Lab Scans vs Home Scans: Which is the Best Way to Scan Your 35mm Film?

Introduction

Scanning film has become one of the most debated topics among analogue photographers. Everyone wants the best way to digitise their 35mm film, but many factors influence the scanning workflow such as cost, colour, image quality, and time.

As a film photographer and lab owner, I’ve tested various film scanners over the years. My first machine and the one I’ll be using to scan my negatives today is the Nikon Coolscan V LS-50ED. On the other hand, the lab scans in this comparison come from the Noritsu LS1100, a scanner widely used in 35mm minilabs around the world.

So, what’s the best way to scan 35mm film? If you’re hoping for comparisons with other home scanning setups like Plustek, Epson V-series flatbeds, or digital camera scanning, sorry to disappoint you. But keep reading, because you’ll soon find out that all of these methods share something in common.

The Scanning Setups (Home Setup vs Lab Setup)

Henri Cartier-Bresson once said, “Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst.”  This quote has inspired generations of photographers to keep shooting, experimenting, and refining their craft. For many analogue photographers including myself—that journey naturally leads to building a personal scanning workflow. After shooting so many rolls, we begin wanting more control over how our images are digitised, hoping to fine-tune colours, tones, and details to match the artistic vision we’ve been chasing.

I’m not a technician, so I won’t spend too much time on the deeper technical theories behind film scanning. Instead, this article focuses on something more practical: a direct comparison between home scans and lab scans, specifically examining image quality, colour interpretation, and overall workflow differences. My goal is to give you a clearer idea of what each method offers and help you decide which approach might suit your own style of film photography, we are photographers after all. 

Before we compare the results, here is a closer look at the two setups used in this test:

Home Scanning Setup

• Scanner: Nikon Coolscan V LS-50ED

• Software: SilverFast 9

• Resolution: 4000 ppi (most scans are 5440 × 3538 pixels)

• Format: JPEG (approximately 16 MB)

• Colour profile: Kodak ColorPlus 200 & Kodak Ultramax 400

• Dust removal: Yes

• Exposure adjustment: Automatic

• Colour profile: Manually selected within SilverFast based on the film stock

Let's introduce Silverfast software, According to wikipedia, SilverFast is a family of software for image scanning and processing, including photos, documents and slides, But to me, it is much more powerful than that. It is not only compatible with many home scanners, but also offers extensive control over your image processing. With this software, you can truly maximise the full capability of your scanner.

The Nikon Coolscan series is well known among home scanners for its sharpness, dynamic range, and surprisingly strong performance even by today’s standards. Paired with SilverFast 9, it allows for a high degree of control. Many photographers choose software like VueScan or even the original Nikon Scan software, but we prefer SilverFast because of its consistency in colour reproduction and its extensive toolset. Features such as sharpening, USM, dust removal, and flexible export options make it ideal for photographers who want more control without overly complicating the process.
For today’s test, we deliberately kept things simple by only use dust removal and the recommended colour profiles were used.

Lab Scanning Setup (J&A Studio)

• Scanner: Noritsu LS1100

• Resolution: 6048 × 4011 pixels (approximately 14-18 MB)

• Format: JPEG

• Colour profile: Automatic

• Dust removal: Yes

• Exposure adjustment: Automatic

• Profiles: Default Noritsu colour profile

• Adjustments: Guided corrections for exposure, density, and colour balance

The Noritsu LS1100 is a workhorse scanner used in minilabs worldwide. It is built for speed and consistency, producing clean scans that many film photographers instantly recognise. Lab scanning often relies on the operator’s experience: subtle adjustments to highlights, contrast, skin tones, or overall colour balance can significantly change the final look of the scan. While some people love this “lab look,” others prefer the more controlled and personal approach of home scanning.

*Apologise, due to the limitation of uploading size, I have to decrease the pixels in order to posting to this blog. 

*A Note on Colour Profiles and “True Film Colours”

Whenever film photography are mentioned, a big question usually follows: What is the true colour of a film negative? It may seem slightly unrelated to our comparison today, but understanding this concept is important, because both home and lab scans rely heavily on colour profiles.

A colour profile in scanning software is essentially a preset adjustment tailored to each film stock, Kodak Gold 200, Ultramax, Portra, Fujifilm all have their own profiles. If your scanner can detect the film type, it will automatically apply the matching profile. This sounds simple, but in reality, every brand, every scanner, and every software interprets film colour differently. As Richard from Richard Photo Lab once said about Color Profile vs Color Pac, “Everything is relative and subjective.” And this is absolutely true when it comes to film colours.

