Film/dias scanning

[afx]

The right targets?

You need a generic reflective target to profile the scanner for paper scans and the right targets of the files you want to scan slides or negatives from.
The cheapest source is here: http://www.targets.coloraid.de/

For image scanning, appropriate profiling makes a huge difference! I would not bother without it.
The Epson software does not support profiling. So you need either SilverFast or VueScan, both of which do support this.

See some samples of what profiling brings you here (with a V600): http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/V600/V600.HTM

Do you have experience with both? What about the features of the software? Ease of use?

My experience with SlverFast is limited and dated. Did no like the UI/Workflow.
VueScan is not sexy, but once you get the hang of it, it is very efficient and powerful.
Supports multipass, batch, IR (for ICE/FLARE), and can generated even DNG output.
Have not used it for a few years, sold my slide scanner a while ago,
VueScan is supposed to have OCR support in the latest versions. Will check that once my Epson arrives, as the initial key usage for it will be scanning recipes from food porn magazines.

I just tested the cheap scanner again together with my father yesterday to show the quality of the scans. He wasn't impressed, just like I wasn't. We will likely buy an Epson scanner soon, but first my dad will check the quality of his dias.

If your prime goal is slide scanning, the I suggest buying a dedicated slide scanner.
Grab a Nikon from Ebay, get a VueScan license (Nikon no longer supports current operating systems) and sell the scanner once you're done.
Or get a Reflecta. Depending on the amount you want to scan, the speed and batch support of the scanner can make a huge difference.I have not followed the film/slide scanner development in recent years, so I don't know what is currently the recommended tool. Check here: http://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html for a starting point.

On the other hand, if you only want to scan in a few memories, the V550 is quite adequate, and it is more versatile than a slide scanner.

cheers
afx

[PeterN]

Rather than buying one, you could consider renting a high-end scanner. That might be a lot cheaper.

[Gary]

I have the Epson v850 flatbed scanner. It does well for 120mm but in my opinion fails at 35mm.  I have a Plustek dedicated 35mm scanner for miniature sized negatives.

None of the above options I would call affordable, saying $100 USD is affordable.  If you don't have a lot of scans to make, I think the most affordable with the highest quality would be a good commercial photo lab. Most good labs have drum scanners and do a brisk mail-in/mail-out business.

[charlie]

I use an Epson V700 and echo Gary's comments. It's acceptable for medium format film and more elusive to get good results with 35mm film. Slides are often lacking in shadow and highlight detail and the color is off, granted I have not profiled the film/scanner as AFX talked about and probably should. I get better results with negative film than I do with slide film. All that said it is more than acceptable if your standards are not to high an epson flatbed scanner is fine, for digitizing memories they will do the trick, printing for a gallery, probably not the best option.

I use Vuescan also, there is a learning curve and it is not that intuitive but a powerful program once you get the hang of it. 

Another alternative is to send your slides to a service such as scancafe.

[Jørgen Ramskov]

Once again, I thank you all for the replies. It's great to have so much knowledge close by.

Getting it done professionally by someone else has also been considered. The size of the project has expanded a bit though, as I think we would also like to scan paper photos as well and we can share the expense to the scanner if we are several that wants to get something scanned. The goal isn't to get absolutely top quality scans, but to get decent, usable scans. The results we got from the cheap scanner my dad borrowed, simply wasn't worth the time, you could only just see who the persons on the images was and often only because you knew who it was. No doubt the Epson scanner will provide considerably better quality.

I'm more unsure about what software to use and the licensing of that in case we are several that wants to share the scanner?

