What Negative Scanner To Buy??

[muddygirl]

I'm looking to buy good negative scanner to scan my Wedding photo negatives and lots of other old negatives.

Can anyone suggest a good one??

eta - Needs to be able to scan medium format too.

[esther_a]

I bought a Canon CanoScan8800F. Does flatbed, slides (8 at a time) and two sizes of negatives (two regular strips at a time, or 3-4 larger format I think). It allows you to individually adjust the resolution, levels, color balance, despeckle, rotate, crop etc each individual image. I've scanned thousands of slides and thousands of negs in the last 12 months (until I started going bonkers but it has been SUCH a rewarding project). So it works! I was scanning some at very high resolution and they came out brilliantly. Took about 15 minutes for many of the scans so I'd set it going, go watch TV, then reload with the next set of slides or negative strips during the Ad breaks!
I also have a HP Photosmart 3110 All-in-one multifunction scanner/copier that I use for regular scanning because it is on my desk. I've done scan comparisons and they do scan differently, but I couldn't say that one was any better than the other.

[AllynD]

Hi, Esther!

Do you see much difference in quality between scans from negatives or prints? I read somewhere that it was better to scan from a print than a negative, but now I can't find the reference or remember the reasoning behind it....

[muddygirl]

Thanks Esther. My husband just informed me he has a hp something or other at work he is going to bring home for me to try. Failing that I'll look into the Cannon. I was going to go dedicated negative scanner, but might be out of my price range because of the medium format.

[esther_a]

Hi Lynn, It's really interesting; the photo vs negative question. There's no straight answer. This is my impression...
Obviously some photos deteriorate badly due to processing or storage, so they discolor or are scratched, etc. In that case the negative is usually much better. Conversely, some negatives deteriorate more than others. It depends on the brand of film. I've also found that a badly underexposed negative (I have lots!) scans poorly - the photo scans much better. The negative seems to be much more grainy and aged if it was underexposed. I'm sure there must be some chemistry that explains that....
But my impression on a side-by-side basis is that the negative will scan better at high resolution if it was a good quality photo than a regular 5x7 print of that photo would. And I think in general the negatives hold their color better. But in maybe 30% of the time the photo makes a better scan. And you have to be EXTRA careful of dust when scanning negatives because they are so small to start with!
So I'm robotically scanning ALL of my negatives. And then I'll compare with the prints (I have to anyway so that I can name the scanned files) and see which ones might be worth re-scanning.

And Sam, the dedicated scanners are expensive! I guess they're faster, but I don't know what else you get for your buck!

Esther