So which method produces true film colours?
In my opinion: none of them, not SilverFast, not Noritsu, not Epson, not Plustek, not VueScan...They all produce relative colours, shaped by years of collective expectation about what film should look like. These interpretations differ not only between brands, but even between individual labs and home setups.

If you really want the closest representation of true film colour, the most accurate approach is colour darkroom printing (RA-4 printing). A properly made darkroom print reflects the colours embedded in the negative far more faithfully than any digital scan.

For this comparison, I manually selected the colour profiles in SilverFast that best matched the film stocks I used, which is Kodak colorplus 200, aiming to keep the results as fair and consistent as possible.

Let’s move on.

Side by side Examples

Kodak ColorPlus 200 is well known for its affordable price. With film costs steadily rising, many photographers, especially those scanning at home are looking for a budget friendly option.

However, affordability doesn’t mean compromising on quality. In my opinion, Kodak ColorPlus 200 delivers results comparable to the more expensive Kodak Gold 200. Despite the price difference, it remains one of the best choices for photographers who are looking for reliable image quality.

From the examples demonstrated above, the scans from the Nikon Coolscan show noticeably stronger saturation, particularly in the magenta tones across most scenes. In contrast, the scans from the Noritsu LS1100 tend to produce a clearer and more balanced rendition, with a slight shift toward green and yellow hues. These differences highlight how each scanner interprets colour in its own way. 

In the examples below, the left image (Nikon Coolscan) shows more pronounced saturation in reds and blues. Personally, I like how the leaves appear though, they look close to the actual colours when I shot them. The bricks also look more natural in the Nikon scan, while the Noritsu scan appears paler and slightly green. 

Let’s explore more comparisons to see how these variations appear across different types of images and lighting conditions! 

Sharpness and Detail Comparison

Let’s move on to a topic that is often everyone’s favourite: resolution and grain. For this comparison, I didn’t apply any sharpening to either image, so what you see reflects the original sharpness produced by each scanner. Let’s take a closer look at how the images hold up when zoomed in!

In dark areas, the Nikon Coolscan scan (left) looks smoother, while the Noritsu scan appears sharper.

Micro-Contrast:

Noritsu scans are generally known for their lower contrast, resulting in a softer, more neutral look. In comparison, Nikon scans exhibit noticeably higher contrast, particularly when zoomed in, giving images more depth and separation.

Grain Control:

• Noritsu: Appears smooth under daylight and normal exposure.

• Nikon Coolscan: Slightly oversharp in bright areas, but manages grain better in low-light regions, preserving fine details without excessive noise/grains.

If your images are primarily for social media, sharp scans may not be necessary. Though some photographers try to make film scans look almost digital while keeping the original film colours, but digital will always have the advantage in pixel level sharpness because it’s designed for it, or you can say digital was born for it. Anyway, most viewers will see the images on phones, where subtle differences in sharpness are difficult to notice.

Colour Tones

Which scanner produces more natural colour tones?

Comparing the scans, images from the Nikon Coolscan show stronger saturation, especially in the magenta tones, while the Noritsu scans are less saturated and appear clearer, though with a slight green tint. In my opinion, the Nikon scans deliver more natural colour tones that better match the original scene.

Which handles highlights better?

Looking at the zoomed-in image of the plant roots below, the Nikon scan (top) retains more details, whereas the Noritsu scan (bottom) appears slightly overexposed. This suggests that the Nikon Coolscan handles highlights more effectively.

Workflow Comparison: Home Scans vs Lab Scans

Turnaround Time

The Noritsu LS1100 is a lab scanner designed for speed. How fast is it? I scanned a whole roll of Kodak ColorPlus 200 at high resolution (6048 × 4011 pixels) straight through, and it took less than 4 minutes. If some scanning adjustments are required, it might take a few extra minutes.

By contrast, with the Nikon Coolscan, I had to cut the film into 6 frame strips because this model can only scan six frames at a time. (Though some modifications allow full-roll scanning, but here we’re talking about the standard setup.) It took almost an hour to scan the same roll using identical settings for all frames. If you enjoy post-processing each scan to suit your style, the workflow could take much longer.

