![]() ![]() I scan nearly all my medium format film with an Epson V700 because I have to go to a fair extreme to do better with a camera scan. That's a big workflow hassle, which I would do only in cases where I want to make huge prints.Ĭurious why you say this? Are you referring to the fact that dedicated scanners that do medium format are not that common? I can do better with my digital camera, but I have to take at least 3 high magnification pictures of portions of the negative and then stitch them together. (If the scans are just for Instagram, then it's more than fine.) If I ever need to scan 35mm again, I'll do that with my digital camera.įor medium format film, however, it's a lot harder to beat the V700 (or similar high quality flatbeds). I would not recommend a flatbed such as my V700 for scanning 35mm to anyone with high quality standards. And I can also "camera scan" with my digital camera and macro lens. I spent $250 on a used Epson V700 and some important accessories for it (mainly an adjustable film holder). Many labs do okay in this regard, but sometimes they don't.Īnd finally, as you mentioned, lab scans are expensive. make sure I get a good scan of the tones and details in the negative that are important to me. So, for example, if I develop a roll of film in the afternoon, and it's dry at 9pm, I can scan it then, if I want to see the pictures right away. I don't have to leave home or work around a lab's business hours, and I can get scans immediately when I want them. I scan my own film partly for convenience - i.e. but if you have a genuine macro lens already, or think you might like to get one, digital copies are a very reasonable way to go. Of current scanners I like the Plustek Opticfilm 135i, which goes for about £300 You can pick up useful USB 35mm film scanners on ebay, but the prices recently had been silly - having said that I recently picked up a Minolta Scan Elite II for £60, which was a bit of a steal - but such bargains don't crop up all that often. If you are looking to digitise medium format, copying with a camera is an even better idea.ģ have a number of relevant articles that might be useful to look at: this is one I wrote last year: One alternative to scanning is to get a macro lens and copy the negatives/slides - this gives quite good results (better than you would get with a flatbed scanner). I process my own B&W plus I have a ton of old slides and negatives in boxes under various beds, so for me it makes sense to have my own scanner. I guess it depends on the difference in price between just getting the film developed and getting it developed and scanned. And I always get "high res scans" with 35mm being around 32mp.īut it's impossible to deny that a lab is much more convenient, specially if you don't shoot that much and you don't enjoy the process of scanning and converting.Īs a mega generalisation, I'd say that if you're shooting at least 5 rolls a year and have the time, scanning at home can be a good option. I dev+scan at home, so it keeps the costs down. ![]() ![]() Personally, for me it makes it easier to shoot film. To convert, NegativeLabPro for lightroom does a great job at $99, but there are other options including some free ones. ![]() I did a test between my $12 epson v500 and a A7RIII and using a camera gave me sharper images: In 10min you can have a fully "scanned" roll of 35mm.Īnd if you get the lens that fits the film camera you have, you also get a new lens you can shoot with. If you already have a DSLR style camera, you can get a manual focus vintage 1:1 macro lens for under $100, a couple of extra bits and you're good to go. New prices are somewhere between £300 - £600 (they’ll be different in countries other than the UK) Plustek and PrimeFilm/Reflecta also do some scanners with auto film feeding, but they have not been out as long and do are more expensive second hand. second had V550/V600 is somewhere around £100-£150 If you use a flatbed scanner then you can load it up and walk away, but the results will not be as high resolution. You might need to get software, in which case VueScan is around $75, SilverFast a little more. A second hand Plustek or PrimeFilm/Reflecta range from £50 upwards (I’m assuming 35mm only here) and would be competitive with lab scans. Have a look at this thread - which might give you some ideas. So now my question: Do you think it is worth scanning at home? What amount of money would I have to invest for a reasonable scanner? 25 USD per roll), so I started thinking about scanning myself.Īfter some investigation I've learned that scanning at home is very time consuming and affordable scanner may not deliver the best resultats compared to the scanner used at labs. I also found a lab I like to develop the film and digitalize the negatives.Īlthough: The scans are quite expensive (ca. Took out my film camera after several years and quite liked the results. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |