File :-(, x, )
heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
I tried to scan in some negatives of mine, but I only had a shitty flatbed scanner in the library, that had more hair on it than I have on my ass. Seriously. Even after cleaning it off, it was filthy, I think -under- the glass too. So, don't judge the pictures too much based on the slight blur (shitty glass, again) and schmutz. The actual negatives are razor sharp, I love my Pentax glass. :D

My question is: what's a good, cheap film scanner? Preferably something that can handle 35mm print film, slides, and 120/220 film.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
>> ac
I've got a Canon 8600f. It can handle medium format and 35mm. Not too bad.
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
>>My question is: what's a good, cheap film scanner?
doesn't exist. get a Minolta dual scan, theyre great little scanners for 35mm and APS. I love mine, paid a 150 for one in great condition at ebay.

for medium format and up, it gets expensive. you can get a flatbed scanner, but they're not so good. sharpness pretty low, so you don't get all detail out of your film
>> des
>>45490
I'll second the scan dual. Don't get the first gen unless you have no bux at all!
>> Anonymous
>>45475
If you have no money and an inexpensive scanner, use a portable light table (artists call it a tracing box) to illuminate the negative. Photoshop and other paint programs usually have the ability to invert colors or black and white.

It would definitely be better than what the library has.