1. stevetiler

    stevetiler

    Messages:
    1,342
    Name:
    Steve
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Hi all,
    My mum's got loads of 35mm slides that she wants to scan- can anyone recommend a good scanner for this? Don't want to spend a fortune but want something reasonable and they do seem to vary wildly in price!
    Also if anyone has one for sale I would be interested
    Thanks
     
  2. Canon Bob

    Canon Bob Loves the Enemy

    Messages:
    10,143
    Name:
    Bob
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I've got a Plustek 8200i AI and it seems to do a reasonable job albeit quite slowly.
     
  3. welly

    welly

    Messages:
    1,853
    Name:
    Alastair
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I've got an Epson v700 scanner, which has a slide adapter. Very good scanners and although mine has taken a few knocks it still scans fine, albeit occasionally noisily. I'd be happy to let it go for bargain.
     
  4. RaglanSurf

    RaglanSurf Official Forum Idiot 2013 & 2014

    Messages:
    10,086
    Name:
    Nick
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    If you have the spare cash then your best bet for ease of use/quality is probably the Nikon Coolscan 4000 or 5000 with the sf-210 slide feeder attachment. You’ll have to bear in mind that Nikon no longer supports their scanners, so you’ll either need an old PC that will run the Nikon software or buy something like Vuescan (Silverfast will probably also do the job but it’s s*** IMHO)

    Then once you’ve scanned all your slides you can sell it again and I doubt you’d lose much money, if any any.

    There are loads of threads on scanning and scanners in the film and Conventional section here
     
  5. stevetiler

    stevetiler

    Messages:
    1,342
    Name:
    Steve
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Hi Alastair, thanks -how much would you be looking for?
     
  6. welly

    welly

    Messages:
    1,853
    Name:
    Alastair
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Probably be happy to let it go for 50 quid plus whatever it costs to ship. Unless you're in/near London in which case can drop it off. I've had plenty of use out of it so it's certainly paid for itself.
     
  7. nandbytes

    nandbytes

    Messages:
    3,354
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I'd take this if OP is not interested especially as I am in London.
     
    welly likes this.
  8. stevetiler

    stevetiler

    Messages:
    1,342
    Name:
    Steve
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Hi Alastair- sound a fair deal ! I’m in Billericay ESSEX if you ever get this way - if not I’ll pay the postage
     
  9. welly

    welly

    Messages:
    1,853
    Name:
    Alastair
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Might have to figure out postage. I'll drop you a private message when I get home. Will figure out how much it'll cost. Cheers!
     
  10. TheBigYin

    TheBigYin Staff Member

    Messages:
    21,806
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    No
    or better still, if you both would prefer not to have some time off from the forum, you could go conduct your business in the classifieds section!
     
  11. droj

    droj

    Messages:
    2,647
    Name:
    Rog
    Edit My Images:
    No
    :):):):)
    Very nicely put, since the poor darlings drifted into commerce so innocently ...
     
    Graham W likes this.
  12. stevetiler

    stevetiler

    Messages:
    1,342
    Name:
    Steve
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Oops sorry, that's exactly what happened.....
     
  13. welly

    welly

    Messages:
    1,853
    Name:
    Alastair
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I'll shift over to the trading forums then.
     
  14. welly

    welly

    Messages:
    1,853
    Name:
    Alastair
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
  15. Teflon-Mike

    Teflon-Mike

    Messages:
    972
    Name:
    Mike
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I wouldn't be recommending ANY scanner, very quickly.... I'd ask
    1) How many Slides?
    2) What do you want the scans for?
    3) How good you want them?
    4) How much money you got to spend?
    5) How much time you got to spare?

    Biggest bit of the job is the TIME.

    I have maybe 20ooo negatives and slides in my own archive, I have been trying to work my way through for the last two years... it is NOT a quick job.
    And the SCANNER or how 'fast' it claims to be, doesn't really make much difference in that.