[afx]

I'm more unsure about what software to use and the licensing of that in case we are several that wants to share

The Vuescan Pro license allows up to 4 machines.

cheers
afx

[charlie]

I haven't used epson scan in a few years and have some old Kodachrome slides from 1978 so I ran a quick test for comparison between epson scan, which came with the V700,and vuescan. I don't have the bundled silverfast installed on my machine so didnt use it. Nothing has been profiled, I used batch scanning, and left the software in auto exposure modes with all sharpening settings turned off but used multi-exposure in vusecan because I've seen it pull more detail out of the shadows, though it takes over twice as long to make the scan. Multi-exposure is not available in epson scan but didn't seem to make much difference here.  Epson scan automatically cropped away the boarders. Vuescan had its IR cleaning setting set to

All scans are of 35mm kodachrome at 3200dpi.
The full sized scans at 3200dpi were roughly 4000 x 2500 px
They've been resized using photoshops save for web, no other processing.
Color-wise the results are very similar.


I have no idea who took these photos or who these people are.

1) epson scan
2) vuescan
3) epson scan 100% crop
4) vusecan 100% crop
5) epson scan
6) vuescan
7) epson scan 100% crop
8 ) vusecan 100% crop

[Anthony]

This is by far the most useful guide to scanning that I have found. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Illustrated-Guide-Film-Scanning-transparencies/dp/1484137434

The Color Perfect program which the book recommends works very well.

But scanning is a slow and tedious process, so only the most important images are worth the effort.

[Gary]

It is my understanding that the software is more important than the scanner. Just a FYI.

[Jørgen Ramskov]

Afx: That should be enough. Do you know if it is possible to transfer the license to a new machine?

Charlie: Thanks for that comparison. The quality is more than good enough for our usage and a lot better than what I got from the scanner my dad has borrowed.

Anthony: Thanks, that might be a quite wise investment.
 
Gary: Good to know. In my dads case, I believe both hardware and software fails. The scanner have a low resolution and the software isn't exactly great either.

EDIT: Here is an example scan: https://www.dropbox.com/s/a8ezbhzlauxvlws/12-28-2015%2014-0-43_003.jpg?dl=0
The software included: http://www.blazevideo.com/blazephoto/

[afx]

Afx: That should be enough. Do you know if it is possible to transfer the license to a new machine?

Unless he changed it recently it is completely trivial. Last time I did this it was not a network enforced license.

cheers
afx

[Jørgen Ramskov]

I wonder why http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ seems to only recommend SilverFast and doesn't mention Vuescan at all.

They also seem to generally not recommend flatbed scanners for film scanning. Based on the test provided Charlie earlier in this thread, I would say that's not entirely true, depending on what quality you can live with.

Afx: Got your scanner yet? I look forward to hearing your thoughts on it.

[Bjørn J]

They also seem to generally not recommend flatbed scanners for film scanning. Based on the test provided Charlie earlier in this thread, I would say that's not entirely true, depending on what quality you can live with.

Exactly. A dedicated Nikon (or Minolta, Imacon) filmscanner gives better quality from 35mm film than a flatbed scanner, but the best flatbeds can come pretty close. Most non-professional and non-enthusiasts will be perfectly happy with a good flatbed. I recommended a flatbed to you because you clearly stated that you did not need the best possible quality.
I used Silverfast software on my Linotype and Agfa scanners, but I could not get significant better quality than from the supplied software. I also tried Silverfast on my Epson scanners, but was not impressed. My way of scanning is that I do as little adjustments as possible in the scan software. I make "raw" scans, try to capture as much information from the slide/negative as possible, and not clip highlights or shadows. The result looks flat and dull, but have plenty of potential for correction in Photoshop afterwards. Just like a raw file from a camera.

[afx]

I wonder why http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ seems to only recommend SilverFast and doesn't mention Vuescan at all.

Sponsoring?

They also seem to generally not recommend flatbed scanners for film scanning. Based on the test provided Charlie earlier in this thread, I would say that's not entirely true, depending on what quality you can live with.

Exactly, it all depends on your requirements,

Afx: Got your scanner yet? I look forward to hearing your thoughts on it.

Not yet. Hoping for the end of the week (traveling right now anyway...)

cheers
afx

[Jørgen Ramskov]

Got your scanner Andreas?