Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

AbSoluTc

Contributor
Original poster
Sep 21, 2008
5,247
4,180
I used to have a Canon scanner that I used several years back to do my negative scanning. Worked well but I no longer have it and with my dad and mom recently passing away, I want to finish what I started and get all these negatives scanned in digitally so I can create some photo books for my brothers.

Anyone have any suggestions? I can use either Mac or Windows.

Thanks for any help and ideas!
 

ChrisA

macrumors G5
Jan 5, 2006
12,837
2,043
Redondo Beach, California
I used to have a Canon scanner that I used several years back to do my negative scanning. Worked well but I no longer have it and with my dad and mom recently passing away, I want to finish what I started and get all these negatives scanned in digitally so I can create some photo books for my brothers.

Anyone have any suggestions? I can use either Mac or Windows.

Thanks for any help and ideas!

Scanning negatives is a lot of work. It takes a few minutes per frame at least because you have to at least adjust the color and exposure and maybe some minor dust/scratch busting.

I've been using Scan Caffe. You can go to heir web site and look at prices and service but WAIT for one of their very frequent sales. Some times they drop prices to maybe 25 cents per frame. For that price they actually do some hand work on each frame. A real human looks and does about a minute of work on the image. Far better then machine scanning.

They do the scanning either in India or in The USA midwest some place. The scans done in the US cost more but have a quicker turn around.

Yes yo can buy a scanner but realistically if you have many images to scan you are not going to get it done unless that is all you do every night and weekend for weeks or months plus you need to buy the scanner.

Good 35mm film scanners are not easy to find nor are they inexpensive. notice the key word "good". You want decent resolution and dynamic range. The cheaper scanners lack dynamic range.

One solution gif you have a dSLR is to resort the images. Minolta, Nikon and others used to make a 100mm bellows lens and attachments for re-shooting film. You can find these on eBay. Use your dSLR to re-shot in RAW format. Then invert the color in software.
 

dwig

macrumors 6502a
Jan 4, 2015
905
447
Key West FL
One solution gif you have a dSLR is to resort the images. Minolta, Nikon and others used to make a 100mm bellows lens and attachments for re-shooting film. You can find these on eBay. Use your dSLR to re-shot in RAW format. Then invert the color in software.

While this can work very well, it is EXTREMELY time consuming and somewhat difficult to get good results from color negatives. It requires a good degree of skill using an image editor in order to get decent results. This technique is a reasonably easy approach when the originals are either color slides or B&W negs. There are several threads over on the Rangefinder Form , particularly this one, that discuss the issues involved.

If you want reasonably easy, straight forward scans from color negs, my suggestion is one of the middle to upper model scanners from Epson. Their Epson Perfection V600 would be a good starting point. It won't deliver the image quality of a high end scanner, but will give excellent results for either screen/web display or desktop printing up to 8x10 or maybe 13x19.
 

ChrisA

macrumors G5
Jan 5, 2006
12,837
2,043
Redondo Beach, California
Yes, scanning is hard to do. This is why I recommended you outsource the work to a professional service. Yes you can save money by doing it yourself but you save about $3 for every hour you work. I actually have a mid range scanner, actually a little nicer than the V600. And I have a Nikon dSLR too.

If you do buy a scanner. One essential feature is what they call "Kodak Digital ICE" Ir is a 4th color channel that uses IR to make a second pass after the RGB scan. This can't be simulated in software bacuse you need an actual infrared light build inside the scanner. As it turns out due and scratches show up when they subtract the color and IR images. It is about 80% effective so you have less work to do manually. Some times it is called by a different name but it is always a four IR color channel

I would ONLY recommend doing your own scanning if you need very fast turnaround. Don't even think about it if the goal is just to save the cost of the scanning service. There are many services but I've had good results from Scan Caffe.

Peole think "what is there to it? I just put the negative in close the lid and click a button with th mouse." No. there s more to it. In the beginning you will be lucky to be able to to 5 scenes per hour. There is the handling time where you remove the film from the envelope, place it into the film holder and the revere this process. The after the scan is complete you see the color needs fixing and they is ALWAYS dust and scratches so you will be using the clone tool in Photoshop or some other software.

After a while you learn to handle the film more quickly even when warming the white gloves you at first thought you did not need. Then you learn to do the color correction and dust busting while the scanner is working on the next image. After you get this system down you can do maybe 8 to 10 per hour.

