Heather Blanks , Mar 27, 2009; 11:42 p.m.
I just recently got a film body in addition to my digital bodies and I'm really enjoy using it, I'm beginning to think more seriously about getting a film scanner of my own. Besides being an addition to my film setup now, I've got quite a few older negatives (and a few slides) left over from my pre-digital days that I'd like to scan as well. I've been doing a good bit of reading about the different film scanners out there, but I really haven't settled on a particular model. These questions keep coming to mind:
--Flatbed or dedicated scanner? Everything seems to be pointing towards the dedicated scanners, but they're so pricey. The Nikon Coolscans are definitely out of consideration because I really can't afford to plop down $1,000+ for one. My budget: $300-400 at the absolute most. Another vote in favor of the dedicated scanners is that I don't have a whole lot of room on my desk for a flatbed scanner; I've also got a multifunction printer/scanner/copier, so I really don't need another flatbed scanner.
--Resolution-what do I really need? I'd like the ability to be able to make 8x12 or maybe even 11x14 prints for the really special pics. For the older snapshot type of negatives, I don't need so much resolution.
--Does having ICE capabilities make that much of a difference?
Currently, I'm running a PC with Vista, so the software would need to be compatible with that. At any rate, I don't have the funds to buy one just yet, but I'd like to get an idea of how much I should reasonably expect to save up for one.
Thanks!
Heather :)
John Shriver 
, Mar 28, 2009; 12:17 a.m.
Used CoolScan IV? That should fit your budget. Version 4.0.3 of Nikon Scan supports Windows Vista. (I wouldn't expect any support for Windows 7. XP and Vista support were years late.)
You really need ICE. Dust, and worse, scratches from the mini-labs.
Flatbeds don't have more than about 2000 pixel/inch resolution at the very optimal best. They also have a hard time with dense areas on the film. That said, I have an Epson V750 to go with my CoolScan IV, and it's a great scanner for anything larger than 35mm.
Dan Lovell - Orange County, California , Mar 28, 2009; 12:19 a.m.
Heather if you shoot 35mm negatives, then forget about a flat bed scanner. None of them can even come close to a dedicated 35mm negative scanner such as the Nikon Super CoolScan 5000, for example. It can be had new for around $1,000, or used in excellent shape for $700 or less. I've got one and I really love it.
There are other dedicated 35mm scanners too that are very good, however for 35mm film steer clear of all flat bed scanners, unless you love to be frustrated.
Scanned using a Nikon Super CoolScan 5000:
Arista ISO 400, B&W, Canon EOS-3, Fill Flash, 35mm F8
Mendel Leisk 
, Mar 28, 2009; 12:38 a.m.
Running Vista may reduce your choices. Older, dedicated film scanners may not run on that system.
I have both the Minolta Scan Elite 5400 and the Nikon Coolscan V. Of the the 2 the Minolta is the undisputed quality champ, but the Coolscan V is no slouch, and a fair bit faster. Depends on what you're scanning to some extent. I find color negatives come out well on the Nikon, but for silver emulsion b/w the MInolta delivers much better quality, and does not seem to find the scratches and dust the NIkon never misses.
Brooks Gelfand , Mar 28, 2009; 01:28 a.m.
Certain older scanner software may not run under Vista, but VueScan will and supports most older scanners.
http://www.hamrick.com/
Robert K , Mar 28, 2009; 09:18 a.m.
Lauren MacIntosh 
, Mar 28, 2009; 10:39 a.m.
Heather: Take a look at the Epson 2450 scanner it will handle up to 4x5 negatives and will run on Vista [ I just got mine and like it ] should be able to find one for 100.00 or maybe less: good luck
Heather Blanks , Mar 28, 2009; 01:29 p.m.
Thanks for all the help so far! :) Another question--has anybody had any experience using the Plustek dedicated film scanners? Pricewise, they look to be very reasonable--Adorama has several models ranging in price from $199.95 to $458.95. Looking at all the specs, I'm having a hard time figuring out which model would be the most appropriate for me. Once I buy a scanner, I want to be able to keep it a while, as opposed to getting frustrated with it after a short time and upgrading.
Thanks!
Heather :)
Robert Cirillo 
, Mar 28, 2009; 04:25 p.m.
Much of my portfolio is 35mm film scanned with a Nikon Coolscan LS-2000. It's obsolete, but works very well.
Jim Z , Mar 28, 2009; 04:51 p.m.
I use the Plustek 7200 and am quite happy with it. I recently had 8x10, 11x14, and 16x20 prints made of an old Panatomic-X B&W negative I scanned with it. The 8x10 was a match in quality to the 8x10 optical print I'd made years ago in my darkroom, the 11x14 was stunning, and I was amazed with the 16x20 (that old Panatomic-X film was pretty good stuff). Only thing "wrong" with it is it captured so much detail that it showed some tiny scratches in the negative I was unaware of and some bits of grit or something that I had to touch out - never saw any of that in the optical print! I use it with the Vuescan software, by the way, even though it came with Silverfast.
jZ
