# 35mm slide scanner recommendations



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

I will be embarking on a scanning extraviganza.
Roughly 1000 slides to scan.  
Any recommendations on what scanner I need?
Any used scanners out there?
Thanks in advance,
Robert


----------



## oryxbiker (Nov 29, 2001)

well if it was me, i'd go to london drugs and pay them to do it. they'll give you a good high quality scan. it probably cost 150 bucks, but its better than sitting at home and taking an entire DAY to do it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I tend to agree if this is a one shot use as the qulaity will be outstanding.
But if you need a scanner anyway the the 4870 Epson would be the way to go for speed and quality.

Don't touch used and you don't need a dedicated slide scanner these days.


----------



## Elemenopee (Apr 20, 2004)

Any recommendations in the GTA about shops that offer negative-scanning services?


----------



## robert (Sep 26, 2002)

Yes, lmnop, that was my next question.
Who in the GTA offers this service?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

http://www.torontoimageworks.com/digital/digital.html

Good guys. :clap:

Lots more here

http://www.canadiancontent.net/dir/Top/Shopping/Photography/Services/Digital/


----------



## TheBat (Feb 11, 2005)

*Epson 4870*

I have the same issue - many slides - wondering what to do with them. I have read a bit, and will probably settle on the 4870. I still use a SLR camera, and plan to only develop (but not print) film that I have shot. This way I can scan the negatives, and print as required.

This will be a slow project, so time is not too much of an issue. This will also give me a chance to throw out slides I am not happy with.


----------



## D. Keeping (Jul 28, 2001)

*Slide Scanner*

Two years ago I was in the same situation. I tried a flat bed scanner with a slide adapter, but was not pleased with the results. I bought a Minolta Dimage II and I am very pleased with it. It was $450 at the time and came with PhotoShop Elements software. Scanning is VERY labour intensive. It is very important to dust or clean finger prints from the slide or negative before scanning. Software can repair scratches and other damage to old negatives but again also very labour intensive. I have scanner a couple thousand slides and negatives over the last couple of years. I am still rescuing old negatives and slides family and friends. 

A side note: 
I recommened the Epson PictureMate 4X6 photo printer cost 40 cents a photo. If I need a larger print I take my digital files to the photo Lab.

With your own slide scanner, software, and printer you are in total control of your end product

Just am two cents


----------



## Elemenopee (Apr 20, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> http://www.torontoimageworks.com/digital/digital.html
> 
> Good guys. :clap:
> 
> ...


What is your experience with these labs in terms of cleaning up the negatives before scanning? e.g. dust.


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

I use a Nikon 5000 with its vanilla ICE for non-Kodachrome, and a Nikon 9000 with ICE Advanced Pro for Kodachromes. 

I've got two Epsons as well, and find them a bit soft for trannies. Not to mention, incredibly slow for this purpose. You'll be using ICE, and it's much faster on the Nikons.

Dust removal isn't usually an issue with slides and ICE. Exposure and colour correction, however, is another story. Slides can fade and shift quite dramatically. Have fun.

The 5000 holds its value quite well. Do your job, then dump it on Craigslist. For 1,000 pieces, I wouldn't bother with the feeder.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

ScanMan said:


> I use a Nikon 5000 with its vanilla ICE for non-Kodachrome, and a Nikon 9000 with ICE Advanced Pro for Kodachromes.
> 
> I've got two Epsons as well, and find them a bit soft for trannies. Not to mention, incredibly slow for this purpose. You'll be using ICE, and it's much faster on the Nikons.
> 
> ...


ScanMan, I think you're still whirling from the iphone decision - your suggestions are bang on as always, but this post was from 2005.... 

Do you use the 5000 or 9000 to scan negative strips? I"m using the 5000, but wondered if the 9000 is that much better?


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

Well it might be a lot cheaper to get them done somewhere else. Toronto Images Works would also be my first choice.

For the record I'm not a fan of flatbed scanners that are used for slide scanning, I have an Epson 10000 XL sitting beside me right now and it's probably more high end than most. It's ok but for anything I want to print over 8x10 I find the quality really lacking.

