Professional scanners for 4x5

[yhong]

Hi all,

Just wondering which scanners on the market can produce high quality images, high enough to be accepted by image libraries? Any comments from those photographers who submit their images to libraries, or their own libraries are welcomed!

Thanks!
yhong.

[Ron Marshall]

This has been discussed many times. See this thread, and use the search function with drumscan and or flatbed to find others:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=33327&highlight=flatbed+drumscan

[QT Luong]

Any current photo scanner can produce a file from 4x5 that is good enough for stock photography. Most stock is from 35mm film or digital. Any reasonably made scan from 4x5 will better a drum scanned 35mm. The discussions you are being referred too are from nit-pickers :-) wanting to make great fine prints.

[archivue]

For 4X you can't beat the V700 epson (value for money)... for larger file then you have to go with an imacon, or even better a scitex or similar products.

[Lenny Eiger]

For 4X you can't beat the V700 epson (value for money)... for larger file then you have to go with an imacon, or even better a scitex or similar products.

I wouldn't scan anything on an Epson - not if I had the choice. I was just down at Aztek, Their calcs of an Epson scan are around 1023 optical, DMax of 2.3. Creo Eversmart is at optical of 3251, drums are all higher... the device works, but that's about it. It's very blurry.

I think QT's comment is right on - for the op's purpose. However, that's about where it stops for me....

Lenny

[Santo Roman]

I don't know, I have the V700 and scanning at a high res of 12,500 if needed looks pretty damn good!

santo

[Ken Lee]

"I was just down at Aztek, Their calcs of an Epson scan are around 1023 optical"

I'm sure that we'd all love to have an Aztek scanner, if it were the same price range as the Epson scanners. This is especially true when we shoot medium format or smaller.

That being said, even ~1000 spi allows you to make a 3x enlargement at critical sharpness. With 4x5/5x7 film, that gives you a 12x15/16x20 print which is so detailed and smooth, it's... nuts.

[Doug Fisher]

>>Their calcs of an Epson scan are around 1023 optical, DMax of 2.3.<<

Sorry if this is a double post, but the other one seems to have disappeared.

If that is their claim for an optical resolution, there is something seriously wrong. I am not saying a V700 is as good a drum scanner but if they were fluid mounting they should have been easily getting double that number. If you or they were using the comparison on their page/.pdf for their v7xx fluid kit, something was obviously messed up on that - either the equipment or operator error. That looks like the classic newbie mistake where the film holder vs. film with film area guide setting was incorrectly set. I can't believe they still have that posted and have not rechecked it. Lots of people love to use it as an example but unfortunately it is flawed.

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

[Lenny Eiger]

><If that is their claim for an optical resolution, there is something seriously wrong. I am not saying a V700 is as good a drum scanner but if they were fluid mounting they should have been easily getting double that number. If you or they were using the comparison on their page/.pdf for their v7xx fluid kit, something was obviously messed up on that - either the equipment or operator error. That looks like the classic newbie mistake where the film holder vs. film with film area guide setting was incorrectly set. I can't believe they still have that posted and have not rechecked it. Lots of people love to use it as an example but unfortunately it is flawed.


I'm going to try and respond to everyone in one post. Doug - I agree, it's a bit low if you fluid mount. Might be up another 800 or 900 I would guess. However, I was just down there and they have a wall of scanned targets from almost every scanner and the Epson sticks out like a blurry sore thumb. Doesn't compare favorably to an Imacon, any of the film scanners, nor any drum.

As to the contention that it is so expensive no one else can own it - a Premier is very expensive. However, there are many other scanners that aren't. A film scanner is around 3-3K, that's a fairly low number, and one can find excellent drum scanners in the $1500-$6500 range. Is there some reason why a good scanner be under $800?

I could get a barrel lens, or an old Tessar, for almost nothing, yet I just picked up a new Nikon 300W. If I had insisted that I only purchase lens at the low end of the spectrum I wouldn't be satisfied - I like to have things somewhat sharp. We have all had to always pay for the good stuff, whether it be top large format lenses, a Leica lens, a Planar 80, etc. Some people pay up to 3K for a Rodenstock lens.

Why does someone go out and buy an Ebony and a Sironar S lens and then insist on a cheaper scanner? I see it over and over again. Everyone gets to make their own choices. We all have limited resources. I got the Premier because I wanted to offer services for others - it was a business decision. I couldn't pay for it if it was just for my own photography, either. However, I did get a Howtek 4500, which cost as much as my 8x10. I didn't insist that it had to be less..

