I use the flatbed backlight option on an Epson 1660 I bought at the Goodwill store for $5.00

Yes, $5.00

Works great. Better than our old dedicated Minolta film/slide scanner in fact.

Not sure I 100% agree on getting a dedicated 35mm scanner. Having scanned thousands of old 35mm slides, 35mm negatives, 110 negatives and a variety of photos using my flatbed V600, I can tell you that focus has never been an issue. A flatbed scanner gives you other options as well. I scan my kids artwork for archive, OCR documents, etc.

Most of the film scanners have a cartridge that holds 4 or 5 at once. My flatbed has a holder that does 4. However I got a piece of glass the size of my scanner bed. I then place 16 slides (can fit 20 but a bit of a chore) on the scanner, put the glass over to flatten out and scan away. VueScan allows you to custom set scan areas for multiple images. It is the best software I have ever seen for scanning.

The Nikon CoolScan 5000 can take the adapter for batch scanning of up to 50 slides. But if you are using negatives then that is out.

For multiple negatives I simply put them in the adapter. Most flatbeds also offer medium format holders as well.

You can always scann the entire flatbed and then crop out individual pics etc. However this limits you to one contrast, color, etc. setting. VueScan can process each image separately in a scan profile.

Later,
Jeff

As others have said, reproducing film using a camera is only a workaround for not having access to a scanner. If you use negative color film you will have to do a lot of post-processing to get rid of the orange/yellow mask of the film. I don't know if there are any actions/presets available for Photoshop/Lightroom/Aperture or whatever you use to make this easier.

If you use slide film you do not have the problem with the mask, but slides have a rather high contrast. As a sample I took a picture of a slide using the Nikon ES-1 Slide copy adaptor and the Nikkor 55mm Micro lens with an extension tube on a D700.

For illumination I used an SB-700 at TTL mode with +1 2/3ev exposure compensation. Format was RAW. No post-processing done (conversion is done in Aperture).
Using a Coolscan V with Vuescan as scanning software the result out of the box is a lot better (I think).

The colors are much closer to the original ones and the overall contrast is lower (that will give you more options). Scan was done as 24 bit color with default settings.

B&W film also tends to have a rather high contrast that might be problematic when using a camera for reproduction. You might adjust the development of the film for digitizing, but this again is additional work and printing the negatives might be difficult then (with the lower contrast).

As others have said before: if you want to be serious about scanning film you should get a dedicated scanner.

Here's my two cents. You're trying to relate two different mediums together. Really, they don't relate. They will give you two different looks, and if you like what both of them give you, use both. But understand the differences, and enjoy them.

From the perspective of resolution, image quality, etc., film is dead. Even a 10 megapixel camera will give you better IQ than you can get from the finest-grained film. But that's not really important, because film will "see" the world in a different way than digital. You need to decide if want them both and, really, why not? Film grain is it's own canvas, and dynamic range is sensitized differently by the mediums, as is color. So, which is best for any given scene for how YOU want it to look?

All that said, if you want to continue shooting film, you need to invest in a dedicated 35mm film scanner. Forget flatbeds, they're simply not going to give you the most you can get from your film. You want a scanner that can actually focus on the film. Unfortunately Nikon has discontinued their line, and getting second-hand Nikon units is a rip-off. If you want to spend the money, then go for a Nikon. Realistically the only reasonable options today are to get a unit such as a Plustek OpticFilm 7600i SE Scanner or the Pacific Image PrimeFilm 7250Pro3 Film Scanner. You can find these at B&H or Adorama, et al.

Thanks All for the feedback.

I think my head is about to explode thinking about shooting film and expecting a better result than digital. I have seen some amazing pictures from films (mainly from MF i.e Jose Villa and Tanja Lippert), but I guess I had been insensible to expect the same result from shooting 35mm film + a ghetto scanner :p

So what now? I have a nice nikon F3 and really enjoy shooting with it. Thank you for all the replies, I have looked through the options mentioned such as Nikon CoolScan, Epson V500 to V750 and slide to digital converter suggested by Adamz, PaulR & JForhan. I also fully understand what SkinBrit and andrewz brought up.