Granted it probably depends a lot on what size you require the output to be.

Otherwise you are kind of stuck with Nikon Coolscans which are quite nice film scanners but with the 35mm versions I think you have to get an adaptor if you want to gang up your slides. (most time effective with that kind of quantity) 

I use a Coolscan 8000 for my own work although I own a couple of Leafscan 35's which IMHO are still the best film scanners around with the exception of drum scanners. But this is pretty slow technology today and with that volume of material time might also become a big factor.

Kevin


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

keebler27 said:


> ScanMan, I think you're still whirling from the iphone decision - your suggestions are bang on as always, but this post was from 2005....
> 
> Do you use the 5000 or 9000 to scan negative strips? I"m using the 5000, but wondered if the 9000 is that much better?


Doh, didn't catch that either.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

ScanMan said:


> I use a Nikon 5000 with its vanilla ICE for non-Kodachrome, and a Nikon 9000 with ICE Advanced Pro for Kodachromes.


I have the 8000 at home and a 9000 at work. Basically the same scanner, watch out if you are using it a lot as the power supply only uses convection cooling. 

The 8000 originally came from work, we tossed it out because Nikon wanted $900 to repair it. Turned out it was the power supply board, $130 cdn from Nikon.....

I installed a better heat sink on it and keep an eye on the cooling holes at the rear so far we've been more careful with the 9000 and haven't had any problems yet. They showed up initially as crashes and lock ups between scans.

Kevin


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

keebler27 said:


> ScanMan, I think you're still whirling from the iphone decision - your suggestions are bang on as always, but this post was from 2005....
> 
> Do you use the 5000 or 9000 to scan negative strips? I"m using the 5000, but wondered if the 9000 is that much better?


I have no idea how I landed on this old thread! I'm not a fan or regurgitated threads. Guess I've got too many things happening on my desk right now.

Scanning is very boring stuff for most, and as Chas_m has recently said elsewhere, bloody annoying (or words to that effect). So I hate to bring it up. Frankly I'm a bit embarrassed to dig up this old discussion.

To answer your question; It's not THAT much better. But the ICE implementation on the 9000 does give some added assurance that you're not going to be missing small detail like fenceposts on the hilltops, etc. from your Kodachromes. I've done enough side-by-sides to know this for certain. There's also a bit less colour blooming.

I love my 5000, but the 9000 is more versatile. From 126 negs to medium format slides, it provides a lot of can-do options. 

Would I upgrade from the 5000 simply for 35mm slides? No. It catches 100% of the detail most of the time...so I wouldn't think much more about it.

And yes, I've been granted an extension on the iPhone purchase. What a kid.

(edit) What a maroon...your question was about neg strips. For negs, I personally don't experience much difference in the results. The 5000 does them faster, tho.


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

Niteshooter said:


> I installed a better heat sink on it and keep an eye on the cooling holes at the rear so far we've been more careful with the 9000 and haven't had any problems yet.


I had to laugh the other night when I saw an add on CL selling a 9000, and the photo showed it in a working environment with what looked like an Epson 4990 sitting on top of it. I guess saving a little desk space was the concept.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

ScanMan said:


> I have no idea how I landed on this old thread! I'm not a fan or regurgitated threads. Guess I've got too many things happening on my desk right now.
> 
> Scanning is very boring stuff for most, and as Chas_m has recently said elsewhere, bloody annoying (or words to that effect). So I hate to bring it up. Frankly I'm a bit embarrassed to dig up this old discussion.
> 
> ...


thanks for the answers and don't feel bad about the thread regeneration. We all do it once in a while.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

ScanMan said:


> I had to laugh the other night when I saw an add on CL selling a 9000, and the photo showed it in a working environment with what looked like an Epson 4990 sitting on top of it. I guess saving a little desk space was the concept.


Ouch, we killed the 8000 by running it 24/7 with the boxes of neg carriers on top over the vent holes. I guess the bright side is it cost me $130 for a working scanner with extra neg carriers....


----------