As to the rest of this, if anyone is happy with a piece of equipment they purchased, I am happy for them. That's what's important - that you get to do the work you want to do at the level you want to do it. Yet, when people gush over the low end of the spectrum, how wonderful it is, etc., I can only conclude that they either haven't seen what a very good scanner can do, or their work doesn't require it (there are lots of folks for whom focus is not a big thing). I think forums should inform accurately as much as they can and that goes for scanners as well.

Lenny

[sanking]

Resolution is highly dependent on contrast. You get a lot more resolution with high contrast targets than with low contrast ones. My experience in testing the Epson flatbed scanners with high contrast targets is that you generally get about 1/3 to to 2/5 of maximum stated resolution. My 4990 will resolve about 2000 spi and a V700 that I tested did around 2300 spi. Those values are consistent with what a number of other people have also found, so if someone is posting scans that show resolution of only 1023 spi with the V760 something was seriously wrong with the testing.

BTW, fluid mounting is primarily useful for enhancing micro-contrast and reducing grain. I have not seen any significant increase in resolution over regular dry scanning when testing resolution targets. The values that I mention for the 4990 and V700 are based on dry mounting.

There is no question but that drum scanners are better than high-end flatbeds and that high-end flatbeds are better than consumer flatbeds. However, the consumer flatbeds give perfectly acceptable results up to 3-4X when scanning B&W and color negatives that are correctly exposed and developed.

Sandy King





>>Their calcs of an Epson scan are around 1023 optical, DMax of 2.3.<<

Sorry if this is a double post, but the other one seems to have disappeared.

If that is their claim for an optical resolution, there is something seriously wrong. I am not saying a V700 is as good a drum scanner but if they were fluid mounting they should have been easily getting double that number. If you or they were using the comparison on their page/.pdf for their v7xx fluid kit, something was obviously messed up on that - either the equipment or operator error. That looks like the classic newbie mistake where the film holder vs. film with film area guide setting was incorrectly set. I can't believe they still have that posted and have not rechecked it. Lots of people love to use it as an example but unfortunately it is flawed.

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

[Lenny Eiger]

There is no question but that drum scanners are better than high-end flatbeds and that high-end flatbeds are better than consumer flatbeds. However, the consumer flatbeds give perfectly acceptable results up to 3-4X when scanning B&W and color negatives that are correctly exposed and developed.
Sandy King

I don't disagree with your statements in general. However, I think that the words "perfectly acceptable" are quite subjective. "Correctly exposed and developed" are also specific to the techniques being employed.

There are many different styles here. For some, especially in color, I am sure that 3-4x is great with whatever they have. I am finding that for my style - what I am trying to accomplish - an 8x10 with a tight scan is required. When I am done tuning this system all the way to the end I may learn a thing or two that could be applied to 4x5 with results that would make me change my mind. (Or a lesser scanner, for that matter.) That would be nice for my shoulders. Unfortunately, I don't hold out much hope for this. However, I will admit I am not at the end of the process.... altho' I sincerely hope I am the 7/8 mark...

Lenny

[Bernice Loui]

I'm just getting back into LF photography. I have thousands of negatives that would be nice to scan and cataloged in digital form. I'm not afraid of spending $$$$ to get a quality scanner and the rest of a system to support it, but for now, the need is for something that could get me started. Suggestions? The Microtek i800, i900 is all I have looked at so far.

[Peter De Smidt]

There are lots of issues here. Are you just cataloging the negatives or are you archiving them? If you're just cataloging them, quality isn't the issue. Speed would be. The professional flatbed scanners, such as Kodak's IQ Smart's, allow one to quickly set up batches of negatives to scan. Consumer flatbeds, such as the Epson V700, V750 or the Microteks allow one to make decent scans (as long as the film has fairly low maximum density), but they are quite slow. If you're archiving them, then quality is paramount, and you really should get a professional flatbed or drum scanner. What are you going to do with these scans? With 1000s of negatives the biggest investment by far is your time. Lenny will now tell you that you are a dilettante if you don't use a drum scanner.

[Bernice Loui]

At this point, the scanner would be used more for cataloging than archiving. Time per scan is an issue due to the number of negatives that need to be scanned. Max density is not overly high as printing negatives like this is never fun. The scanner must scan up to an 8x10.

Suggestions would be wonderful..

[Peter De Smidt]

Well, you could try the Epson V700 or Microtek M1 to get started. Given the amount of negatives in question, you won't be wet-mounting, and so there's probably not a good reason to get the Epson V750. These will cost under $800. See if one of them gives you the quality and speed that you want. If they don't, the next step up would be much more expensive, namely a Creo (now Kodak) IQSmart3 or 3. See:http://www.mpex.com/browse.cfm/2,504.html

You could go the used route, with a used professional flatbed or drum scanner, but there's a lot of down sides to this, condition, reliability, old software... (I have a used Screen Cezanne, and so I think these hurdles can be overcome, but if I had the money for a new IQSmart or premier drum scanner, I'd buy one of those.)

