You'd be better off, IMO, using the low-cost scans from a lab than using a flatbed scanner - certainly for 35mm film. Before I got my Nikon scanner, I did just that. The scans were acceptable for small web images, but not much else.
Of course, a decent dedicated film scanner can be quite a bit more expensive than any flatbed scanner. I've not checked prices in a while, but I recall prices around here being about 3X the price, or more, for a film scanner compared to a flatbed scanner, depending on model and brand choices. If you can afford a new flatbed scanner, you may do just as well or better by getting a good, used film scanner. Dedicated film scanners that handle medium format are pretty spendy. Why don't you spend a few minutes and check some prices. Shel "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" > [Original Message] > From: Toralf Lund > I guess the idea would be to make some quick scans in order to show > people some of my pictures the electronic way, rather than doing the > full image processing routine I got myself involved in a discussion > about yesterday. One of the things I'm wondering about, is whether the > scan quality of one of the cheap photo scanners would be better than the > one of scans I've sometimes got from low-cost labs along with developed > film, and that some of them now offer to do from existing negative > strips for 1NOK a frame or whatever (for high volumes.) > > And I have some 120 negs, too (from a plastic fantastic camera ;-)). I'm > assuming real film scanners that also accept MF are rather on the > expensive side, but I haven't really checked a lot...
