Want to Scan but on a budget!

[Robert Vigurs]

I recently scanned an old (70s) glossy photo with my 4990. It came out really nice. No reflection problems. I found that the 3200 I had did a nicer job on 35mm. Those go for $40-$50. My 4990 has been a tremendously useful tool for 6x6,and 4x5. I scan negs, get an idea of what I want, perhaps adding to the highlights, or toning things down if overexposed, then go in to the darkroom with a better idea of how I want to print. A relative just gave me an almost new 4990, so, not needing two, I put one on ebay. I'll be happy to get $200. A fair price. I have read other posts on this site that point to few differences between the 4990 and the V750. You don't have to spend a lot. This tool can be an invaluable resource in creative envisioning of your finished print, or for web posting. The moderator here, Ken Lee, has much experience with the 4990, and has posted some great how-to's in order to get the best results.

[mdd99]

I would consider going to a pro lab. You can get a 65mb scan of a 4x5 for $16 at National Geographic Imaging, for example. Hard to beat that.

[Flea77]

I went the route of the HP 4050 and was extremely frustrated. I will start with saying that I was looking for something to do both 2 1/4 and 4x5, nothing in bulk, and I am one of the owners of a local computer company who is an HP partner with over 26 years of computer experience.

The scanner worked fine to start with, about a month. Then continual errors to the point where the software did not see the scanner at all. Replaced the TMA twice, the body once, the cables more times than I can count, same problem on two different computers (completely different, one Intel based, one AMD based), replaced USB controllers, power outlets, UPSs, yada yada. Tried it with the HP software, Silverfast, and VueScan.

Wound up replacing it with a Epson 4990 Photo and have had exactly zero problems. My results may be the exception rather than the rule, but because of repeated scanner problems (this one and many others) my company no longer sells HP scanners. Take that for what it is worth.

Allan

[cabbiinc]

I use the HP Scanjet G4050. I bought it because it was $200 at my local Fry's, would do 4x5, but I also use it on as small a format as half frame 35mm from my Olympus Pen. I've batch scanned 35mm negs and slides, as well as 120. I've not had any problems with it yet but I don't scan on a daily basis (yet). I also haven't gotten into 4x5 that much yet so don't have any negs to scan.

I did find that the provided software was absolutely horrid for 35mm batch scanning. The Transparent Media Adapter (TMA) doesn't have specific spots where the frames line up and it relies on the software to "see" where one frame ends and the next frame starts. It will also ignore what it feels is an underexposure, which I haven't figured out what it deems as that as I can see the frame just fine without any tweaking and the software will ignore that frame, making me have to add frame after frame when scanning. And every time you do a prescan it starts all over again.

Vuescan, I can't say enough about that program. I already had it for another scanner and it made easy work of the G4050. The one downfall at this point with Vuescan is that it doesn't make very good work of the multi-scan feature that apparently HP's software can do. It does work, but it softens the image or even shows a multi-exposure. The multi-scans aren't lining up, but that hasn't been a deal breaker for me.

The dust removal works with both HP's software and Vuescan. There was an update of Vuescan a while ago that fixed an alignment problem with the dust removal process.

I'm using this scanner on both Vista and Windows 7 (32 bit).

[sully75]

I have the Epson 4870. I got it for ~$100 on ebay. I also bought a film holder from better-scanning.com (I think that's the address). That's ESSENTIAL. Was not having good results until I bought that thing.

Epson Scan is kind of crappy and really annoying but it works. I tried the other options and was really frustrated. Others have had better results.

The problem with some of these scanners is that the sharpest plane of focus is not necessarily right on the glass. So the aftermarket film holders hold the film suspended above the glass, and they are adjustable, so you can find the scanners best plane of focus.

I'm pretty broke but it was money well spent. They also have a MF holder that I've heard is excellent. But you can tape MF or 35mm film to their large glass holder, that's what I do.

[Tobias Key]

I had an Epson 4990 that completely died for no reason just after the warranty expired. I replaced it with a G4050 with which I've had zero problems, so my experience is the opposite of others. I used vuescan for both scanners and found the quality of the scans to be more or less identical.

I took the view that any flatbed I bought would be a proofing scanner, as from experience I know that drum scans or imacon scans are worlds better and I would always end up getting lab scans for portfolio or fine prints. On that basis the G4050 works fine and saved me money that I would spent on a V700 and more likely than not still had drumscans made when necessary. The extra quality of the V700 in those circumstances is irrelevant to me.

[Brian Ellis]

I don't think you're going to find one scanner in your price range or anything close to it that will do 35mm, medium format, and 4x5 well if your standards are a high quality print (good enough to exhibit or hang on your wall) in the 11x14 and up range. The Epson 4990/700/750 will do fine for your 4x5 film and prints up to about 16x20 but my 4990 is useless with 35mm except for posting on the web. It is, by my standards anyhow, not very good with 6x7 either. It was o.k. for small (8x10 max) prints from 6x7 but that was about it and even 8x10 wasn't all that great. IMHO you're going to need a second dedicated film scanner for 35mm and maybe 6x7 depending on your standards and max print size.

I should mention that my experience is with the 4990, not the 700/750. However, there's little if any difference between them in terms of resolving capability from the reviews I've read so I'd be very surprised if the 700/750 is significantly better than my 4990 (which is why I haven't bought a 700/750). I also scan b&w negative film, not color, almost exclusively. FWIW I've owned the 4990 since it came on the market, something like 7 years ago maybe, and never had the first problem with it.

[sully75]

Hi Brian,

Just wondering, did you use the standard epson film holders with your 4990? They are 100% useless as far as I can tell. The difference with the better scanning holder is really large.

[Brian Ellis]

Hi Brian,

Just wondering, did you use the standard epson film holders with your 4990? They are 100% useless as far as I can tell. The difference with the better scanning holder is really large.

I use something called a UMax Professional Slide Holder for 4x5. But I did use the Epson for a while and I don't remember thinking it was useless, it just was very flimsy. The UMax is heavier and sturdier, it's made of some sort of rubber and metal-like material.

[sully75]

I use something called a UMax Professional Slide Holder for 4x5. But I did use the Epson for a while and I don't remember thinking it was useless, it just was very flimsy. The UMax is heavier and sturdier, it's made of some sort of rubber and metal-like material.

Ok don't want to diminish your experience. The results I was getting with the Epson film holders were pretty bad in general. Occasionally good but mostly inconsistent.

Since I got the better scanning holder, I've been really pleased with the 4870. It does what it needs to do at a really good price. By mounting the film to a piece of glass, you are flattening it out in a way that the stock film holders can't. And because these scanners don't have the greatest QC, the plane of focus is often really variable, and the holder has little plastic screws to tune the holder to the best plane of focus.

I went from very dissapointed to generally pleased. All the recent stuff on my flickr page is with this scanner. 35mm results have been pretty good. In general, it's my photography that I'm worried about now, and not the quality of my scans. I think the scanner is pulling 90% or more of what's there out. Could be wrong but I can't beat it for the price.