Scanning 4x5"

[Anonomatos]

First of all:
I'm very sorry for asking such basic questions. I've tried searching but couldn't find the answer black-on-white, and I need that. Hopefully you guys will help me out a bit, I'll be participating lots when I'm on my way with LF!

The questions are:
-When I take a 4x5" photo... Can I just put the film directly on the scanner (a v750 epson pro for example) without any other post-processing (darkroom or otherwise)?

-Is the resolution high enough for A0 size (around 85x120cm). I heard it's always OK when you magnify 15x. But A0 will be quite more than that. Will it effect sharpness?

-Is scanning a negative and making a digital print give equal or greater quality than 'analogue' processing?

Thanks for answers, hope I'm not too much of a problems around here!

Ruben

[Peter De Smidt]

First of all:
-When I take a 4x5" photo... Can I just put the film directly on the scanner (a v750 epson pro for example) without any other post-processing (darkroom or otherwise)?

I'm not sure what you mean. You have to set the scanning software correctly, and some of them have quite extensive image editing controls. Does that count as post-processing? Usually an image will need to be worked on in Photoshop, if nothing else to spot the dust.

-Is the resolution high enough for A0 size (around 85x120cm). I heard it's always OK when you magnify 15x. But A0 will be quite more than that. Will it effect sharpness?

Yes, it'll effect sharpness. I wouldn't make prints that big from scans from scans from a consumer flatbed, but that's a judgment call. A print that size would benefit greatly from a professional scanner.

-Is scanning a negative and making a digital print give equal or greater quality than 'analogue' processing?

Both can give outstanding quality when done well. The end results will have different qualities. Which is better? That depends one what you want. I have some images where I've made a better print traditionally. Others have worked better for me digitally.

[Eric Brody]

You need to develop the film, I assume you know that. Once the film is developed, fixed, washed and dried, it can be scanned. No other processing is needed. How large is a judgment call. Many folks believe flatbed scanners like the Epson V7xx series can do 4-5x enlargements of pretty high quality. The size you are describing will be a stretch for a flatbed. If you are trying to produce such large prints, a drum scan might be better.

You might want to spend some time learning the scanner and the other software tools before such an ambitious printing attempt. There is a decent learning curve for scanning, scanner software, and certainly photoshop. You do not mention what level of expertise you currently possess.

I believe my prints from scanned 4x5 black and white negatives are as good or better than anything I ever produced in the wet darkroom. I do not print larger than 16"x20".

Good luck.

Eric

[Joanna Carter]

When I take a 4x5" photo... Can I just put the film directly on the scanner (a v750 epson pro for example) without any other post-processing (darkroom or otherwise)?

Well, the Epson V750 is an excellent scanner but their 4x5 film holder is not the best in the world; most people who want sharper scans end up getting the Better Scanning holder from Doug Fisher.

Apart from that, all you have to do is to mount the developed film in the holder, adjust the scanning parameters and scan the image.

Is the resolution high enough for A0 size (around 85x120cm). I heard it's always OK when you magnify 15x. But A0 will be quite more than that. Will it effect sharpness?

I have printed as large as 100cm x 80cm with very acceptable results. As long as you don't stand too close to a larger print, the results could be acceptable but not necesssarily

Is scanning a negative and making a digital print give equal or greater quality than 'analogue' processing?

Depending on your skill levels and the choice of paper, digital prints can be just as acceptable as a "wet" print. but there are those who wiull fight a religious war over this point

[Anonomatos]

You need to develop the film, I assume you know that. Once the film is developed, fixed, washed and dried, it can be scanned. No other processing is needed. How large is a judgment call. Many folks believe flatbed scanners like the Epson V7xx series can do 4-5x enlargements of pretty high quality. The size you are describing will be a stretch for a flatbed. If you are trying to produce such large prints, a drum scan might be better.

Well, actually I did not know it was necessary. Some scanner say they can scan negatives (guess that's only 35mm?).

