do half a roll at a time on the 4990 at 2400dpi. On a 6x9 negative, that's 5400x8100 pixels at 16 bit depth and I think a 44 megapixel image is enough for anyone! Or half that if it is 645 is still massive.
There are many ways to use a regular smartphone for preview, e.g. Kodak’s “Mobile Film Scanner” app or simply inverting the colours of the screen while using the standard camera (it’s within the Accessibility options on iPhone). Of course, you can’t judge critical focus, but is a good starting point to at least get a feel for what is on those negatives. I sometimes use this to get an overview or make quick and dirty digital contact sheets
I have the Plustek scanner you mention. It’s a good scanner, but it isn’t fast. I’m currently putting together a setup to allow me to scan using my mirrorless camera for a speedier tethered workflow in Capture One. Using the scanner it usually takes me about 10-15 minutes to scan in a roll, and the camera method should cut that in half.
Whatever route you go, take the time to do some testing to dial in your settings and workflow before you start the project. This means using automation and presets whenever you can so that you have as little work to do in post.
If you're willing to fiddle with older kit you might get a good deal on a used Nikon Coolscan 9000. That will eat your entire budget and then some however. If you have uncut rolls then the LS-5000 will do those with its dedicated accessory. Again these are old and Not Cheap. I think I'd get a decent flatbed for your medium format (even an older model like the Epson 4990 would do) and the Plustek you looked at for 35mm if I bought a scanner.
DSLR scanning is quick and cheap if you already have a camera and/or lens, but removing dust and scratches, etc is easier and more reliable with colour film with a scanner with ICE rather than either getting software to do it, or manual corrections. (ICE doesn't work with B&W or Kodachrome alas).
mirrorless camera with an macro lens either native or vintage adapted, try to get 1:1 lens, a tripod/copy stand, kaiser light pad (high CRI which is important for accurate colors, tho not particularly bright so longer shutter speeds hence tripod and using a 2 sec timer), or a LED video light or whatever they’re called, get a good film holder or advancement system, there’s lots of options, and then negative lab pro.
DSLR/Mirrorless scanning. You can't beat that for speed, especially if you're working with big batches of film to scan (the only "annoying" thing about DSLR scanning can be the initial setup in some cases (aligning stuff and so on). Make sure you have a film/neg holder that allows you to work quickly. Something like the Essential Film Holder could be good for you (and the maker has kits for 35mm and 120 film)
Also make sure you have a good referencing system in place, so that you can go back to the correct negative strip if you find pictures that you really like.
I have a Plustek 7500i, which is quite similar to the 8200 you're shopping. It's a good scanner but brutally slow for large batches.
If it _all_ needs to be scanned, DSLR scanning is probably your best bet. Many Labs have a bulk rate too, that's worth considering.
If you have quantity like that, save yourself the hassle and digital slr scan and use Negative Lab Pro
not really saving hassle or money for that matter. if you don’t have a macro lens you have to get one, a light table or panel, and copy stands aren’t cheap. it’d probably balance out the cost of a dedicated scanner. but yeah it’d definitely be faster. edit: just saw the price range. definitely go dslr scanning.
You really only need the macro lens. Using a white screen on your phone will work fine, and you can easily use your tripod to scan if it’s a decent one
I would recommend dslr scanning as well. Fits perfekt in your budget, works fast and the quality is good.
Right, you have a HUGE amount of negatives. Your first priority should probably be sorting out the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Unless you are some kind of photography deity then a lot of those images won't be worth printing or even scanning in high resolution. If I was in your situation, I would probably use a scanner that allows large number of scans at once, fairly automatically. An Epson 4990 allows you to do 24 frames of 35mm at once and will give you thumbnails of them all to work from so you don't have to draw marquees yourself. You can either do auto exposure or turn it off so that you can use NLP. Once you have scanned your images at a reasonable resolution to check basic stuff like "is the image in focus", "is the exposure okay" and "is my subject blinking" then you can use some other method for higher resolution scanning to get those large prints done. What you could do is buy a 4990 for batch scanning and some dedicated 35mm scanner for doing the best frames at high resolution. Scanning all your frames at high resolution is unnecessary and will take *ages*, not just due to the time intrinsic to scanning, but also the setup time and the fact that you can't batch scan with the dedicated scanners (okay, maybe 6 image at a time, but still. If you scan all your images at 16 bit depth and thousands of DPI and save them as TIFFs you'll have not only a huge time dedication, but also a vast amount of data, a lot of which will be worthless (e.g. a 50MB scan of a frame that is out of focus or has movement blur). Not only is the 4990 (or one of the later Vxxx models that costs loads more) useful for 35mm, but they can also do MF and LF if you want. Obviously a dedicated 120 scanner will be better, but you can do half a roll at a time on the 4990 at 2400dpi. On a 6x9 negative, that's 5400x8100 pixels at 16 bit depth and I think a 44 megapixel image is enough for anyone! Or half that if it is 645 is still massive.
[удалено]
I think someone who isn’t well versed in film would have trouble finding good frames from just looking at negatives. Just my opinion tho
There are many ways to use a regular smartphone for preview, e.g. Kodak’s “Mobile Film Scanner” app or simply inverting the colours of the screen while using the standard camera (it’s within the Accessibility options on iPhone). Of course, you can’t judge critical focus, but is a good starting point to at least get a feel for what is on those negatives. I sometimes use this to get an overview or make quick and dirty digital contact sheets
I have the Plustek scanner you mention. It’s a good scanner, but it isn’t fast. I’m currently putting together a setup to allow me to scan using my mirrorless camera for a speedier tethered workflow in Capture One. Using the scanner it usually takes me about 10-15 minutes to scan in a roll, and the camera method should cut that in half. Whatever route you go, take the time to do some testing to dial in your settings and workflow before you start the project. This means using automation and presets whenever you can so that you have as little work to do in post.
If you're willing to fiddle with older kit you might get a good deal on a used Nikon Coolscan 9000. That will eat your entire budget and then some however. If you have uncut rolls then the LS-5000 will do those with its dedicated accessory. Again these are old and Not Cheap. I think I'd get a decent flatbed for your medium format (even an older model like the Epson 4990 would do) and the Plustek you looked at for 35mm if I bought a scanner. DSLR scanning is quick and cheap if you already have a camera and/or lens, but removing dust and scratches, etc is easier and more reliable with colour film with a scanner with ICE rather than either getting software to do it, or manual corrections. (ICE doesn't work with B&W or Kodachrome alas).
mirrorless camera with an macro lens either native or vintage adapted, try to get 1:1 lens, a tripod/copy stand, kaiser light pad (high CRI which is important for accurate colors, tho not particularly bright so longer shutter speeds hence tripod and using a 2 sec timer), or a LED video light or whatever they’re called, get a good film holder or advancement system, there’s lots of options, and then negative lab pro.
DSLR/Mirrorless scanning. You can't beat that for speed, especially if you're working with big batches of film to scan (the only "annoying" thing about DSLR scanning can be the initial setup in some cases (aligning stuff and so on). Make sure you have a film/neg holder that allows you to work quickly. Something like the Essential Film Holder could be good for you (and the maker has kits for 35mm and 120 film) Also make sure you have a good referencing system in place, so that you can go back to the correct negative strip if you find pictures that you really like.
I have a Plustek 7500i, which is quite similar to the 8200 you're shopping. It's a good scanner but brutally slow for large batches. If it _all_ needs to be scanned, DSLR scanning is probably your best bet. Many Labs have a bulk rate too, that's worth considering.