Recommend Negative Scanner?

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:33:20 -0700, "Chris Shearer Cooper"
<chrisnews.RemoveThis@sc3.net> wrote:

>I've got a pile of old family negatives - some as large as 6"x8" - that I'd
>like to scan. The scans don't need to be publication quality (if we ever
>publish anything we can rescan just the selected images) but they should be
>good enough that we can tell from the scan how good of quality the negative
>is.
>
>Any suggestions on decent scanners that we can use for this? Cost is a much
>bigger concern than things like speed ...


Epson 4990 would be a reasonable choice here.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: Recommend Negative Scanner? 

Chris Shearer Cooper wrote:
> I've got a pile of old family negatives - some as large as 6"x8" -
> that I'd like to scan. The scans don't need to be publication
> quality (if we ever publish anything we can rescan just the selected
> images) but they should be good enough that we can tell from the scan
> how good of quality the negative is.
>
> Any suggestions on decent scanners that we can use for this? Cost is
> a much bigger concern than things like speed ...
>
> Thanks,
> Chris

Best of the cheaper negative scanners is the Minolta Dimage Dual-Scan 3. I
bought mine on E-Bay a few months ago and regard it as the best "toy" I have
ever invested in. Scans negatives and slides and the software is fantastic.

Nikon also make one, but it is about twice the price of the Minolta.


Dennis.
 >> Stay informed about: Recommend Negative Scanner? 

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:57:31 GMT, "Dennis Pogson"
<dennis_nospampogson.RemoveThis@ntlworld.com> wrote:


>Best of the cheaper negative scanners is the Minolta Dimage Dual-Scan 3. I
>bought mine on E-Bay a few months ago and regard it as the best "toy" I have
>ever invested in. Scans negatives and slides and the software is fantastic.
>
>Nikon also make one, but it is about twice the price of the Minolta.


The OP specifically requested a scanner for
negatives up to 6x8". AFAIK, neither Minolta
nor Nikon have anything in that category.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 >> Stay informed about: Recommend Negative Scanner? 

"Chris Shearer Cooper" <chrisnews DeleteThis @sc3.net> wrote in message
news:11tj8kh66k4v617@corp.supernews.com...
> I've got a pile of old family negatives - some as large as 6"x8" - that
> I'd like to scan. The scans don't need to be publication quality (if we
> ever publish anything we can rescan just the selected images) but they
> should be good enough that we can tell from the scan how good of quality
> the negative is.
>
> Any suggestions on decent scanners that we can use for this? Cost is a
> much bigger concern than things like speed ...

The Epson 4990 (under US$500) will do up to 8x10, and is good enough for up
to at least 5x (if not 6x or 7x) enlargements with very good quality.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: Recommend Negative Scanner? 

rafe b wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:57:31 GMT, "Dennis Pogson"
> <dennis_nospampogson RemoveThis @ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Best of the cheaper negative scanners is the Minolta Dimage
>> Dual-Scan 3. I bought mine on E-Bay a few months ago and regard it
>> as the best "toy" I have ever invested in. Scans negatives and
>> slides and the software is fantastic.
>>
>> Nikon also make one, but it is about twice the price of the Minolta.
>
>
> The OP specifically requested a scanner for
> negatives up to 6x8". AFAIK, neither Minolta


Sorry, I'm only 74, and don't remember 6" by 8" negatives! Wasn't it
Daguerre who was said to use these?

I used to think 2 1/4 square was oversize!
 >> Stay informed about: Recommend Negative Scanner? 

In article <WYqCf.110822$7p5.40589@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>,
"Dennis Pogson" <dennis_nospampogson.DeleteThis@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry, I'm only 74, and don't remember 6" by 8" negatives! Wasn't it
> Daguerre who was said to use these?
>
> I used to think 2 1/4 square was oversize!

Its safe to say that because glass could be cut to
any size a huge variety of non standard plate dimensions
exists. People at one point made or built much of their own
equipment. But aside from that negatives and plates can
and do go beyond 20 x24. I frequently shoot 4x5-8x10 negatives.

