Beautiful Images... What Scanning Method ?

[ashlee52]

There are so many technically (and aesthetically) beautiful images being shown here.

Could a few (or many) of you share your scanning "workflow", and perhaps attach the image? Are you darkroom printing and then scanning a print? Or are you scanning negatives?

If you are scanning negatives are you using consumer scanners (under $1000) or big iron? Scanning film in factory holders, or wet mounting?

I am struggling to get 4x5 images to be any better than digital images from a good DSLR. My Microtek M1, which I never had much luck with, just died, and I don't want to replace it with something equally bad. Certainly my Nikon Coolscan V film scanner crushes the Mircotek.

I know a lot of people use the Epson V750. Do you wet mount? Use Better Scanning Anti Newton ring Frames? Or just the Epson holders?

I know this question seems to be technical, but I am actually interested in what scanning is being used for these aesthetically compelling images, not test paterns... so I post the question here.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I scan the negative on an Epson 4990 which I bought as a refurb last week, but I'm not sure my images are aesthetically compelling. The factory holders are sufficient for now without wet mounting and my images are newton ring free.

Certainly a drum scanned negative could be better, but at web sizes like you see here (a few hundred pixels on a side) I doubt that one could tell the difference.

[ashlee52]

And how do you print? Darkroom, or from your scans?

[craig nye]

i scan on an Epson V700 which I find to be suitable for 120 film and larger. I have a Better Scanning holder with ANR glass for medium format negs, and the images scan beautifully, better than the OEM Epson holders.

For 4x5 (I've only just started shooting 4x5) I find that the V700 does just as nicely, though I am using the OEM holders (at least for now) all dry mounted.

For prints (expecially large prints) B&W will all be wet prints, I'll pass the digital scans (often retouched) out for lab printing (though my colour to B&W ratio is 95% B&W and 5% colour, maybe even less).

[Jehu]

I've been using the V750. It gave me a little trouble for a while but then I learned that you should use the multi-pass scan and TURN OFF THE SHARPENING. Now I can print my 11x14 prints from my 4X5 and you can take a magnifying glass to the detail.

I have a wet-mount glass and I tried it when I first got the scanner. It seemed to improve things. I didn't want to use it on a negative that really mattered to me because I don't know if the Naptha ruins the emulsion or not.

I've heard that a drum scan is still superior but I've never spent the $ to try it.

I hope that helps.

[David de Gruyl]

I have and am very happy with the V750. As Craig said: MF and larger work great. For 4x5 (especially Kodak, as Ilford appears to use a thinner base), I find the negative holders are fine. I do use the betterscanning ANR MF adjustable holder for 6x7.

I had trouble with color correcting negative film, but find that positives scan fine and need very little work.

For 8x10, I use a plate of ANR glass to hold the negative flat on the surface.

Honestly, I have no idea if a drum scan is worth it, but I will not be buying a scanner.

Do be sure to turn the sharpening off.

Printing: I print (or attempt to) B&W 35 and 120 via enlarger and 8x10 via contact. 4x5 is contact printed, but not for any purpose. I might buy a larger enlarger at some point. Color is printed digitally, but I can't seem to find a commercial site that does a good job with B&W, even with dedicated black photo printers.

[mrladewig]

I scan on a 4990 with the stock holders, though I plan to replace those with the betterscanning ANR holder in the near future. I feel this is enough for a solid 16X20 print, and I could feel comfortable with a 24X30 from this if needed from this hardware.

But I think the scanning hardware is somewhat secondary to understanding the software that controls the scanner.

I used silverfast Ai initially with my 4990, but I eventually switched to EpsonScan. If I were scanning for someone else and profiled color were important, I'd reconsider Silverfast, but I scan for myself and I want pleasing color for my tastes. EpsonScan gives me that control and I feel that it produces better scans from color negative films.

With either option, I still feel it is important to finish the work in photoshop and have an understanding of the color control tools, curve in the individual color channels and selective color.

I rarely use B&W, but feel the 4990 produces adequate scans there as well.

BTW, I also scan with a Nikon Coolscan LS-4000 and feel it crushes the 4990 as well, but it obviously can't scan the larger formats.

[craig nye]

Also, regarding software - I use VueScan and find it to be the best software option available of those that I have tried (once you get used to using it).

[Kuzano]

They package some pieces of black plastic that one can waste hours on trying to use as film holders. They are not.

[Thebes]

The only reason I am using epson holders is because I was cheap and bought the 4490 (MF and 35mm) and so I have to stitch anyway and am not sinking money into it. At what I spent I am willing to monkey around with the tricks I need to get the best I can out of it. Sometimes this involves a lot of cursing-

It might surprise people, but I consider scanning my 6x12 and 35mm to be a bigger pain than my 4x5 which I do on little nylon disks that work better (and focus better) than the epson holders- those are a joke and most of the cursing is at them and the included scanning software.