p.1 #1 · Digitizing 35mm negatives: scanner or macro lens?
I am looking for a good way to digitize many B&W and color negatives and color slides. My questions are these:
1. Is it better to use a scanner dedicated for digitizing 35mm, like a Plustek 8300i AI, or is it better to use a macro lens and a copy stand?
2. If a scanner, which one?
3. If a copy stand, which one? I am leaning toward the Negative Supply 35mm Essentials stand with a Sony 90mm Macro lens. Any other suggestions? Has anyone used Negative Supply's gear for photographing negatives?
One of the advantages of a scanner is that it doesn't take up much space. It is also cheaper than a copy stand and a lens, and it includes software to reduce dust and scratches. One of its disadvantages is that it is slow.
One of the advantages of a lens and copy stand is that it is high quality in results but relatively quick. However, set-up takes time and the copy stand would be rarely in use and would take up space all the time. it is also a more expensive set up, by about $1,000. Any software to do modifications, other than already-used editing programs like LRC and PS, would be additional.
What do you think? What have been people's experiences?
p.1 #3 · Digitizing 35mm negatives: scanner or macro lens?
Morning, Other then archiving the images, Is there any use to make large prints or advertisement billboard.
When I did this that was my questions since I was destroying the originals or giving them to the clients. I just wanted to have something to use for on-line portfolio or maybe 11"x14" prints.
So good quality 35mm digital file for me was more then sufficient.
Has for the set-up I had a Marron Carrel camera stand. I just the color head with the plates to hold the films down plus a simple gear column with the base board. Yeah I was lucky to have these toys.
p.1 #4 · Digitizing 35mm negatives: scanner or macro lens?
I feel the biggest difference between the two methods is with the scanner you can start the scanning and do other things whereas with taking images, you are fully engaged the entire time…which quickly becomes a boring chore.
When looking at time to scan you must include with the photographing negative option the time for the software to convert the negative to positive, the time to get the colour correct and the time to remove dust and scratches.
I’d recommend going the scanner route. I’ve done both and won’t resort to taking images of negatives unless there is only a couple of negatives.
p.1 #5 · Digitizing 35mm negatives: scanner or macro lens?
chez wrote:
I feel the biggest difference between the two methods is with the scanner you can start the scanning and do other things whereas with taking images, you are fully engaged the entire time…which quickly becomes a boring chore.
When looking at time to scan you must include with the photographing negative option the time for the software to convert the negative to positive, the time to get the colour correct and the time to remove dust and scratches.
I’d recommend going the scanner route. I’ve done both and won’t resort to taking images of negatives unless there is only a couple of negatives....Show more →
Do you like the scanner that you used? Which was it? I'm looking at the Plustek 8300i AI, which requires you to hand-feed the negatives one at a time and take 2-4 minutes per frame. They also have the 135i AI, which will autofeed a strip but can't br set to do only one or two specific frames--you have to feed the whole strip (at least that is my understanding).
p.1 #6 · Digitizing 35mm negatives: scanner or macro lens?
chiron wrote:
Do you like the scanner that you used? Which was it? I'm looking at the Plustek 8300i AI, which requires you to hand-feed the negatives one at a time and take 2-4 minutes per frame. They also have the 135i AI, which will autofeed a strip but can't br set to do only one or two specific frames--you have to feed the whole strip (at least that is my understanding).
I used the Nikon LS 8000 ed. I was shooting medium format so I needed a bigger scanner. I tried scanning some of my 35mm negatives using a camera and hated the entire process as it’s time consuming and nothing during the whole process actually adds anything to the original negative.
p.1 #7 · Digitizing 35mm negatives: scanner or macro lens?
chiron wrote:
I am looking for a good way to digitize many B&W and color negatives and color slides. My questions are these:
1. Is it better to use a scanner dedicated for digitizing 35mm, like a Plustek 8300i AI, or is it better to use a macro lens and a copy stand?
2. If a scanner, which one?
3. If a copy stand, which one? I am leaning toward the Negative Supply 35mm Essentials stand with a Sony 90mm Macro lens. Any other suggestions? Has anyone used Negative Supply's gear for photographing negatives?
One of the advantages of a scanner is that it doesn't take up much space. It is also cheaper than a copy stand and a lens, and it includes software to reduce dust and scratches. One of its disadvantages is that it is slow.
One of the advantages of a lens and copy stand is that it is high quality in results but relatively quick. However, set-up takes time and the copy stand would be rarely in use and would take up space all the time. it is also a more expensive set up, by about $1,000. Any software to do modifications, other than already-used editing programs like LRC and PS, would be additional.
What do you think? What have been people's experiences?...Show more →
Hi @chiron
I think you have done some good analysis of the tradeoffs. Here is a table with more detail including the option of using a service:
Camera + macro (best overall)
Service (if you want zero effort for a subset)
Dedicated scanner (middle ground)
Flatbed (only if cost is primary driver)
p.1 #8 · Digitizing 35mm negatives: scanner or macro lens?
