scanner

[Percy]

Hi.

I know this issue has been talked to death, apparently with no consensus on the horizon. But, here goes:

I want to know if exhibit quality prints might be obtained by scanning 4x5 film on something like a Microtek 1800.

I currently scan film--from 35mm to 6x9mm--using a Nikon 9000. Save for the worst software (next to anything Microsoft, in my opinion) I have ever encountered, I have absolutely no complaints. I love my scanner. Even so, I have read that scans from anything "short of" and Imacon would not be worth the time. Clearly a non-truth.

I mention the above for this reason: I often read about how people get "great" and "superb" scans of 35mm and medium format film using scanners in the Epson 3200 league. Although I have great respect for the capabilities of Epson printers, comparing the results from the 3200 I used to own to those from the Nikon 9000 is like, well upgrading from a Pinto to an Audi.

Ok, then...less art and more matter...

If anyone has experience with the items mentioned above (9000 for MF; 1800 for 4x5), could you please give me an idea of how they compare. If I am getting better results from scanning 6x9 on the Nikon than I would scanning 4x5 on the Microtek, I would rather not invest in another scanner and a 4x5 outfit.

Whew!

Thanks to anyone having the patience to read all of the above; double thanks for any helpful responses.

[Bruce Watson]

It largely depends on how much enlargement you are talking about. Your Microtek should be fine for a 4x enlargement -- 50x40 cm prints (about 20x16 inch). If you are talking about 10x enlargement -- 125 x 100 cm prints (50x40 inch), I think you'll see some sharpness and detail fall off as compared to, say, a drum scanner.

Peoples' interpretations of "great" and "superb" vary so widely that they are hardly worth discussing. What matters is your own personnal interpretation. For you to define what it means to you, you have to try it and decide for yourself whether the results are acceptable to you.

So... do your best with your Microtek. Make an "exhibit quality print" and put it up on your wall and look at it. If you like it, make more. If you don't like it, consider altering your workflow. Without doubt, YMMV.

[Percy]

Oop...forgot to mention that I intend on printing no larger than 11x14 most of the time...

[Steve J Murray]

Percy, I can tell you that I am making excellent, sharp 11x14 (exhibition quality) prints from 4x5 negs scanned with my old Epson 2450 scanner (and Vuescan). I have the same negs I printed in the darkroom and you can't tell the difference. I have them printed on a Frontier printer at its native 300ppi after I first scan them at 2400ppi and then resize. 4x5 seems to be the "sweet spot" for this scanner. 120 negs aren't as enlargeable, 35mm are useless and I use a dedicated 35mm scanner for those. I have had some test scans done on the Nikon 9000 of 6x6 negs and chromes by Imagerylab.com and I didn't think they were as enlargeable as my 4x5 scans. That's just my experience. 4x5 does contain a ton of information even compared to medium format. Still, scanning a good, sharp 6x9 neg/chrome held flat in a Nikon 9000 will probably be very good enlarged to 11x14. Its a close call and I would recommend doing some test enlargements to compare with if you can get your hands on some 4x5 negs or borrow a camera. In the end you gotta see it yourself to make a determination, IMO. Shooting 4x5 is quite different from medium format as well.

[Ellis Vener]

As Bruce said, it will depend on how large the print is. At moderate sizes you might not seedifferences. Much will depend on your technique and your scanning and Photoshop experience. It might be best to start with a reasonable priced scanner that fits your budget.

[Donald Qualls]

I have Noritsu prints made from a CD I burned with 6x7ish crops from a 9x12 cm negative, originally scanned at 2400 ppi on my (old) Agfa Arcus 1200. I can't tell them from optical prints, except that they have no dust spots because I cloned all of those out before putting the images on CD.

And those prints, though non-archival on color-type paper, were only $5 for one 8x12 and one 11x14. I can see no pixels with naked eye, even up close; I wouldn't be at all embarassed to exhibit the prints (though I'd prefer they were on archival silver gelatin paper if I were to attempt to sell them).

[Ted Harris]

For the most direct comparison, I regularly make 8x10 exhibition quality prints with scans from a Microtek i900. I THINK I could do alright with 11x14 but wouldn't want to push beyond that. The 1800 should give you a bit better perfromance and the 2500 much better.

[Brian Ellis]

Anyone who says they get "great" or "superb" scans from 35mm on an Epson 3200 doesn't have very high standards unless maybe they're printing 3 1/2 by 5 snapshots. Even medium format doesn't fare very well on a 3200 with prints larger than about 8x10. However, 4x5 is a whole different story. I do get excellent scans of 4x5 negatives using a Linoscan 1400 scanner that scans at 1200ppi max (probably not much different than the actual ppi of the 3200). However, there's more to scanning than just ppi, the optical system is important, the motor drive is important, etc. While the Linoscan doesn't have great specs I suspect that its actual ppi are pretty close to stated ppi and its innards are probably better than the Epsons (just a guess on my part based on the size and cost of the Linoscan compared to the Epsons).

Coming to digital from 4x5 darkroom enlargements no more than 16x20 and usually 11x14, plus 8x10 contact prints, I think my standards are pretty high. I make what I think are exhibition quality prints up to about 13" x 17" from the scans made with the Linoscan. I have friends who use the 3200 and even the 2450 with their 4x5 negatives and their prints up to about the same size are excellent. So while I'm not familiar with the Microtek you mention, if it's at least in the same league as the 3200 I'd think you should be able to make exhibition quality prints up to 11x14 from scans made with it.

[Percy]

Thank you all for your responses.

Thanks, Brian, for confirming my suspicions.

[David F. Stein]

While the Linoscan doesn't have great specs I suspect that its actual ppi are pretty close to stated ppi and its innards are probably better than the Epsons (just a guess on my part based on the size and cost of the Linoscan compared to the Epsons).

I agree.