    Hardest part of the job, is organizing the slides and negs, so you know which ones are done, and which ones are to be done; cleaning and preparing them, loading them in the slide carrier, THEN, sorting them out on the PC, and where needed touching, tidying and restoring them in Photo-Shop...... of the maybe 4ooo I have got to PC in the last two years, only maybe 1/5th of them have been tidied up.

    I have carrier bags and shoe boxes more, dumped on me by various friends and relatives, when they have cleared out parents attics to shuffle them into a home or whatever..... ALL moaning at me that they haven't been 'done' in a decade, after I 'told' them I could do them!... Be warned... the word 'CAN' is a query of potentiality, it is NOT a faithful, carved in stone promise, WITH absolute implicit deadline attached!!!! However....

    If there's only a few slides, my advice, especially to MY mother, would be just DON'T... she complains about her computer getting a virus every time she tries to open an e-mail! Which sort of offers another imperative, you need to be a bit PC savvy, and be prepared to spend more time learning the software.

    So, if there's only a few images, get the projector out, or buy a viewer box; pick the pictures she REALLY wants e-copies of... send only them to a lab for a pro-scan. They'll pop them onto a CD, and for what it costs you'll get good scans, for least hassle...

    Cheap 'Aldi' type scanners, might cost under £50 and look like they would pay for them self against farming out to a service, even for relatively few images; BUT, factor in the learning time, factor in the actual scanning time, factor in the pretty low quality scans... not really.

    Historically, I bought an Acer Scanwit 2720 SCSI film scanner, in Y2K, instead of what were actually rather expensive and not that wonderful DSLR's of the time. Great bit of kit, cost about £500 at the time; chucks out 10Mega-Pixie scans from a 35mm slide or neg; better than anything direct-to-digital SLR for best part of a decade, but oh-so-slow... especially on an early Pentium II computer of the era. Took most of the night to scan a strip of four slides, IF the computer didn't blue-screen at the enormity of the task...

    About ten years ago, I bought one of the cheap "Web-Cam" scanners like the average Aldi or e-bay special; USB plug-and-play, claims 17Mega pixies, and cost about £50.. looked too good to be true... it was, really. Dedicated software, it is NOT a scanner; its a web-cam over a light-box, and the camera resolution is only actually 5Mega-Pixies or so, its inflated by 'interpolation' or electric guess-work. Colour depth is dire; and scanning options are pretty limited.... reasonably 'quick' though.... and good enough for face-book type display where scans are likely to be down-sized for display anyway, B-U-T... no great shakes.

    After working my way through maybe 1/3 of the archive over a couple of years... and take note... running out of hard-drive space and having to buy a second one.... I realized just how much of the work was in the organisation and prep.... so re-visited the old ScanWit..... originally abandoned in a PC upgrade, cos its drivers didn't seem to work; I bought another, 2nd hand of e-bay for £30 which was cheaper than a new SCSI card to try make it work.... but, with a bit of messing, sorting out the SCSI interface cards, getting more up-to-date Hanrick VueScan scanner software to get the drivers to work... WOW... have to run it on an 'old' Win-XP PC cos windows 7 and 64bit systems don't like SCSI... but; 10Mpix res, 64bit colour depth, and a bit of time and care and know-how., great scans... and, for LESS than the cost of an Aldi-cam-scan, off e-bay..... and practically given the time overhead of sifting, sorting and touching, pretty much 'as fast'

    Which begs suggestion that the e-bay special web-cam scanners are NOT really worth the money; they tend to be packed full of features, like LCD preview screen, or SD card slot, rather than a great electric eye or colour depth, or scanning options in the pretty basic software... BUT if Mum has as much PC Savvy as mine? Even that level of consumer-friendly usability MIGHT still be a bit challenging! A-N-D the time to sort and clean and organise, and the HDD space needed for scans, could STILL make even THAT a challenge!.