Consistent Results

The Noritsu LS1100 produces more consistent results thanks to its automatic detection and correction. This makes the scanning workflow simpler, as there are fewer variables that can significantly alter the final scan.

On the other hand, even when scanning the same roll, the Nikon Coolscan (with SilverFast software) can produce dramatically different results depending on which colour profile is selected, it's similar to choosing different “presets” in Lightroom. Achieving consistent results can be challenging, as scans may vary depending on the operator’s choices.

Dust Removal Tools

Both scanners have effective dust removal tools. The difference is that the Coolscan allows you to choose the intensity level (low to high), while the Noritsu offers only an “on” or “off” option, but overall I think Noritu scanner provide more natural and and grain friendly on dust removal. 

Full Control

If you enjoy post-production and pursuing personal photography projects, home scanning gives you full control over every detail of your negatives: grain, colour, exposure, sharpness, and more. It can be surprising how much difference you can achieve compared to the “film colours” you’ve seen before. You can fine-tune each scan to match your vision exactly.

By comparison, lab scanning offers less control. While professional labs like J&A (us!)use high quality scanners and skilled operators, the workflow is largely automated. You can request certain adjustments, but you won’t have the same level of hands-on control over every aspect of the image like home scanning does.

Cost

Let’s do the math. A roll of Kodak ColorPlus 200 costs around £10. If you only need the lab to develop the film, that’s an additional £6 at J&A, totalling £16 for home scan! While A develop and scan service typically costs £9–15 depending on quality. Also developing at home can be even cheaper, though it requires an initial investment in equipment and chemicals.

However, I strongly recommend sending your colour C41 films to a professional lab at least for development, as the first step is critical for achieving the best results. Labs guarantee proper development, which can save time and avoid ruined negatives. While home scanning saves money on repeated scans, you trade your time and effort for that control.

Ability to Re-Scan Anytime

With a home setup, rescanning is free, you can scan the same negative as many times as you want. This is especially valuable for photographers with a personal style; you can experiment with different settings, colour profiles, and exposure adjustments to achieve the look you want.

In contrast, professional labs charge £8–12 for a rescan.which is ideal for those who prefer convenience and uniform results, but the flexibility to experiment is limited.

Maximum Detail from Your Negatives

Wondering about the maximum resolution of 35mm film? According to Alex Burke, it can go up to 8,000 DPI, or roughly 8,000 × 12,000 pixels. If you want to capture every detail for large prints or archival purposes, home scanning allows you to push your negatives to their full potential.

Lab scanners like the Noritsu LS1100 are designed for speed and consistency rather than extreme resolution. While they produce high quality scans suitable for most purposes—including prints up to A3, which is around 6048 × 4011 pixels, they generally don’t reach the maximum theoretical detail that a dedicated home scanner can achieve. Labs like us trade some resolution potential for convenience and uniform results.

So..Which one Is better?

Home scanning is best if you:

• Want full creative control

• Scan only a few rolls

• Enjoy editing photos

• Want maximum detail

Lab scanning is best if you:

• Shoot a large number of rolls

• Need fast results

• Want consistent colours without spending hours

• Prefer convenience over manual tweaking

Conclusion

Photography is an art, and whether you use digital or film is just a way to express your creativity. Some people love lab scans because they deliver a consistent and traditional “film look”, which are clearer colours, reliable results, and less risk of mistakes.

Others, ironically, like me, prefer home scanning because it allows for more artistic freedom and unique expression. I also love how home scans can produce richer and more saturated colours.

So, home scan or lab scan? There isn’t a definitive “best” method. For me, I do love the results from lab scan, but the biggest challenge is time, I can always do some post-production on lab scans if needed, but I can never recover the hours required for full home scanning.

Of course, there is one thing we always need to pay attention, this conclusion assumes your 35mm film (colour or Black and White)  is well developed and in good condition. Some say, "35mm film is a chemical miracle", but if the chemicals are not fresh or the development isn’t perfect, it will immediately affect the final results. Some might suggest that photoshop a poorly developed scan to make it look perfect, but even if you can, how much time are you willing to spend doing it? I will let you decide. 

If you’d like to see more home and lab scans from different types of films—Kodak Portra, Lomography, Fujifilm, and more—please leave a comment and let us know!

____________________________________________________________________________

All images featured in this blog are produced by J&A Studio – a professional photo studio and film lab, click here if you are looking for film developing from us.

Follow our Instagram if you love film photography and want to see the latest from our studio!