Scanners?

[robertojoven]

I have searched around the internet as well as this forum specifically and seem to have gotten more confused than anything.

I'm looking at buying a scanner (thinking a flatbed, something like the CanoScan 9000F or Epson v600) but am extremely confused about the whole thing. Firstly, a lot of people on this forum talk of the V700 (which is a bit out of my price range) but it appears that the V700 has a lower resolution than the V600 (4800 x 9600 with the V700 and 6400 x 9600 dpi with the V600). Maybe I'm missing something here though?

Also, not many people talk of the Canon scanners. Are they just not worth my time? The 9000F says it has a resolution of 9600 x9600 dpi...

My main intentions here are to scan 4x5, 120, and 35mm slides and negatives for web/digital copies. That being said, I would also like to make 11x14 or even 16x20 prints but this might just be ridiculous?

Thanks for the help in advance.

[Gem Singer]

Roberto,

I have an Epson 4990 scanner stored in a box in my garage. It has been replaced by an Epson V750, and I no longer need the 4990.

It is in excellent condition and includes all of the original film holders.

It meets all of your specifications.

I am willing to sell it at a very reasonable price.

Let me know if you are interested, and we can discuss the details via Email or telephone.

[Peter De Smidt]

Robert,

You should ignore resolution specification for consumer scanners. They are wildly over optimistic. I had a Canon scanner, a 9950f, and it was pretty good. That said, accessories, such as a betterscanning holder, weren't available for it, but such things usually are for and Epson scanner. Plus, lot's of people use the Epson's, and so it should be pretty easy to get help if needed. Gem's scanner sounds like a very good deal.

[Tom Monego]

Top scanning res advertised for low priced scanners is always over blown. Yes it is there theoretical max but they never get there. Epson scanners generally max out at around 3000ppi so feel it is lower. This will get you quite a big scan from a 4x5 and not quite a 16x20 from 35mm. Epsons top level scanners, the V750, V700 and earlier the 4990 are better than Epson's lesser priced units. If Gem has the 4990 for a good price, it would be worth it. if you are looking for 13x19s and 16x20s the Epson scanners do an OK job.

Tom

[W K Longcor]

On the 4990 -does the focus actually change when you tell the software that you are using a film carrier rather than the film laying on the glass surface? I just got my 4990 and I'm still learning. If I am scanning an antiques lantern slide - mounted in glass, should I be telling the software that the image is in a carrier, even though it is just laying flat on the scanner surface, since the image is actually slightly above the surface?

[sully75]

I'd get that 4990 but definitely 100% get this to go with it:
http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/mstation.html

It will make a huge difference, you should budget for it.

[BetterSense]

In my experience consumer flatbed scanners are optically limited to maybe 1200dpi. If that. Using very good holders or wet mounting would probably bring some improvements.

[Gem Singer]

No need to spend extra $ on a Betterscanning film holder unless your scanner does not focus accurately.

I scan 5x7 B&W negatives with my Epson V750. No film holders available for that size.

This scanner focuses accurately on the top surface of the scanner's glass when Epson Scan tells it to focus there.

Purchased a 6x8 piece of 2mm. anti-Newton glass from Focal Point. The 5x7 negative is placed directly on top of the scanner glass, emulsion side down, and held flat with the AN glass. Scans are as sharp as a tack at 2400dpi.

[rdenney]

My main intentions here are to scan 4x5, 120, and 35mm slides and negatives for web/digital copies. That being said, I would also like to make 11x14 or even 16x20 prints but this might just be ridiculous?

The Epson scanners have cells in the CCD spaced at their reported resolution, but those cells see a fuzzy spot far bigger than the size of the sensor cell, and thus adjacent cells overlap so much that the actual resolution is much less than the spacing of the cell. Most find that the Epson flatbeds achieve somewhere between 2000 and 2400 useful samples per inch.

While this might theoretically support an 8x-10x enlargement at the printer's capability, the standard you apply to that print might be more stringent. Some photographers here with high print standards are happy to use their Epson flatbeds for prints up to a 4x enlargement. That would be 16x20 for 4x5 negatives, 8x10 for medium format, and snapshots for 35mm. I have personally made 16x20 prints from 4x5 negatives that were scanned on an Epson V750 that were as good (in terms of detail) as the best I was ever able to achieve using an enlarger in a conventional darkroom.

But I have seen very good prints made at 8x enlargement. They may not represent the very best that can be achieved, but they are still very good. The example I have hanging on the wall is a 20x40" print made from a 6x12 negative scanned in an Epson 4990, which is the predecessor to the V750.

Thus, I think that excellent 16x20 prints are quite possible with these scanners from 4x5 negatives. Very good prints of that size might also be possible from medium format, and 11x14 prints from roll film will be a bit better. But I don't think you'll find a consumer flatbed adequate for making prints from 35mm larger than snapshots. For that, you'll need a film scanner.

You might find that an Epson flat-bed makes a reasonable starting point, and then later add a film scanner for smaller formats after you have seen the results for yourself. Even if you end up doing so, you'll still need and use the flat-bed for 4x5.

None of the consumer flat-bed scanners define the state of the art--that privilege is reserved for vastly expensive PMT drum scanners--but they do very well when used within their limitations. Most of us find a compromise between what we are trying to achieve, what we can afford, and what control over the process we desire, and no one solution may be right for anyone else. But the Epson flat-bed is a reasonable and relatively inexpensive starting point.

Rick "who uses a Nikon 8000 film scanner for medium and small format and an Epson for large format" Denney

[sully75]

For the record, I've made pretty reasonable bordering on pretty damn good 8x10 prints of 35mm negatives using the 4870. Definitely a lot easier with the better scanning holder.

Regarding laying the film directly on the scanner glass, I believe that's generally not recomended because of anti-newton rings. AND I believe that the epsons aren't actually calibrated to be sharpest at the glass because of this, that's why the mounts suspend the film.

[Gem Singer]

How do you suspend 5x7 and 8x10 negatives above the glass when there are no Epson holders for those sizes?

Newton rings form when two shiny surfaces are pressed together. The emulsion side of a B&W negative is not shiny. That's the reason for placing the negative on the glass with the dull emulsion side down and placing the anti-Newton glass's dull side on top of the shiny base side.

The scanner software that I use has different settings for above the glass in holders and for flat on the glass for larger negatives.

[sully75]

How do you suspend 5x7 and 8x10 negatives above the glass when there are no Epson holders for those sizes?



Tape it to the bottom of the ANR glass in the better-scanning holder. Not 8x10, but 5x7, because the 4870 and 4990 don't have an 8x10 light.

[Gem Singer]

I've scanned many B&W 8x10 negatives taped directly to the glass of the 4990.

Seems that the 4990 scanner's light covers 8x10.

Perhaps the Betterscanning holder restricts the light for 8x10's?