    THAT is where I would suggest you start; On a lazy Sunday afternoon, I can comfortably scan a 'new' roll of film, dress, sort and put the negs in archive; and get display copies up to Farce-Broke. I 'might' scan 3 or four films in an afternoon, from the archive. As said it is NOT a quick and easy job; you dont chuck the box of slides into the machine, press button and come back an hour later to find 150 films worth of photo's beautifully scanned and ready for up-load! That time overhead is much the same whether you go for a cheap web-cam-scanner or something more sophisticated, like a dedicated 35mm scanner. In between you have the more versatile 'transparency' compatible flat-beds, most often from Epsom, that might handle 120 roll film or even sheet, as well as 35mm, and can be 'as good' as a transport dedicated film scanner.... BUT its all time, and its all effort.

    And SLIDES..... big issue there is How have they been stored?

    I have very few 'mounted' slides; most of my slide films have been left unmounted, and are stored like negatives in archive binders, in tissue and cellophane sleeve pages. Tends to keep them pretty well, they dont get scratched, they are protected from dust and mold and most other enviro damage. Mounted slides, are in similar archive binders with pocketed pages for each slide... these were expensive at the time, and didn't hold as many images per page or file; hence not mounting too many.

    Before Digital; I spent an Easter Holiday, when I was at uni, with a 'Slide-Duplicator-Lens that fitted on the front of my film SLR and basically let me point it at a window and take a photo of the slide, with a few rolls of cheap ASDA film & Print pre-paid colour-print film, copying all my Grandfather's slides, to print-film. Sponsored by my gran, who grumbles she had NEVER seen them, cos of the half dozen times he'd tried to set up the slide projector when every one was there to look at them, usually Christmas... the projector bulb was blown or the plug was the wrong time, or or or.... so I went through the carousels, copied them to print film, posted off the envelopes and got back snaps for her to look at.

    Slides, stores in projector carousels, get dirty; EVEN if they are stored in the carousel boxes. More slides were loose, or in the boxes or envelope they came in from the lab.

    NOW, dusty, sometimes moldy, often scratched; Oh-So-Much time was spent with a bowl of warm water, and cotton buds and a brand new box of mounts, trying to clean the slides before I could even begin... like I said, ts TIME and its organisation.... and if you have a bunch of slides that have just been pulled out of the attic, and every-one is 'interested' to see whats on them...... that overhead is a big one, and likely to end in Oh! I thought there was more. I thought there might be a picture of Gt Uncle Eliot in his clown suit" or whatever... you can go to an awful lot of time and trouble, to be utterly underwhelmed by what you actually find....

    Like I said; IF viewing as intended with a projector, and where you find slides you will usually find one of those, or at l;east a battery viewer, so you can have a squiz at them; decide if they ARE worth doing anything with, and cherry picking the keepers. If there aren't that many to start with, that can parse out a lot of dross before you start; if there are a lot, it can still parse out a lot of dross, and bring the number of pictures REALLY worth trying to get good digi-renderings off, down to a number that is economic to get done professionally, and done well.

    Idea that an Aldi web-cam-scan is 'only' £30 in this fortnights specials bullatin through the front door, and "Oh, wouldn't that be great! We could look at ALL them slides of Grandad's, we never got to look at because the bulb had blown and it was a bank holiday!".... no... no... Nooooooo.... RUN AWAY! Smile and nod! Leave them to it! It REALLY is not that easy!

    A-N-D.... IF you think, "OK, well, IF its worth doing, its worth doing well...." and Mum's retired and has the time, mum has the PC savvy, and the determination, and is prepared to learn the ropes, and put in the grunt work sorting and sifting... well.. Oh-Kay... eyes open, expectations not so hugely optimistic.... what the heck... Actual scanner STILL makes not too much odds.... its a question of how much you are prepared to spend; and comparability with PC, and whether you have the HDD space for all the image files.