I probably will shoot my last 3 rolls I still have and getting them all scanned by the lab for whatever quality they have, share some of the results here and done with it.

Regards,
jy

JY, I don’t want to be a downer but I it’s really going to be tough to get D700 quality from scanned 35mm negs. The only film I shoot now is 2 ¼ positives and have them professionally scanned. The quality is great. If I were to start shooting 35mm again it would be B&W to process and print myself but I always enjoyed being in the darkroom.

I find it interesting that you enjoy the shooting in film. Now when I pick up a film camera I remember how every time you push the shutter release you spend money…. I found digital so liberating, shoot a million frames at no cost, just delete the ones you don’t like. Film does teach you to be deliberate and think through your shoots.

There’s tons of used darkroom equipment out there, often you can get it for free!
Good luck

I too use an Epson. I have the V600. I used it to scan over 1000 35mm slides from my dad. From all over the word when he was in the USAF. The V600 has infrared to get rid of dust/scratches on slides/film/negatives. I must say though the biggest help was the software. I use MAC and found VueScan to be absolutely awesome.

Here are some of my favorites from the ones I scanned: http://s156.photobucket.com/albums/t6/jforhan/Turkey_Greece_Libya/

I still have the Kodak Retina IIIc and still shoot slide film with it once in a while. Ritz at the mall is the only place to get it developed. (And they have to send it out anyway). However, they now offer the slides to be scanned and put on a CD. I have not done it yet but will ask next roll I drop off about how much it is.

Later,
Jeff

Hi Jy
I use the Epson V750 pro and get great results for medium format films. The one major problem is dust and dust spots. We tend to forget about this problem using digital cameras.Handling film can be quite difficult There are lots of cheap scanners on Ebay even at A3 size. make sure you buy one which does positive and negative scans so you can do slides and negative film.

I must admit that I found the whole process very time consuming and the final result sometimes disappointing due the the dust and having to work in a clean,and dust free working environment

@JY - there are two options for You, buy a digital scanner, such as Nikon Coolscan - even better quality than from d700 as You end up with +/- 24mpx, or get a special slide to digital converter, that You mount on Your lens (preferably 50mm), slide Your slide into the holder and press the button on Your digital camera - the results are not close to this what You get from coolscan, but so is the money You have to spend to do this.

If only there was a way of streamlining the film buying/exposing/fixing/developing/printing/scanning/digitalisation of an image :-)
Sorry JY, I'm not making fun of you, but although I miss some parts of my film shooting days, I'd never go back.

Dear All,

Some of you probably have read and/or have gave your advices on my previous post regarding picking up film camera couple weeks ago.

I have shot 3 rolls of films, love the experiences and got them developed. I have checked the cost of scanning/printing. It will cost me $1/print and $2/strip (4 negatives) for scanning to "High Res" of their standard. Did my math, just from these 3 rolls, it will cost me an additional of $72 for print or $36 for scanning. I am sure I can find cheaper place to develop or scan, but I assume this guy know what they are doing.
As i do greatly enjoy the experience of shooting film, I am looking forward to shoot more. So I need to evaluate the cost from getting films, shoot, develop and(or) print to the end result of getting the pictures scanned to my hard drive in good quality as comparable to my digital pictures (else, whats the point of going film on top of getting to know how it feels).

My question is, is it possible to get a comparable result to scan my 35mm film vs pictures taken with d700 without costing me an arm and leg? If so, what is the best way to get my pictures from film to my hard drive? Do I scan the film or get them printed and then scan the pictures? What is the recommended scanner for my purpose? I want comparable result to my d700.
I have been looking at film scanners, but have no idea how to judge them. Budget wise, maybe $300-500. I have looked at Epson Perfection V series and others that way over what I am willing to pay.

Your input would be much appreciated as always been.

Regards