I'm in no way computer proficient, but in the past was able to use & manipulate files from an older Nikon Coolscan. Never have owned a flatbed.
I hardly shoot 35mm any longer & am looking for an inexpensive way to get started scanning 4X5 B&W negs & 4X5- 8X10 prints. The results I'd like would be in the equivilent file size of a 3-5 mp camera....something easy to email, and still make a decent 5X7 to 8X10.
I'm still using Win 2000. Flatbed scanner with homemade light source for negs? Flatbed scanner resolution to accomplish above? Scanner recommendations from those who know availability/reputation of such used equipment, please?
Thanks in advance for your time and opinions in responce!
Do you already have a 3-5 Mp camera? You can put your negs or transparencies on a light box, the camera on a copy stand or tripod with a lateral arm, and digitize them that way, and if you have lights you can use for copy work, you can digitize prints as well. I've done this with my old Coolpix 990 (3.3 Mp) now for years, and it works quite well for small prints and web display.
I also have scanners, but lately I'm thinking of just upgrading the camera and getting rid of the scanners, since the camera is so much faster (particularly for scanning hundreds of pages of documents that don't require high resolution), and if I need a high end scan occasionally, I'll send out for a drum scan.
depending on your budget, there are a lot of scanners out there new and used that will get your job done for you. Look at the Epson line- the 2450 photo, 3750 photo, 4990 and the new 700/750 will all do the job, as they have built-in transparency/negative scanning capabilities, as well as flatbed reflective art scanning. You can get the first two scanners used. There are still some 4990s new in the retail distribution chain, going for good discounts now that the 700/750 is out. As big a deal as the scanner itself is the software you drive it with. Some people really like Vuescan, which is a very inexpensive scanning software application; I personally have had very little success with using it, so I don't. I prefer Silverfast Ai. It is more expensive, but produces better results, in my opinion. Some people hate the interface, some people love it. If you can get your hands on scanners that some other folks have, to try out the results, and to play with some different software packages, I'd recommend that as the best way to go.
Five years in a lab duping & souping LF chromes and I couldn't think of using a digital camera??? Casual observer says:"What's wrong with that boy?"
TFC, I did buy Vuescan on the recommendation of Nikon tech support, as even Nikon software didn't operate the Coolpix properly. It did work then, though the scanner's long gone. I load it & see if it'll do what I need.
You folks have been great, thanks for the help! This is such a comforting place to come crying & whining.
...You can put your negs or transparencies on a light box, the camera on a copy stand or tripod with a lateral arm, and digitize them that way, and if you have lights you can use for copy work, you can digitize prints as well. I've done this with my old Coolpix 990 (3.3 Mp) now for years, and it works quite well for small prints and web display...
I think I'm going to try this. My scanner sucks, I can never get a good scan from it and I'm no good at working with scans to get them to look like the original. I don't have a copy stand, but I do have a tripod with a lateral arm.
__________________
____________________________________________
Skeletons in my mind commence tearing at my sanity
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
Out of curiosity, I just tried to see if I could get as good a result stitching two images from the CP990 as I can with my Minolta Scan Dual (I) 35mm film scanner, and I'll be darned if they aren't too far off.
I put a straightedge on the lightbox to move the slide parallel for the two images. I made one mistake which was to leave the white balance on auto (everything else was manual--focus, aperture, shutter speed, normal sharpening, normal contrast, zoom in the middle of the range), so I didn't save the result, which was about a 6 Mpix stitched file allowing for overlap and cropping, but I can easily see how with a dedicated macro lens and good technique, one of the new 10 Mp DSLRs would with one shot equal or better my old 35mm film scanner, and with two stitched images would be substantially better.
I was with you 'till the last...stitching files is?
How am I supposed to get a grip on this computer stuff when, even after a lifetime, analogue is still magic to me? Explained photo-chemistry, but still magic!
The downside to using a camera for digitizing prints and negs or transparencies is that you are limited to the maximum resolution of the camera. With a scanner, an 8x10" transparency produces a bigger file than a 4x5" transparency. With a camera, every image is the same size. The way to overcome this is to make more than one photograph of the original with the digicam and stitch them together.
Stitching files is taking two files or more files that overlap and making one big file out of them using either software designed for the purpose or doing it manually in a program like PhotoShop. The automated programs don't always work so well, and doing it manually is tedious, but if you're careful about keeping the digital photographs parallel, exposure and white balance uniform, it's not so bad for occasional use.
Thanks David....kinda digital pin-registration, eh? :>) You're very kind to be so informative! I've been eluding Photoshop for a few years...sooner or later it'll catch me, I'm sure!
Help getting started scanning, please. 
Linear Mode
