Epson Perfection 2450 scanner

[Paul Cocklin]

Hello, all.

I would just like to say that this forum has moved me forward leaps and bounds (I hope) towards learning about large format image taking. I've been searching the archives six hours a day for the last week, while waiting for the first batch of film to arrive for my new (to me) Orbit 4x5.

While sitting at my desk and sighing over the fact that now I will have to buy a new scanner for all the 4x5 positives I will have, I noticed something odd. This is a bit of a story, so let me explain:

Three years ago I was shooting mainly 35mm slide so I bought the Epson 2450 scanner because it was inexpensive and I had heard good reviews about it. It performed admirably for the last three years until November, when I bought a Seagull TLR (I can hear the snickers out there...) because I wanted to experiment with 6x6 sizes.

being a little more financially solvent, I went out and bought a new Epson 4180 because it seemed the reviews were good and I still couldn't afford anything more. It has done a wonderful job with both 35mm and 6x6, so I gave the old scanner to my girlfriend.

Here's the kicker, and the question.

I just found in my desk drawer the black plastic masks that come with the scanners that you would place 35mm negative strips in(which I never used), and with that plastic carrier was another: with openings for what looks like 6x7 and 4x5in films. *duh

So my question I pose to anyone who has read through all this nonsense is this:

Did I waste $250 on a new scanner when the 2450 could have scanned MF if I had only looked around for the masks; and, does the 2450 indeed scan 4x5in positives; and, do I now have to go to my girlfriend begging for my old scanner back? I tried looking at the software for the 4180 scanner, and the largest I can select is 6x9cm, so I know the masks have to be from the older 2450.

Or, should I just say 'scr*w it' and build a dark room? (Like I have the space or the money for that...) Any responses to the capabilities of either of these scanners to work with LF film would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for all the free advice I've gleaned from all of you!

Paul

By the way, my first LF camera showed up three days ago and I still don't have any film for it! It's killing me, sitting and waiting for UPS. I feel all giddy as a school girl when I think about the size of the slides I'm gonna have!

[Larry Mendenhall]

I almost hate to answer, Paul. But, yes, the 2450 scans 35mm, medium format and 4x5.

I suggest being very nice to the girlfriend. Maybe she'll let you use the 2450 once in awhile. ; )

[Paul Cocklin]

Well, I figured as much based solely on the fact that this sort of stuff happens to me all the time. Thankfully, we live together so I can just sneak into her office when she's not here and switch 'em! Thanks Larry, for confirming it for me.

[Jeremy Moore]

Paul,

Here's something you might try:

Don't use the mask for negatives, instead put them directly on the scanner and put a piece of glass over them to hold them flat (I use an 8x10" piece of frame glass with rounded edges I bought at Michaels for $2.50). Now scan the negatives--this resulted in a huge increase in sharpness even compared to the aftermarket medium format holder that someone sells online. I have never had any Newton rings, but YMMV. This would also work for your 4x5 negatives.

David Goldfarb (another poster here) turned me onto this idea and it is great!

[Paul Cocklin]

Thanks a lot, Jeremy; Great idea! (with a nod to David)

I would guess that I don't need to do anything special in the scanner software? I thought the masks were there so that the scanner would know where to look for them. Forgive the stupid questions, please; I'm almost as much of a neophyte at scanning anything but slides as I am in the large format realm.

As a side note, I just received my UPS package (film)!

Already shot 3 type 55 polaroids. I'll give you all a good laugh:

the first one: I must have put the film in backwards, in spite of the fact that it says in big bold letters, "This side towards lens". No exposure recorded; wasted $3.

the second one: Loaded film correctly, exposed good, great print, cr*ppy negative. (that's ok, I expected this due to my obsession with reading through all the archives here) Very happy with it!

the third one: underexposed print by about one-half stop; guess the print isn't really rated at ISO 64 afterall. ruined negative when peeling them apart. :-P

Overall, I'm very happy with the results, as everything that went wrong I understand the reasons for. I can't wait for tomorrow!

Thanks for all the assistance, everyone!

Paul

[mark blackman]

putting the neg directly on the glass will result in out-of focus scans as the lens is set to focus at around 1mm above the glass, hence the holders.

[Duane Polcou]

The purpose of negative holders with this unit is to place the negative material in the appropriate position above the scanner glass to insure proper focus, and to insure the negative is placed in the scanner's "sweet spot". Taping the negatives to the glass anywhere is not maximizing this scanner's potential.

[Scott Davis]

Paul- about the Type 55 - best results for a negative are to shoot either 50 or 25 ISO(try both and see to taste). You'll get gorgeous negs that are easy to print and easy to scan... your prints will of course look totally blown out, but that's ok...

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

I think you should show her how much you love her and give her the new one and take the crappy old back to use for yourself. Just cause you care.

[Paul Cocklin]

lol...thanks John, but I already beat you to it! She graciously has agreed to take the new scanner and a lifetime of devotion. (that made me a little nervous...)

Scott, thanks for the sound advice...I think that for each shot I will be doing two, one for the print, and then when I get that exposure right, one for the negative. I can already tell I should invest in Polaroid stock; I think I may be able to support the company on my own.

To everyone else, thanks so much for all the good advice; I will be begging for more before too long.

Happy shooting.

Paul