    On that, for reference, my scanner is chucking out aprox 10Mpix full-frame scans. In Adobe PSD format, straight out of scanner, they are approx 55Mb a piece; when opened, cleaned, curves diddled, spotted out and tidied up, they more than double in file-size and are typically around 100Mb; THEN I can think about cropping them and saving as a display JPEG, which unless down-sized for web-upload are still probably around 6-7Mb.... remember, I have worked my way through around 1/4 of my own halide archive, I have around 4ooo-5ooo scans on the hard drive; that's around 50Gb of scans in the 'working' directory; This is NOT something you will fit on a lap-top with a 350Gb HDD, without it starting to grumble....

    Which leads on to what you going to do with the scans? Will archive copies be kept? Will full Mega-Pixies 'masters' be kept? Will they get touched and uploaded to Farce-Broke, then deleted? Etc etc etc? A-N-D in that set of questions, back to the budget, cos will you need another HDD for the PC to store/work on them? Will you want a pocket HDD to take them round the family>? Will you want another dedicated HDD to archive them, etc etc etc.... NOW, with a 500Gb hard drive perhaps costing £80, the cost of a scanner starts to become a much smaller proportion of the all-in deal; factor in some e-bay shopping for new slide mounts so you can crack the old ones to allow good cleaning of the transparency; add in dedicated archive binders and pages to re-store them after etc etc etc...

    THE SCANNER is but a small part of the entirety of the project....

    Think long and hard about all THAT... THEN if its still a goer... asking what scanner to buy; with a budget in mind, with an acceptable quality level in mind, with an intended audience and means of distribution in mind....THAT will steer what sort of scanner may or may not be more or less suitable.....

    BUT here and now? I'd tell my mum to forget it...... Probably get nagged till doomsday, whether I would do them all for her, but would tell her I'd add them to the queue of still not done in a decade ones, IF she really wants to wait! And she would likely STILL nag... but still... might long-lend her the Web-cam-scan to shut her up, and possibly see some embarrassing baby photos of me pop up on farce-broke, after my daughter had stayed a week-end with her and 'show her how to use it... again'... but still.... DAT be families!

    Up to you, but first thing first is a PLAN, not a scan!

    Best of luck!
     
    RaglanSurf and anisah like this.
  16. stevetiler

    stevetiler

    Messages:
    1,342
    Name:
    Steve
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Hi Mike, thanks for that in-depth reply ! I am fully aware that it wouldn't be a 5 minute job- all my mums are slide mounted so guess that makes things easier and tbh its me and the mrs who are more interested in the content of the pics than my Mum is!
    Just wanted to give it a go but if it turns out to be a massive hassle then I will can the project.
    Thanks for your thoughts and advice though- really appreciate it
     
  17. droj

    droj

    Messages:
    2,647
    Name:
    Rog
    Edit My Images:
    No
    At least with slides you don't have the sometimes tricky colour reversal that's involved with negs. But most scanners will likely struggle with slides' tonal range meaning that often either highlights or shadows (or both!) will be sacrificed or compromised.

    I've scanned hundreds of slides (like Mike above, the hybrid workflow was my route into digital before dslr's had come of age), and decent results needed full manual control of the scan software rather than just using 'auto' settings. I shouldn't think that's changed. And for slides in particular, the more high-end the scanner, the more satisfactory the results.

    I would definitely consider a full-on editing process in choosing which slides to scan - prioritise! This'll make the time commitment more reasonable, or if you were jobbing out the scanning to a lab, make it more affordable.

    Talk about the deep end!
     
  18. stevetiler

    stevetiler

    Messages:
    1,342
    Name:
    Steve
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    This is all starting to sound like a bad idea...…...
     
  19. Nod

    Nod Kronus

    Messages:
    30,181
    Name:
    Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Be picky about which you want scanned. Then go through the short list and see if you can cull it even more! Then pay someone to do the scanning for you - it's a PITA unless you have an auto feeder and scanning isn't a fast process.
     
  20. southernjessie

    southernjessie

    Messages:
    483
    Name:
    SJ
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I'm on the lookout for a scanner but not for negatives, just to scan old photos. I have a 14 year old Canon Canoscan which I'm not sure will work now.

    Any suggestions on a scanner that will give good quality scans from 6x4 photos?
     
    JackBell likes this.
  21. chuckles

    chuckles

    Messages:
    4,295
    Name:
    Barry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Why bother with scanning? Just photograph them with some appropriate kit..... plenty of options around. I just chose these pretty much at random

    Nikon ES-2 at WEX

    Ohnar slide copier

    Certainly a lot quicker than scanning ;)
     
  22. southernjessie

    southernjessie

    Messages:
    483
    Name:
    SJ
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Scanning would give more latitude with editing and scanners also have built in dust and particle correction don’t they?
     
  23. Graham W

    Graham W

    Messages:
    1,755
    Name:
    Graham
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    A flat bed scanner with the appropriate attachment will do a goodish job.
    To get significantly better quality be prepared to spend £££££££££'s
    As others say, pick the "Must haves" and do them first. Otherwise save the job for your retirement. :)
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2018
  24. Teflon-Mike

    Teflon-Mike

    Messages:
    972
    Name:
    Mike
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I HAVE to take a deep intake of breath at the idea that its any, let alone a lot, quicker than conventional scanning!

    Direct digitizing or 'Camera-Scanning'; it's an altogether different ways about; with some treating slides or negs as a peculiar 'macro' exercise, using a light-box and macro-lens; and on larger Medium-Format or sheet-film negs, get great results, without even having to invest in a duplicator lens.

    Mentioned buying a slide duplicator lens to copy all my Grandad's old and never seen slides to colour-print in the early 90's. Believe me, as comment about a dedicated scanner, add the time overhead to sort and organise, clean and prep the slides (and or negs) any shorter time from one shot 1/60s exposure in camera really makes little or no odds, and it's probably slower even in that, than using an Aldi-Web-Cam scanner that saves having to wipe shots from camera to PC!

    When daugher dragged old kit off the wardrobe, that old slide-duplicator lens fell out the box with it, and made me wonder..... Jessops own brand, mine had an Olympus OM mount on it, but I realised that it was actually just a T2 adapter, as such a doddle to buy a Nikon-F mount T2 adapter, and remount it to use on the electric-picture maker. Opening note-pad on the PC gave me a nice white-light back-ground like a window of old, to use as a light source, and off I went.

    First thing is that many of these duplicator lenses, especially 2nd hand ones of old, are designed for 1:1 repro of 35mm frame on 35mm camera. Put a crop sensor behind them, and it crops the slide/neg in half.... some are 'zoom' duplicators, as mine, and web-suggestion was on some you can take the barrel apart and turn the lens element around to get reverse zoom and get it to shrink a 24x36mm frame down onto a 16x24mm sensor, for full frame camera scans.... didn't work on mine, though. Meant either taking 6 or 12 sections across a slide or neg then using pano-stitch in PS to put them back together. 6x 24Mpix, does result in some pretty high mega-pixie digitization though... IF they stitch..... and extra faff in Post, especially from negs, getting the exposure right inverting the imgage, getting rid of the 'blue-mask' of negative film, getting the colour balance back... really adds tgo the time overhead and can defeat the objective if that's 'quick'.. 'cheap' it can be...

    I had the duplicator lens, I think mount cost me about a fiver, which would probably be what you could get an old duplicator lens for on the evil bay. That Nikon duplicator, IF it gives 1:1 on an APS-C sensor camera, is best part of £150, its not offering an awful cost saving over a dedicated scanner before you start. The OHNAR one, at £60, is more reasonable, but again, with Aldi-Web-Cam scanners from as little as £30, and dedicated 'transport' scanners ,second hand on the bay as cheap, is still not offering a lot of cash save, if that too offers 1:1 on APS-C.

    For 'cheap' then a lap-top laid on its back with note-pad open to give a white screen, neg or slide layed on the screen as improvised light box, and whatever lens you have on your camera pressed into 'macro' duty, maybe with an extension tube or reversal ring, would do the same job, for far less cash, and offer potential benefits of camera-scanning larger format film.