Thanks for all the replies!

Anyways. Is there a good article on developing 4x5's? Or should I just bring the first few attempts to a photolab? I'm still thinking of giving all the processing and scanning out of my hands for the first dozen attempts. First I need to get a grip on the photography and digital (photoshop) processing, then the rest of the development process... me thinks...

P.S.: I won't be mixing in the analogue-digital discussion

[Flea77]

Anyways. Is there a good article on developing 4x5's? Or should I just bring the first few attempts to a photolab? I'm still thinking of giving all the processing and scanning out of my hands for the first dozen attempts. First I need to get a grip on the photography and digital (photoshop) processing, then the rest of the development process... me thinks...

P.S.: I won't be mixing in the analogue-digital discussion

There are tons of great articles and posts here for developing LF negs (since 4x5 is the smallest most consider LF, most things here will be that size or larger). Try a search or two and you are sure to get a ton of hits, but I will start off some things.

Developing B&W 4x5 at home is a piece of cake. There are a few different ways:

1) Tray development. The film is removed from the holder and placed in a tray of chemicals, after the time expires, it moves to the second tray, then to the third. The pros here are that it is easy, cheap, and can be done in a tiny space. The cons are that it has to be done in complete darkness from start to almost finish. PITA.

2) Tanks. When I refer to tanks I am refering to the manual rectangular light proof tanks that work just like 35mm. It uses a lot of chemicals, you load the film in the dark, but everything else can be in the light. It is also pretty messy from what I hear as those tanks never are sealed well.

3) Tubes. This is what I am using. Each piece of film is placed in a plastic tube, chemicals are loaded and you process up to six tubes at once. The advantages are that you can process six different types of film for six different times all at once and you can do everything but load the film under lights, albeit safe lights for the stop and first part of the fix. The disadvantage is that you have to manually agitate the tubes constantly.

4) Jobo. This is much like tanks except the tanks are square and these are round, and of course you can get the roller base so that they agitate themselves. This method allows you to do everything but load the film in the light, and read a book while they process. The disadvantage is that you can not mix and match developing times like you can with tubes.

No one is really better than the other, it is pretty personal. I am happy with the tubes for now and absolutely despised trays.

I found one thing to make life easier, I shoot only Ilford film, and use only Ilford chemicals, with the processing sheets you can get from www.ilford.com this is just one less thing I have to worry about. Once again, very personal decision, but using all the same manufacturer's stuff to me means less margin for error.

Last little hint, THE TIME AND TEMP IS CRITICAL, you may be tempted to thing "oh, well it is close enough to 68 degrees so I will just use the standard time", that is a sure fire way to get crummy negs. I will say it again just for effect, THE TIME AND TEMP IS CRITICAL!

Allan

[rdenney]

Well, the Epson V750 is an excellent scanner but their 4x5 film holder is not the best in the world; most people who want sharper scans end up getting the Better Scanning holder from Doug Fisher.

I guess I was lucky--my plain Epson holder allows me to scan at 3200 and get down to the grain level with the FP4 negatives I've been scanning.

I just printed an image from an FP4 negative that I made 18 years ago. I have a conventional print from the negative hanging on the wall, so it's my first comparison.

The conventional print is a 16x20" print that I enlarged in an Omega D3 with a Bausch and Lomb 139mm enlarging Tessar. The paper was Oriental Seagull RC glossy paper, toned in selenium. Of course that does not represent the state of the art in fine printing, but it was about the best I could practically do in my home darkroom at the time. And it was good enough--there was nothing about that print that annoyed me as I walked by it, for example. As RC paper when, that Oriental stuff looked pretty good.

The inkjet print was made on Epson 17x22 Premium Photo Paper Glossy, using the ABW capability in the Epson driver on an Epson 3800, a setting of "Dark", and a strong magenta tone to give it a hint of that selenium toning and get rid of the greenish Epson ink tone. I spent quite a bit of time working on the image to get the tonality I wanted, and the result of that was a bit different than how I saw the image before, but mostly because I had finer control.

