very happy with my 6x17 holder....
very happy with my 6x17 holder....
Robert Oliver
I used the 120 holders for the Epson 750. They worked great.
Originally Posted by Robert Oliver
Thanks, guys; any pros/cons on the wet-mount vs dry-mount stations?
Ari, hope you don't mind but I have a related question.
I bought the Better Scanning adjustable holder for my Epson 4870 but never had an opportunity to try it before it passed on. Recently picked up a used V700 and have been doing tests (dry mounting) to determine best height as the holder only has an original height of 1.0 mm.
Problem I'm having is determining best scan at a given height. It reminds me of sitting in an optometrist's chair and determining which line looks better. I've been comparing the scans at 200% in Photoshop CS4, the only adjustment is mild sharpening.
The Better scanning website suggests increments of .2mm, I've been flicking back & forth between 3.3mm & 3.8mm to see a difference and can't with any certainty.
How much adjustment before one sees a difference? Is it a depth of field issue or is it just my old eyes?
Good question, Cesare; I'm sure I'll have a few when my holder arrives.
From my limited readings, you should first be scanning at a high enough resolution so the differences are more easily seen; something in the neighbourhood of 2000 dpi.
If you are already doing that, then I hope someone else can chime in with a suggestion.
See post 7 in this thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.in...=scanner+focus. It seems there is a range in which focus does not vary very much with height - outside that range, the variation is much more significant. Perhaps your scanner is already in the "sweet spot"
Bob
I have an older BS (unfortunate naming choice there...) 120 holder that I prefer to the Epson holders because it has "T" locks - simple pieces of plastic that fit into the channel and you can place between frames to help flatten the film. It works really well with my old 6x12 Noblex film. But scanning 120 on an Epson is always going to be a compromised solution. I really like 120 but the notion of getting a Coolscan 9000 really puts me off.
For 4x5 it is hard to beat the cheap Epson holder, unfortunately. If I want to get fancy I use a piece of AN glass and pennies.
In all cases it is easy to test for optimal height, or at least closer to optimal height.
If I feel like I should wet mount, then I probably should send it off for a proper drum scan or at least use my friend's Flextight.
I use Epson scans most of the time and they make fine 11x17-ish prints with no complaints. But I see it as more of a nicer proofing device than as a final scan. Obviously I have a huge backlog of film to get masterful scans made of, but the benefit of waiting is that they are organically edited by popularity. If I simply made 50 $100 scans of whatever I shot over a year, only 4-5 would have staying power. But if I wait a few years, then I can go back to my 2007 images and easily pick the 5-10 images that deserve better scans and editing. Plus my editing skills (choice and with Photoshop) are much improved since 2007.
But for assignments and commercial repro? If you can't get a worthy scan from 4x5 and an Epson (dry, stock holder) then you should hang it up and go home. It's plenty of overkill and way beyond the sorts of crappy drumscans I used to get from respectable printers and service bureaus in the 90s. And, unfortunately standards aren't any higher. High end, fine art standards - aka Alec Soth, Gursky - are the highest level right now... 99.9% of commercial work is medium quality and fairly low res.
I don't see how to justify the expense, learning curve, space, or commitment to owning a high-end scanner so long as there are good options like Lenny and other hardcore practitioners to hire. My two cents....
Thanks for the link, I missed it when doing my search.
I agree the Epson with the stock holder gives very good results with 4x5. I got the BS adjustable holder to scan Polaroid 55 negs and the odd 5x7. I like to leave the negatives with the tear away film section attached thus they don't fit the standard Epson 4x5 holder. I have 24 sheets left, expired 2003, yet the film still produces beautiful negatives.
Re the optimal height, I settled on 3.48mm mainly because I found a shim (plastic strip) 2.48 thick + 1.00mm for the holder height with no adjustment. I've given up for the moment searching for the "optimal height" though it still bugs me a little and will go back to it.
The depth of field plotted in that ref. on post #16 was made quite carefully. I suspect it to be pretty valid for all V750s' since the hardware is, presumably, all identical. The actual height for best focus varies somewhat due, no doubt, to manufacturing tolerances. This variance seems to be between 3 to 4 mm above the Epson platen. The depth of field varies depending on what is chosen as a resolution standard. The plot referenced seems to be a slightly distorted hyperbolic function in both directions. The actual equivalent spot size from other measurements appears to be 20 to 30 um in diameter with sort of a gaussian pattern.
The best way to quickly find a point of best focus is to use a wedge focus target. I think I have explained this in a post somewhere recently - search "wedge mask".
Nate Potter, Austin TX.
Note what Petronio says above about justifying ownership of a high end scanner. Films that can make use of all that resolution are few and far between - at least for me. Unless you are a pro or do an inordinate amount of business in very large prints you may find that few of your films demand high resolution scans. It would be more economical to send those to Lenny or an equivalent, known to do top quality work. If you have a film of such quality, then as a consumate artist you should want it digitized by someone who is expert in the technology.
Nate Potter, Austin TX.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks