If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning
I will be getting a scanner+printer or scan, fax, copy, print machine
to convert Kodachromes and fine grain 35 film , the Kodachromes start from 1947 so there are thousands of good ones to pick from. Do I need a dedicated film scanner and printer to bring out the quality I have or can one of the new 400$ Canon-Epson-HP machine do me justice in the Scan-Print department. Im sure there are tradeoffs in the all in one units. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning
m Ransley wrote:
I will be getting a scanner+printer or scan, fax, copy, print machine to convert Kodachromes and fine grain 35 film , the Kodachromes start from 1947 so there are thousands of good ones to pick from. Do I need a dedicated film scanner and printer to bring out the quality I have or can one of the new 400$ Canon-Epson-HP machine do me justice in the Scan-Print department. Im sure there are tradeoffs in the all in one units. I have yet to see any home color printer capable of producing excellent results at a price equal to or lower than a photo shop. The paper and ink costs are still just too high. I just use a scanner and take the images to a photo shop to be printed. Much cheaper with great results. Another option depending on your camera is to get a 35mm slide mount for it to convert to digital. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning
I know the cost is higher that is not my concern, I see 400$ photo
scanners, 400$ photo printers, then 400$ fax, copy, scan, print machines, I want the control and the possibility of a all in one unit as I need fax and copy . The issue is trying to get the best out of Kodachrome, maybe I need all three machines |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning
"m Ransley" wrote: I know the cost is higher that is not my concern, I see 400$ photo scanners, 400$ photo printers, then 400$ fax, copy, scan, print machines, I want the control and the possibility of a all in one unit as I need fax and copy . The issue is trying to get the best out of Kodachrome, maybe I need all three machines Flatbeds are getting better, but they're not there yet. Here's the Epson 4870 vs. the Nikon 8000. http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325/original Kodachrome is, apparently, hard to scan, but the latest Nikon scanners (V, 5000, 9000) are claimed to do better than earlier scanners. If your old film is worth scanning, you'd probably be happiest with either a Nikon 5000 or Konica-Minolta 5400, but Konica-Minolta is getting out of the photography business, so it's not clear what's happening with that scanner. The Nikon V would be a close second. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning
speaking of scanner flim/slide
I have many hundreds to thousand of slides to scan for myself and from a few friends I have KM Dimage dual Scan IV -- that does ok for 4 slides at a time but for doing many I think I'm going to buy something that can do more slides at a batch thoughts on the Braun Multimag 4000 scanner or the Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED with the 50 slide batch accessory the 1st is roughly 1250$ and the Nikon stuff is 980$ + 450$ for the batch slide add-on so the nikon is 200-300 more "David J. Littleboy" wrote in message ... "m Ransley" wrote: I know the cost is higher that is not my concern, I see 400$ photo scanners, 400$ photo printers, then 400$ fax, copy, scan, print machines, I want the control and the possibility of a all in one unit as I need fax and copy . The issue is trying to get the best out of Kodachrome, maybe I need all three machines Flatbeds are getting better, but they're not there yet. Here's the Epson 4870 vs. the Nikon 8000. http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325/original Kodachrome is, apparently, hard to scan, but the latest Nikon scanners (V, 5000, 9000) are claimed to do better than earlier scanners. If your old film is worth scanning, you'd probably be happiest with either a Nikon 5000 or Konica-Minolta 5400, but Konica-Minolta is getting out of the photography business, so it's not clear what's happening with that scanner. The Nikon V would be a close second. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning
m Ransley wrote: I will be getting a scanner+printer or scan, fax, copy, print machine to convert Kodachromes and fine grain 35 film , the Kodachromes start from 1947 so there are thousands of good ones to pick from. Do I need a dedicated film scanner and printer to bring out the quality I have or can one of the new 400$ Canon-Epson-HP machine do me justice in the Scan-Print department. Im sure there are tradeoffs in the all in one units. All depends on what you need, the Epson 4990 will do a good job if you are not printing over 8x10. If you want max detail then then Minolta 5400 or Nikon 5000 is your answer. The Epson is a flatbed scanner and can do 12 slides at a time. The Minolta 5400 can do 4 and I'm not ertain about the Nikon. Kodachrome may be a problem, as the emulsion structure is very different from Ektachrome type slide film. Printing is a whole different question, good home printing has a little learning curve. Some folks are happy going the Walmart/Cosco route. I have never been happy with their prints. Depending on how many you are going to print, I don't print many so I'm happy to do my own. Printers such as the Epson R1800/R800, 2400, and the HP designjet series do a great job and are worth looking into. Tom |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning
A scanner that sounds good at 600$ is the MicroTek Scan Maker i900 dual
scan bed 3200dpi Dmax @4.2. It comes with Scan Wizard pro, Digital Ice. LaserSoft SilverFast Ai6 and Kodack color management. I think it does 12 slides at a time. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning
"m Ransley" wrote in message
... I will be getting a scanner+printer or scan, fax, copy, print machine to convert Kodachromes and fine grain 35 film , the Kodachromes start from 1947 so there are thousands of good ones to pick from. Do I need a dedicated film scanner and printer to bring out the quality I have or can one of the new 400$ Canon-Epson-HP machine do me justice in the Scan-Print department. Im sure there are tradeoffs in the all in one units. Hi. An "All in One" is by definition a Compromise. If you want quality results you need a Film Scanner. If you want to produce good Quality Prints from your scans you need a Quality Photo Printer. Neither of these will be cheap. You may also need a flatbed scanner for generating Faxes from documents, or scanning the odd Print or two, but neither of these functions require high quality, so you should be able to get one of these for very little cost. Roy G |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning
Should each slide be scanned individualy , will a batch film scaner not
give optimum results since no two photos are equal. I would think negatives batch scanned would be best. Scanning 1000 old slides individualy will take forever. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Chicken skin" effect when scanning b/w images | jersie0 | Digital Photography | 9 | February 10th 05 02:46 AM |
New UK slide scanning service launched | Chris Todhunter | Digital Photography | 6 | November 20th 04 11:32 AM |
New UK slide scanning service launched | Chris Todhunter | Film & Labs | 6 | November 20th 04 11:32 AM |
Scanning negatives with xsane | Gavin Cameron | Digital Photography | 0 | July 5th 04 01:47 PM |
Scanning Software versus Photoshop | Dale | Digital Photography | 3 | July 1st 04 05:20 PM |