So after you are "trained and up to speed: you are saving $2.75 per hour. Then after working 8 hours a day for two full weeks (about 80 hours) you have paid for your scanner and reach "break even."

But even after this break even all you have as rather mediocre scans done on a flatbed.
 

tgara

macrumors 65816
Jul 17, 2012
1,154
2,898
Connecticut, USA
I used Scan Café a few years ago to scan in some old wedding photos from the 35mm negatives I had. They came out great. It's a little unnerving to send precious negatives (or photos) out to a third party, but they tracked everything throughout the process, nothing got lost, and everything was returned in perfect condition. For me, it cost a few hundred dollars, but in the end it was worth it because they could do a better job of it than I ever could. Now I have digital copies of my old wedding photos and can share, print, etc.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
22,998
9,976
CT
I used Scan Café a few years ago to scan in some old wedding photos from the 35mm negatives I had. They came out great. It's a little unnerving to send precious negatives (or photos) out to a third party, but they tracked everything throughout the process, nothing got lost, and everything was returned in perfect condition. For me, it cost a few hundred dollars, but in the end it was worth it because they could do a better job of it than I ever could. Now I have digital copies of my old wedding photos and can share, print, etc.
What format do they scan them in?
 

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,347
6,488
Kentucky
In the consumer realm, IMO there is not a better scanner FOR 35MM FILM than the Nikon Coolscan V/5000.

The V and 5000 are at their root the same scanner-about the only key difference I'm aware of is that the 5000 can scan an entire uncut roll while the V is limited to a 6 strip negative.

These scanners max at 4000x4000 dpi, which will grain(or dye cloud) resolve films like Ektar 100 or Provia 100F. These are the finest grained films ever made in their respective categories(color print and color slide). For normal consumer print film or anything in the 400 ASA range, that resolution is overkill.

Due to the design of the negative carrier, film flatness is superb(an important consideration). In addition, if you use infrared dust removal(don't use it on real B&W or Kodachrome, but it works great on color print film and Ektachrome-type slide film) it collects the IR data in the same pass as the scan so actually works fairly fast. The lighting is all LED, which has the advantage of minimal color drift over time(most other scanners use fluorescent lighting).

As shipped, the scanner would have come with a slide holder, a strip film feeder, and a negative carrier that fits in the slide holder to hold 1 or 2 unmounted frames. These parts can be expensive to buy individually, so I'd advise looking for a scanner that includes all. I actually don't have the single frame holder. There are a few other odds and ends available-I've seen a slide feeder, for example.

Nikon has never known how to write good Mac software, and the Coolscan software is no exception. The most recent version is carbonized, meaning it will run both in Mac OS 9 and OS X. It is a PowerPC only program, meaning that it will not run on any operating system newer than Snow Leopard(10.6). It's also a bit clunky, but admittedly is a good piece of software even if not overly intuitive(and I've been scanning film for 10 years). I don't know what the recent Windows compatibility is like, but a dedicated XP box would probably be a safe choice.

Fortunately, the Coolscan V is USB(2.0) so you don't have to worry about Firewire dongles if using a newer Mac, getting Firewire to work at all if you are using Windows, or getting SCSI to work on either platform(my dual 2.7 G5 has SCSI working in Leopard, but it was an absolute nightmare to get there-G4 and older computers and older versions of OS X are a lot easier)

Vuescan is a great 3rd party program that will run almost every scanner on the market and is kept up to date. That means that it works perfectly in High Sierra. Unfortunately, its one major failing is that it doesn't have digital ICE. ICE is BOTH the scanner hardware(IR channel scanning) and the algorithms that make it work. Vuescan can use the IR channel scanning, but their algorithms aren't as good as the ones used for ICE. I've made side-by-side scans and ICE does a better job both of cleaning and of retaining detail.

With that said, a flatbed is a much more flexible option. Epsons are pretty well the gold standard in the consumer realm. I've been very happy with my V700 aside from the terrible medium format film holders(there are 3rd party ones that are supposed to be better). I opted for the V700 specifically because it can scan 4x5(immediate need at the time) and 8x10(possible future need). It can handle 2 strips of medium format, 4 strips(6 frames each) of 35mm, or 12 mounted slides. The V750(and V850) come with a glass mounting tray that can also be purchased separately for use on the V700 or V800. I mostly use mine to wet-mount medium format and large format when I want the best quality scan(again, the MF holders are terrible) but it can also be used-wet or dry-if you have other formats like 110, 126, or 127. Unless you need to scan large format, the V600 is a lot less expensive and will handle 2 strips of 35mm, a single strip of 120, or 4 mounted slides. Optically, the Epsons aren't as good as a dedicated film scanner, but they're more than acceptable for many uses. They are also slower than the Nikon when using ICE or equivalent as they have to make a separate IR channel pass.

I THINK there is an Intel-native version of Epson Scan that will work with 35mm, but haven't actually used it. Epson Scan also has real ICE. Vuescan will run the Epson scanners as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark0

ChrisA

macrumors G5
Jan 5, 2006
12,837
2,043
Redondo Beach, California
What format do they scan them in?

With Scancaffe you have a choice. The standard is JPG but they can supply TIFF. The TIFF files are huge uncompressed files much like RAW files from a dSLR camera. You pay a little more for this. JPG is their normal format.
[doublepost=1511209505][/doublepost]I think the quote below about nails it.

I've got an Epson 4870 scanner. If is almost like a V800. The scanner works well and yes, you need to run VuScan software. 4,000 DPI is as good as you will ever need for scanning film. This gives you 24 megapixel images with is about as good as a 35mm camera can do.

DOn't forget to buy some disk drives for backup and you should subscribe to a cloud backup service (I use Backblaze) A good rule is to always have three copies of the data and alway at two different geograpical locations. You need some kid of near by and off site rotations on top of Apple's Time machine. You don't want to loos this work if lightening strikes the power pole down the street or if yore computer is stolen. You ned a plan such that even after a disaster yo still have redundant copies.

But even with a good scanner you'd be working at $2 per hour if you do your own scans of 35mm film. The reason you have a scanner is for odd low volume jobs and for instant turn around. If you have hundreds of negatives it is actually faster to outsource the work because they can have multiple people working 8 hour shifts doing the job and you can only be one person working part time.

One more thing: If you are going to get serious about scanning you really need to by a "Calibrated color test target" Is is a little piece of film with EXACT color patches. You scan this then use the data to calibrate you scanner. Do this periodically and you get color perfect scans.

It is best to read up a little and understand color spaces and color management BEFORE to invest hundreds of hours of your time. Get this right the FIRST time. and scan on calibrated equipment. It's not hard to do




In the consumer realm, IMO there is not a better scanner FOR 35MM FILM than the Nikon Coolscan V/5000.

The V and 5000 are at their root the same scanner-about the only key difference I'm aware of is that the 5000 can scan an entire uncut roll while the V is limited to a 6 strip negative.

These scanners max at 4000x4000 dpi, which will grain(or dye cloud) resolve films like Ektar 100 or Provia 100F. These are the finest grained films ever made in their respective categories(color print and color slide). For normal consumer print film or anything in the 400 ASA range, that resolution is overkill.

Due to the design of the negative carrier, film flatness is superb(an important consideration). In addition, if you use infrared dust removal(don't use it on real B&W or Kodachrome, but it works great on color print film and Ektachrome-type slide film) it collects the IR data in the same pass as the scan so actually works fairly fast. The lighting is all LED, which has the advantage of minimal color drift over time(most other scanners use fluorescent lighting).

As shipped, the scanner would have come with a slide holder, a strip film feeder, and a negative carrier that fits in the slide holder to hold 1 or 2 unmounted frames. These parts can be expensive to buy individually, so I'd advise looking for a scanner that includes all. I actually don't have the single frame holder. There are a few other odds and ends available-I've seen a slide feeder, for example.

Nikon has never known how to write good Mac software, and the Coolscan software is no exception. The most recent version is carbonized, meaning it will run both in Mac OS 9 and OS X. It is a PowerPC only program, meaning that it will not run on any operating system newer than Snow Leopard(10.6). It's also a bit clunky, but admittedly is a good piece of software even if not overly intuitive(and I've been scanning film for 10 years). I don't know what the recent Windows compatibility is like, but a dedicated XP box would probably be a safe choice.