    For quick? Time overhead is still not in the actual digitizing time, its in the prep and organisation around it. This is going to be no quicker, and from experience, likely a lot Slower than conventional scanning... you pays your money and takes your chances.

    Personally...... I have and do use camera scanning, and it has been quite useful on occasion, usually for miniature format film, like 110 cartridge.

    [​IMG]

    That's an example; original shot was taken with a Minox Sub-Miniature 'spy' camera, that delivered a tiny 8x10mm negative 1/12 the image area of a 35mm frame. There the 'zoom' facility of the duplicator lens, plus the APS-C cameras crop factor, compound to allow a large degree of optical enlargement, before digitization.

    Full-frame of that 8x10 neg, I think gave about 20Mpix on 24Mpix sensor, far higher than I could get out of the scanner, on 35mm, let alone putting it through the box 'as is' where I'd have got, what? 1MPix if that, for the full frame. That might have been 'OK' for upload to face-book, but especially out of the Aldi-Scan, pretty dire. Higher res Camera-Scan, and the 'diddle' time to invert and sort anyway, gives much more scope for a 'better' 'scan'.

    A-N-D, for 110 negs, it IS probably my go-to way about it, and once I have some 'basic' settings dialed in as far as exposure, I can do a film or two's worth reasonably quickly, through the 'camera-scanner'... b-u-t tidy time, sorting, sifting and organizing, re-doing the ones that on 110 are often pretty dire, where the camera so often relied on film latitude rather than metering, it really ISN'T a quick job, and camera-scanning is far from faster, it just lets me get a digitisation I just wouldn't with a more conventional scanner, at something far closer to an acceptable quality level, and maybe take much 'better' sectional enlargements off 35mm, with a better digital resolution from greater optical and less digital 'zoom' at source.

    Camera-Scanning, is then a valid technique, and another tool in the armory; But..... whilst there seems to be some fanaticism for it, and suggestion that its 'THE'; only way to digitize old film-photo's, because its allegedly 'so' cheap. allegedly 'so' quick, allegedly 'so' easy.... it just isn't, really! Has merit in some situations, like the minox negative, or digitizing 110, or making large sectional crops, or in more tricky 'recovery' situation, but, it doesn't 'really' offer much as a general purpose solution.

    And cost comparison of duplicator lenses shown, to new 'cheap' web-cam scan, or 2nd hand dedicated transport scanner, no, it's neither particularly cheaper, nor quicker, nor easier, and as suggested a simple light-box and macro set up would be as fast, be even cheaper, and offer more versatility to get better scans from wider range of medium; sub-miniature, miniature, small format, medium format, large format, transparency or negative, whatever you have really, and get much higher image quality scans if that's what you want from them; but, whatever scanning technique you employ, the main over-head is still in the TIME to do the job, which ISN'T spent in the machine, but in the sorting and sifting, organizing and once digitized, making something out of that, sorting and organizing them, and finding hard-drive space for them all.

    Its a world of skinning cats, and camera scanning is just one way about, and in many situations possibly a very valid one; but as a 'Go-To' general purpose way about the job, and particularly for a large-ish number of archive images, it is not the one I would propose.
     
  25. chuckles

    chuckles

    Messages:
    4,295
    Name:
    Barry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Sorry I involved myself :(

    Just offered it as an alternative - and the samples I picked at random in about 30 secs.... if you want archival/presentation quality it'll take time, care and patience! (Yes, I did read it all and could have cleaned three slides in the time I lost ;) )
     
  26. chris malcolm

    chris malcolm

    Messages:
    1,217
    Name:
    Chris
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I do quite a lot of "recovery" and enlargement of old family photos in print form. I have macro lenses and a good. copy stand, so I can do it high quality the camera way, which is how I started doing it. I also have one of those very cheap Canon printers which also does photocopies, i.e. it also has a scanner (MP495). I've found to my surprise that for prints of the usual family holiday snaps etc. the scanner does a very good job, being of much better quality than the prints are, and the extra quality that my camera could add makes no difference.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice