If you are not already somewhat proficient with some kind of photo editing software, then allow a few weeks (or months) of study for that. By cleaning up, I mean color and levels adjustments, and possibly cropping, dust/scratch removal, etc. Whether you scan the prints, the negatives, or photograph the negatives with your dSLR, the files are going to need a certain amount of cleaning up in something like Photoshop. But don't underestimate the amount of time it's going to take to get that many scans, and then to post process them into good looking images. If you want the most control, and if you have more time than money, and if you have a high tolerance for boring repetitive tasks, then do-it-yourself is the way to go. By quality, I mean dynamic range, resolution, and sharpness, especially if you want to make prints larger than the ones you have now. If all you care about are quick-and-dirty files to be viewed at small size on the web, then you might get by with scanning the paper photos and cleaning them up with something like Photoshop.īut if you want to print a book, or make prints for framing, or show them on large, high-resolution monitors, then there is a LOT more potential quality to be gained by scanning the negatives on a dedicated film scanner, or, possibly, by copying them with your dSLR (I haven't tried that, but it's something worth looking into). The FF-640 is even faster than my 520 and Epson claims speeds up to 1 photo per second.īut getting back to negs - yup, the V5XX and V6XX are the best bang for the buck and if one has a few more dollars, the V8XX work very well. If photos are really the problem, then there is one other scanner from Epson that is worth considering. I bought a refurbished model at half the regular price and I've scanned over 4,000 old prints in a couple of days with no jams and now skew problems. I fill up the hopper and it is very very fast. In addition, I just started using an Epson DS-520 to scan old prints where quality is not as important, just fast 600dpi scanning. It's an inexpensive solution but if you get the workflow right, you can get excellent results. I am on my second V500, wore out the first one and keep it for parts. Since I still enjoy shooting film in large quantities, I can't think of a better way to go. I would say it's the route to go, but it really depends on what you want to get out of it and are willing to put into it, too. For certain there is a learning curve, but I find it enjoyable. I'm planning to move up to a top-end Epson in the near future, but even the low-end photo models will produce great results once you get your workflow down. I bought a low-end Epson scanner (V500), worked out a good consistent workflow over the time I've had it, and now am producing excellent quality images. Myself, I scan all my own film - old and new - and for me it is the best option. You'll have to decide what's important to you. On the flip side, they are convenient and pretty much hassle free. They're also not particularly cheap - could be at least as expensive as a lower end scanner, and maybe more. Services are fine, but you risk damage/loss of the negatives shipping them to and back from the scanner service.
It's up to you to decide how much you feel it's worth the effort and time put in. That said, it takes time and a bit of practice/trial & error to get things down to where you can consistently generate good scans. Prints are fine if you have no other option, but the negs will give you superior scans. Skip the prints and scan the negs instead. Should I invest in a film scanner? If so, what would you recommend?Īlternately, should I use a service? What would you recommend?
As a rough estimate I would say I have 2000-2500 exposures, some of which I will discard. I have the original 35 mm color negatives. Is this the best I can expect? If not, what are I doing wrong? Is there a particular setting I should be using?
0 kommentar(er)