6x8 was at one point a fairly common size if I recall my history
of photo correctly.


--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com
 >> Stay informed about: Recommend Negative Scanner? 

">
> Sorry, I'm only 74, and don't remember 6" by 8" negatives! Wasn't it
> Daguerre who was said to use these?
>
> I used to think 2 1/4 square was oversize!
>
>
I too am 74, and don't recall 6" by 8" negatives. But I'm sure they existed.
I do remember the 2 1/4 squares, and my first camera as a teenager was an
Agfa that used that size film. But I also remember my father's so-called box
camera that used a large paper-back film roll with definitely large
negatives. How large I just don't recall; perhaps about 3" by 4". That seems
ballpark as best I can remember. (Gosh, wish I had that old camera. Must be
a good antique by now.)
Jim C.
 >> Stay informed about: Recommend Negative Scanner? 

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:16:21 -0500, G- Blank wrote:

> In article <WYqCf.110822$7p5.40589@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>,
> "Dennis Pogson" <dennis_nospampogson RemoveThis @ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, I'm only 74, and don't remember 6" by 8" negatives! Wasn't it
>> Daguerre who was said to use these?
I am younger than you (73) and I remember just one photographer using one.
>>
>> I used to think 2 1/4 square was oversize!
>
> Its safe to say that because glass could be cut to any size a huge
> variety of non standard plate dimensions exists. People at one point
> made or built much of their own equipment. But aside from that negatives
> and plates can and do go beyond 20 x24. I frequently shoot 4x5-8x10
> negatives.
>
> 6x8 was at one point a fairly common size if I recall my history of
> photo correctly.
It was a standard size called whole plate, although the size did vary
slightly between 8" x 6" and 8.5" x 6.5"

--
Neil
Delete l to reply
 >> Stay informed about: Recommend Negative Scanner? 

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:33:20 -0700 in rec.photo.digital, "Chris
Shearer Cooper" <chrisnews DeleteThis @sc3.net> wrote:

> I've got a pile of old family negatives - some as large as 6"x8" - that I'd
> like to scan. The scans don't need to be publication quality (if we ever
> publish anything we can rescan just the selected images) but they should be
> good enough that we can tell from the scan how good of quality the negative
> is.
>
> Any suggestions on decent scanners that we can use for this?

i have an older microtek that does both paper images up to legal
size and negatives up to 8x10 below. i've scanned older negs
like yours; i inherited the now 6-generation family photo trunk
but had to promise to share the images with everyone else.

the current microtek model that's similar is much better (3600
dpi) and has a usb interface, the microtek i900. discounted
price is around $500.
 >> Stay informed about: Recommend Negative Scanner? 

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 07:52:03 -0500 in rec.photo.digital, rafe b
<rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote:

> The OP specifically requested a scanner for
> negatives up to 6x8". AFAIK, neither Minolta
> nor Nikon have anything in that category.

he probably meant 6x8 cm. 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 (8 shots on a roll of
120 film) is 6x9 cm.

there were a number of large roll film sizes --- many of those
old folding kodaks made 3 1/4 X 4 1/4 negs, which printed with a
nice white border on 4x5 paper when contact printed with a mask.
 >> Stay informed about: Recommend Negative Scanner? 

OP here

Looking at my stack of negatives, I pulled one out that is 5"x12". Yup,
inches. Most of them are much smaller though.

"Dennis P. Harris" <NO_SPAM_TO_dpharris.RemoveThis@gci.net> wrote in message
news:oqamt1h33j8pb0fh0a89t1o8n5lm5vnlqq@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 07:52:03 -0500 in rec.photo.digital, rafe b
> <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> The OP specifically requested a scanner for
>> negatives up to 6x8". AFAIK, neither Minolta
>> nor Nikon have anything in that category.
>
> he probably meant 6x8 cm. 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 (8 shots on a roll of
> 120 film) is 6x9 cm.
>
> there were a number of large roll film sizes --- many of those
> old folding kodaks made 3 1/4 X 4 1/4 negs, which printed with a
> nice white border on 4x5 paper when contact printed with a mask.
>
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Recommend Negative Scanner?