MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Good enough film scanner for microstock  (Read 5954 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« on: July 17, 2015, 05:19 »
0
I have been looking to invest in a good enough scanner  for 35 mm slide and BW negs which I will further refine in Lightroom. Mostly it will be family archive but some images I could use as stock, especially retro images.

Would this do the job ? It seems highly rated

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Epson-Perfection-Scanner-ReadyScan-Technology/dp/B00ECBRW5E/ref=cm_srch_res_rtr_1


« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2015, 07:04 »
0
May be the best way to do it is your DSLR (FX)

« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2015, 07:12 »
0
Depending on the number of images you might want to just use a service (e.g., DigMyPics or Larsen).  If it's only a couple hundred then that would be cheaper and much easier.

« Reply #3 on: July 17, 2015, 08:49 »
+10
I have been looking to invest in a good enough scanner  for 35 mm slide and BW negs which I will further refine in Lightroom.

There is a huge amount of work involved in preparing film scans to a quality which will be good enough to be accepted as microstock. Even many of the large historical collections have given up scanning their libraries except to order. Some have scanned prints instead. Dust and scratches are the issue. Dust and scratches are a much bigger issue with scans than they were with traditional printing.

Unless you are in possession of incredibly unique, valuable and in-demand images this will not be an investment. The cost of the equipment is not the issue. The issue is the time and bother involved in correcting the scans. There is also a steep learning curve with respect to color correction.

Also - Lightroom is probably not the best software for fixing dust spots. Since you will likely be dealing with hundreds of spots per scan - so Lightroom will quickly slow down when that many non destructive adjustments are applied - all of which have to be kept in memory. I have done dust correction in Lightoom on a Mac Pro with lots of memory and found that I needed to export a new version about every 10 minutes rather than deal with the lag. You would be better using Photoshop or similar.

Some libraries will accept un retouched scans for editorial use if the content has historical value.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #4 on: July 17, 2015, 11:49 »
0
Epson is the best brand for what you're doing. You might find this video helpful:

https://youtu.be/hZSN6hcRNec

I have been looking to invest in a good enough scanner  for 35 mm slide and BW negs which I will further refine in Lightroom. Mostly it will be family archive but some images I could use as stock, especially retro images.

Would this do the job ? It seems highly rated

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Epson-Perfection-Scanner-ReadyScan-Technology/dp/B00ECBRW5E/ref=cm_srch_res_rtr_1

« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2015, 07:35 »
+2
I use an Epsom Perfection V300 Photo for scanning my old slides and negatives (looks like the current model is the V370). No problem getting results good enough to get accepted and sell on microstock -for editorial at least. Feel free to check my portfolio links for say SS/DT/123 etc - all the old (mainly) B/W images you see were done on this scanner (a few were done from prints -using the same machine). Just try and get the negs/slides and scanner as free of dust as possible before you scan to minimise retouching work afterwards.
Worth noting that although this scanner only has a carrier for 35mm size negs/slides you can also scan 120 (medium) format - providing the area of interest falls within a 35mm size area. Quite a lot of my scans were done from larger format negatives by just sellotaping the neg in the correct position under the 35mm carrier. It's a bit trial and error but does work  :) Regards, David.

« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2015, 07:50 »
0
I use the Epson V500, which does have a carrier for 120 negs (and I've managed to scan 5x4 large format, too, with a bit of messing about to create three equally exposed sections for stitching).  It's certainly time consuming, especially cleaning up the image after scanning, and takes some practice to avoid quality destroying defaults but I have had scans accepted as stock - and some have sold quite well.
The V550 and V600 seem to be the more recent replacement models. The V700 (now 800 and 850, I think) was touted as more professional and did sheet film as well as rolls but at a much higher price.

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2015, 09:12 »
0
Thanks. So you can do it relatively inexpensive then  :D

FlowerPower

« Reply #8 on: July 23, 2015, 08:51 »
0
I have a Nikon Coolscan, make sure if you buy used, it includes the 35mm slide holder. Good quality and ice, takes 2 min. for a very high pixel scan. What people say is true. Editing is very time consuming after the scan. Unless it's history or something that can't be shot again, scanning is expensive and takes much time. The Nikon only makes 35mm slide scans.

Have a Epson V200 and I like the colors. The Epson V500 is probably the best choice, but added the 35mm scanner that is Hi-Res.

« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2015, 07:28 »
0
I have recently acquired a Contax T3 35mm film camera. That's an amazing point and shoot camera and I'm planning to use it both for private pictures but I'll probably also try shooting a bit for Stocksy on this one.

The biggest issue is that developing of film to a CD costs approx. 45 USD here in Copenhagen. That's crazy expensive. A guy from the camera store recommended me to buy a OpticFilm 8200i Ai. That's a dedicated negative scanner. Anyone who has any experiences with this machine?

OM

« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2015, 08:11 »
0
I have a fair number of old 35mm/6x7cm/4x5" slides accepted at Shutterstock; all (scanned)/shot with my DSLR cameras D80/D90 and a 105mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor with 25mm extension tube using a home-made diffused 'light-box' with either a Sunpak 120J flash or an Elincrom RX600 for light. It can be done but the main determinant of success is the quality of the original slide. It has to be pin sharp. Dust was not a problem, blew the slides clean with a blower first. 