John Wheeler wrote:
Hi @chiron@
I think you have done some good analysis of the tradeoffs. Here is a table with more detail including the option of using a service:
Camera + macro (best overall)
Service (if you want zero effort for a subset)
Dedicated scanner (middle ground)
Flatbed (only if cost is primary driver)
That is a great chart that you linked to--lots of info and raises lots of considerations.
Are there any negative scanning services that you think well of? I looked for a bit at Dr. Hug's Photo Scanning Service in Michigan, and they seem good. But I would hate to send off precious negatives to a company that I am doing business with for the first time without getting some customer rexperiences.
They happen to be within reasonable driving distance to me, so that was a factor as well.
I share your concern about giving slides/negatives to a company, as there is no backup if an issue arises
I too, went by several factors:
- customer reviews
- They were located in the country I was living
- Not a must yet, I preferred to be able to drop off and pick up in person. Alternatively, use the most secure shipping company that is available. Make sure they are using a good service for the return shipment of the digital results and originals.
- Take careful note of the preparation steps that they typically provide on their websites.
- If you care about maintaining the order of the slides/negatives, make sure you know what you need to do on your end and that they also will respect keeping them in order as well (that they say yes with specific instructions you need to take)
- Send them a smaller number of slides/negatives to test their service before committing large numbers. Verify the quality of what they deliver back to you.
- Many offer advanced editing services, and if you use that approach, test that with them as well. I did not take that option, as I always do my own post-processing.
Note that my priorities were to get good digital images at a reasonable price, completed within a reasonable time, with a lower investment on my part. Keeping the originals in the original order that also matched the order of the digital image in return, allowed me to under rare cases to go back to the original and do a better scan on my own. In my years of experience, I have never done that for my purposes
.
This covered my 35mm negatives and slides, which were the bulk of my archives. I have not tried 120 film or other odd sizes that I have (negatives from the early 1900s). Those were few in number and have not tried out that service with them.
It does involve a level of trust with the company so take the steps to build your trust in the company before commiting larger numbers of sldies/negatives.
Also, to reduce your risk of loss, you can always send smaller batches at a time to the service provider. You may not the largest volume discount yet would help reduce the pain if so issue occured (e.g. shipping there and back issue)
p.1 #10 · Digitizing 35mm negatives: scanner or macro lens?
There’s no really easy and quick way to scan but the most painless way for me was to use a Plustek 8200 together with an Epson flatbed for a few medium format negatives. What I gained in speed using a camera for actual scanning I then used to lose in set up and post processing compared (particularly for negatives) dedicated scanners and the results were pretty much a wash over a selection of images. The process has reminded me of why I liked moving to dslrs for my work and leaving film behind!
Apr 24, 2026 at 11:05 AM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · Digitizing 35mm negatives: scanner or macro lens?
For me the Macro approach is amazing in quality. I use the Sony 90mm macro (the Sony A7R2 or 3 for this) and making it a raw image has a lot of potential quality editing benefits.
If quality wasn’t too important to me, I would just use the iPhone, but I would shoot in the DNG raw format. Fast and easy.
p.1 #12 · Digitizing 35mm negatives: scanner or macro lens?
Mark Metternich wrote:
For me the Macro approach is amazing in quality. I use the Sony 90mm macro (the Sony A7R2 or 3 for this) and making it a raw image has a lot of potential quality editing benefits.
If quality wasn’t too important to me, I would just use the iPhone, but I would shoot in the DNG raw format. Fast and easy.
Do you use a copy stand or some other way of using a lens?
p.1 #14 · Digitizing 35mm negatives: scanner or macro lens?
Flatbed scanning technology solved film digitizing 20+ years ago. Any basic scanner with film holders and built-in software will pull all the available detail out of film. Setup time with a scanner is minimal and the results are consistent. A flatbed can do several 35mm frames in batch mode unattended. A dedicated roll fed film scanner would be a huge time saver for high volume scanning especially if you have uncut film.
If someone can show an example of a camera achieving better results from a copy stand setup, I would really like to see it.
p.1 #17 · Digitizing 35mm negatives: scanner or macro lens?
When I owned the Sony A7RIV I used a copy stand (Kaiser) and a light plate (Kaiser). I used the Voigtländer 110mm Macro and the Essential Film holder (from Andrew Clifforth).
Not very fast, but results were very good. Remember to use black "mask" when using a light plate (can be made from simple thick black paper.
Now I'm looking for a lens that I can use on my current camera (questions on the Fuji forum). No need for AF for this kind of work (can even be a negative if negatives or mounted slides are slightly curved..which especially mounted slides very often are).