[Lenny Eiger]

At this point, the scanner would be used more for cataloging than archiving. Time per scan is an issue due to the number of negatives that need to be scanned. Max density is not overly high as printing negatives like this is never fun. The scanner must scan up to an 8x10.

Suggestions would be wonderful..

I would say don't buy a scanner right now... I don't think that flatbeds are particularly fast and if you pay extra for a better one, then you will spend all the money you would have for buying a drum scanner when you are ready.

Get a point and shoot digital, set it to the lowest setting and put your negs on a light box and take some photos. Use whatever you want to organize them. Then get a few scanned professionally. That will give you time to get some info down on all the processes. When you're ready, get a drum.

You can't put sizable scans in any of the organizers anyway. They don't handle 1 gig files well at all.

That's how I would do it...

Lenny

[lxdesign]

I bought the Epson V700 about 3 months ago..... its absolutely brilliant! I love it.

[Lenny Eiger]

I bought the Epson V700 about 3 months ago..... its absolutely brilliant! I love it.

This is what gets me.... if you're happy with your scanner that's great. Wonderful, even. I wish you all the best. Sincerely.

On these forums, however, we ought to strive for accuracy. Lots of folks make buying decisions based on what gets said here. I think what you can say "accurately" is that this scanner met or exceeded your needs and wants. You love it, that's is real life experience talking. People can look at your site, or ask you what you use it for and the comment can be in the context of who you are, your level of experience and what you are trying to do. (With all the respect that deserves.)

However, brilliant this scanner isn't. It's a low end scanner. Maybe its even a good low-end scanner. I don't really think so, but others do. But as scanners go, in the field of all kinds of scanners, big and small, inexpensive to very expensive - it doesn't hold up very well. In fact, it's downright awful.

Film scanners will beat it handily, Imacons, Eversmarts and every drum scanner ever made. Up against them, it will look very, very blurry. Maybe you shoot with a pinhole and it really doesn't matter. I did check out your site and I really liked some of the work...

Take my opinion or not, I didn't have much sleep last night. My personal bias is that I am very serious about quality, much more serious than a lot of other folks need. With regard to what gets posted, however, I think we ought to be careful about our facts...

Lenny

[Gary Samson]

Lenny,
Have you actually used an Epson V750 to scan sheet film? If you have and you are unhappy with the results I will accept your opinion. If you have not then I think you are not fairly describing the quality potential of the scanner in question for many of us who would or could not spend thousands on a "professional" scanner.

[Lenny Eiger]

Lenny,
Have you actually used an Epson V750 to scan sheet film? If you have and you are unhappy with the results I will accept your opinion. If you have not then I think you are not fairly describing the quality potential of the scanner in question for many of us who would or could not spend thousands on a "professional" scanner.

I have actually. I have direct experience. I run a drum scanner - for hire - and have compared this scanner in numerous ways, seen lots of different examples, etc. I participate in the Scan High End list. I am very familiar with its capabilities.

Honestly, I wish I was wrong. I wish things weren't so expensive. This economy is nailing me... like most of us...

Please, however, don't accept my opinion. Test if for yourself. There are plenty of drum scanner operators out there. Buy a good scan of your favorite negative or chrome. There are plenty of flatbeds - all over. Give them a try and look it over, come up with what works for you.

Lenny

[daverich4]

I have an Epson 750 and the Better Scanning carrier. I fluid mount using Kami and have carefully focused the carrier. I find 35mm scans to be so soft as to be unusable. The larger the neg the better the quality and 4x5's aren't too bad as far as sharpness goes but still nothing special. I own a Minolta 5400 and a Screen 1030Ai drum scanner and the 750 doesn't come anywhere near the quality of either one. I bought the Epson because I have about 70 rolls of 127 roll film my Dad shot during WWII that I wanted to scan but the Epson proved to be unacceptably soft for the project. After giving up on the Epson I bought the Screen for $700. Even though it's only an 8 bit scanner the improvement in quality is amazing. It's not even close. Undoubtedly not Lenny's level of quality but for 65 year old roll film shot with a folding camera, pretty damn good. I don't have personal experience with the new Microtek so can't argue for or against that choice but I can say you don't have to have deep pockets to get a big improvement over the Epson.

This is a link to a comparison (not by me) of a 35mm Ektachrome scanned on an Epson 700 and also on Lenny's Premier. The Epson scan was done at 6400 and sampled up to 8000 to match the drum scan. The Epson is the top image. Check out the writing on the window.

http://www.pbase.com/rrjackson/comparison

-dave-