In the end, the Epson print is every bit as viewable as the conventional print. The tone is not really like selenium but it's still pleasing and it provides very rich blacks. The image is a little sharper than the conventional print--probably a commentary on the B&L lens--but both are extremely sharp and detailed. The blacks are just as rich on the Epson print as on the Seagull paper, and the gradations just as subtle. Even with a magnifier, there is nothing I could see that suggested it was an inkjet print.

So, for me, my standards, and my abilities both then and now, my first large print from the 3800 (after maybe 10 test prints on small paper) was a little better than my best from the days when I had my own darkroom. Others could doubtless do better with both approaches, but that choice isn't relevant to most folks making this decision.

If that film holder was the wrong thickness, I would not have gotten those results, I don't think. Like I said, I guess I was lucky. I have no doubt that other scanner are less fortuitously focused from the factory and benefit from an adjustable film holder.

Rick "no longer a 17x22 Epson virgin" Denney

[PenGun]

I guess I was lucky--my plain Epson holder allows me to scan at 3200 and get down to the grain level with the FP4 negatives I've been scanning.

I just printed an image from an FP4 negative that I made 18 years ago. I have a conventional print from the negative hanging on the wall, so it's my first comparison.

The conventional print is a 16x20" print that I enlarged in an Omega D3 with a Bausch and Lomb 139mm enlarging Tessar. The paper was Oriental Seagull RC glossy paper, toned in selenium. Of course that does not represent the state of the art in fine printing, but it was about the best I could practically do in my home darkroom at the time. And it was good enough--there was nothing about that print that annoyed me as I walked by it, for example. As RC paper when, that Oriental stuff looked pretty good.

The inkjet print was made on Epson 17x22 Premium Photo Paper Glossy, using the ABW capability in the Epson driver on an Epson 3800, a setting of "Dark", and a strong magenta tone to give it a hint of that selenium toning and get rid of the greenish Epson ink tone. I spent quite a bit of time working on the image to get the tonality I wanted, and the result of that was a bit different than how I saw the image before, but mostly because I had finer control.

In the end, the Epson print is every bit as viewable as the conventional print. The tone is not really like selenium but it's still pleasing and it provides very rich blacks. The image is a little sharper than the conventional print--probably a commentary on the B&L lens--but both are extremely sharp and detailed. The blacks are just as rich on the Epson print as on the Seagull paper, and the gradations just as subtle. Even with a magnifier, there is nothing I could see that suggested it was an inkjet print.

So, for me, my standards, and my abilities both then and now, my first large print from the 3800 (after maybe 10 test prints on small paper) was a little better than my best from the days when I had my own darkroom. Others could doubtless do better with both approaches, but that choice isn't relevant to most folks making this decision.

If that film holder was the wrong thickness, I would not have gotten those results, I don't think. Like I said, I guess I was lucky. I have no doubt that other scanner are less fortuitously focused from the factory and benefit from an adjustable film holder.

Rick "no longer a 17x22 Epson virgin" Denney

The 3800 is impressive. I'm pleased with mine.

The problem with the Epson V700/V750 is that the focus height varies from machine to machine. The Betterlight holders are adjustable. You can find the focus height with the stock holders but it's a bit more hassle.

You must be a lucky one whose holders are in focus with the stock setting. My V700 needs to have all the 'feet' removed to find focus.

[Jim Noel]

-Is scanning a negative and making a digital print give equal or greater quality than 'analogue' processing?"
Absolutely not!

[Lenny Eiger]

-Is scanning a negative and making a digital print give equal or greater quality than 'analogue' processing?"
Absolutely not!

C'mon, isn't this argument over already. Digital technology is every bit as capable, the prints can be just as beautiful, it's a matter of taste at this point. As with everything, there are good printers and beginners..

Lenny