Fortunately, the Coolscan V is USB(2.0) so you don't have to worry about Firewire dongles if using a newer Mac, getting Firewire to work at all if you are using Windows, or getting SCSI to work on either platform(my dual 2.7 G5 has SCSI working in Leopard, but it was an absolute nightmare to get there-G4 and older computers and older versions of OS X are a lot easier)

Vuescan is a great 3rd party program that will run almost every scanner on the market and is kept up to date. That means that it works perfectly in High Sierra. Unfortunately, its one major failing is that it doesn't have digital ICE. ICE is BOTH the scanner hardware(IR channel scanning) and the algorithms that make it work. Vuescan can use the IR channel scanning, but their algorithms aren't as good as the ones used for ICE. I've made side-by-side scans and ICE does a better job both of cleaning and of retaining detail.

With that said, a flatbed is a much more flexible option. Epsons are pretty well the gold standard in the consumer realm. I've been very happy with my V700 aside from the terrible medium format film holders(there are 3rd party ones that are supposed to be better). I opted for the V700 specifically because it can scan 4x5(immediate need at the time) and 8x10(possible future need). It can handle 2 strips of medium format, 4 strips(6 frames each) of 35mm, or 12 mounted slides. The V750(and V850) come with a glass mounting tray that can also be purchased separately for use on the V700 or V800. I mostly use mine to wet-mount medium format and large format when I want the best quality scan(again, the MF holders are terrible) but it can also be used-wet or dry-if you have other formats like 110, 126, or 127. Unless you need to scan large format, the V600 is a lot less expensive and will handle 2 strips of 35mm, a single strip of 120, or 4 mounted slides. Optically, the Epsons aren't as good as a dedicated film scanner, but they're more than acceptable for many uses. They are also slower than the Nikon when using ICE or equivalent as they have to make a separate IR channel pass.

I THINK there is an Intel-native version of Epson Scan that will work with 35mm, but haven't actually used it. Epson Scan also has real ICE. Vuescan will run the Epson scanners as well.
 

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,347
6,488
Kentucky
But even with a good scanner you'd be working at $2 per hour if you do your own scans of 35mm film. The reason you have a scanner is for odd low volume jobs and for instant turn around.

Actually, I'll go out on a limb and say that the reason I scan myself is to have ultimate control of the process and be able to get EXACTLY the results I want(or at least within the capabilities of my hardware).

It's the same reason why I look at the lab down the road that will develop my B&W for $5 a roll but still do it myself. If I paid myself a fair wage for my darkroom work, it would cost a LOT more than that, but running every roll of film regardless of the emulsion or how it was shot through D76 for 7 minutes(what the local lab does) doesn't give me the best results with every film. It gives AN IMAGE with pretty much anything, but even using nothing but D76(what I use at home 90% of the time) I still have a lot more control over the grain and contrast than an automated processor gives me and can customize to every film.

It's also why I spent about an hour this evening and probably a dozen or more pieces of paper printing a negative. Admittedly part of it was just playing with my new toy(a Leitz Focomat 35V) but part of it was also doing my best to get the best print I could out of the negative.

Going back to scanning-I have on occasion sent out 4x5s for drum scanning, an expensive and increasingly specialized proposition. That's when I want the absolute best, and doing so doesn't come cheaply.

Along those same lines, I also don't scan every negative/transparency I expose. Doing so is a waste of my time-I look at them on the light table, and only the ones worth scanning get scanned. Granted that's almost everything in 4x5 and a decent portion of medium format, but I have a LOT of 35mm that never sees the light of day.

If you just want a "good enough" scan to view the images and make modest sized prints, though, I agree that one of the inexpensive high volume places is the way to go.
 

AbSoluTc

Contributor
Original poster
Sep 21, 2008
5,247
4,180
Lots of good info here. I am thinking of going with the Canon 9000F Mark II or whatever it is. I used something similar the last time I scanned and it was fine to me. Then again, I need to check out the high volume places. Just not sure I trust someone with my ONLY negatives from the 70's. I would be really sad to lose them.
 

dwig

macrumors 6502a
Jan 4, 2015
905
447
Key West FL
...Just not sure I trust someone with my ONLY negatives from the 70's. I would be really sad to lose them.

Scanning yourself does have a "security" advantage. That is one major reason why I've always done my own scanning.

If you were happy scanning with your old Canon scanner then I'm sure a new similar model will be fine for your needs, as would any of the better (v600 and up) EPSON scanners. While it doesn't deliver all of the detail that I get with the Imacon scanner I use at work, I've been quite satisfied with the EPSON v700 that I use at home.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.