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #11 on: November 09, 2015, 05:58 »
0
As microstock seems to be accepting images taken with iphones these days I can probably imagine their acceptance of slide images, if the subject matter is interesting enough, is more successful of late ?

I have just ordered a Nikon D750 and a Macro lens so perhaps I could do it with that ?

Microstock Man

  • microstockman.com

« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2015, 18:31 »
0
Yep Herg, with a true 1:1 lens you can do it. In fact that was what I did with my D800. It was a lot of work but cheaper than scanning since I already owned the camera.

I wrote a bit of a blog post about it a while back: https://www.microstockman.com/scanning-film-images-for-microstock/

« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2015, 18:44 »
0
I recently bought a canon 9000f and it works well -- scans quickly at about 24MP and no problem getting these accepted by the agencies -- the 2 biggest problems though are dust & scratches; and grain sometimes gives too much noise

I've also used scancafe in india multiple times and they do a great job for about $.25/slide

« Reply #14 on: January 01, 2016, 10:48 »
0

Would this do the job ? It seems highly rated

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Epson-Perfection-Scanner-ReadyScan-Technology/dp/B00ECBRW5E/ref=cm_srch_res_rtr_1


pretty sure, it would! Myself, I am using the Epson Perfection V370 which is totally sufficient, and results get accepted by all the common agencies without any hiccups.

Your preference for Epson is reasonable, they are IMHO great and support all Operating Systems (I mean really OS-es as in Win-Mac-Linux, and not Win3-Win-7, Win-8 or Win-10 all of which are only flavors of one-and-the-same Microsoft stuff of some lawyer-son, Bill Gates or what he calls himself, who is abusing young girls in India as guinea pigs for his dirty "foundation's" vaccines mania)!

If you want to avoid unnecessary vendor lock-in, then you also want to make sure to avoid Canon like the plague (they're still using the same old driver set that's around since the 1990s and wasn't so great on my Win95 back in the day either)...

Go for the V550 if you find a good price. As resolution always comes at a cost (file size), I have to confess that I rarely use the full-blown 9600dpi setting of the V370 (nor even more than its hardware resolution of 4800dpi very often). Agencies aren't overly enthusiastic about large files either. So the extra specs of the V550 may or may not be a deal breaker (or rather -maker) in your case. 35mm slides and the occasional 120 film scan work great on both models. I am even playing around with glass-plated negative antiques and old 16mm film clips on the V370 right now. For me, the lower-priced V370 model is therefore already a more-than-sufficient scanner for microstock..

-- Cliff
« Last Edit: January 01, 2016, 11:59 by Hi Cliff(s) »

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #15 on: June 28, 2016, 03:43 »
0

Would this do the job ? It seems highly rated

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Epson-Perfection-Scanner-ReadyScan-Technology/dp/B00ECBRW5E/ref=cm_srch_res_rtr_1


pretty sure, it would! Myself, I am using the Epson Perfection V370 which is totally sufficient, and results get accepted by all the common agencies without any hiccups.

Your preference for Epson is reasonable, they are IMHO great and support all Operating Systems (I mean really OS-es as in Win-Mac-Linux, and not Win3-Win-7, Win-8 or Win-10 all of which are only flavors of one-and-the-same Microsoft stuff of some lawyer-son, Bill Gates or what he calls himself, who is abusing young girls in India as guinea pigs for his dirty "foundation's" vaccines mania)!

If you want to avoid unnecessary vendor lock-in, then you also want to make sure to avoid Canon like the plague (they're still using the same old driver set that's around since the 1990s and wasn't so great on my Win95 back in the day either)...

Go for the V550 if you find a good price. As resolution always comes at a cost (file size), I have to confess that I rarely use the full-blown 9600dpi setting of the V370 (nor even more than its hardware resolution of 4800dpi very often). Agencies aren't overly enthusiastic about large files either. So the extra specs of the V550 may or may not be a deal breaker (or rather -maker) in your case. 35mm slides and the occasional 120 film scan work great on both models. I am even playing around with glass-plated negative antiques and old 16mm film clips on the V370 right now. For me, the lower-priced V370 model is therefore already a more-than-sufficient scanner for microstock..

-- Cliff




Thanks Cliff. Most helpful.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2694 Views
Last post April 11, 2007, 17:42
by madelaide
4 Replies
2798 Views
Last post June 03, 2008, 03:54
by Pywrit
12 Replies
5263 Views
Last post October 02, 2010, 07:29
by mtkang
0 Replies
2742 Views
Last post October 10, 2010, 21:10
by RacePhoto
27 Replies
11142 Views
Last post August 20, 2015, 17:00
by ObviousTroll

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Submit Your Vote
Site Earnings Rating
Top Tier - Big 4
Shutterstock 75.3 arrow
AdobeStock 59.2 arrow
iStock
  exclusive
21.7 arrow
  80
Pond5 14.7 arrow

Middle Tier
Alamy 12.2 arrow
123RF 5.4 arrow
Dreamstime 4.5 arrow