What are you using to scan

[Pfiltz]

4x5 negs with? Not many on FleaBay to be had, however; MF and LF are all over the place to buy....

[Light Guru]

There is tons of info already on the forums about what scanners people are using. Epson has the most widely used model for large format but hp also has one. A quick search will give you all the info you need.

[sully75]

best buy to me is Epson 4900 with the betterscanning calibratible film holder. good price/quality/speed match.

[Heroique]

Epson occasionally sells refurbished 4990s on their clearance site, and the price, for several years running, has been $279 (w/ all accessories, plus a one-year warranty & free shipping).

However, these scanners don’t appear very often anymore – maybe once or twice per year, and they always disappear within 2-3 days.

People know a good value when they see one!

[Pfiltz]

Thanks.... I'll try to keep my eye open for the epson. I may have to just break, and get a V700...

[Lenny Eiger]

You can scan 4x5's with anything. I use a top-of-the-line drum scanner. However, that isn't the question. The question is what level of quality you want, what kind of printing are you doing, what does your work look like, etc. Different scanners, including a digital camera shooting at the film on a light box, all yield different results. Choose the results you want and the criteria for which system to employ becomes clear.

Lenny

[Kirk Gittings]

ditto

You can scan 4x5's with anything. I use a top-of-the-line drum scanner. However, that isn't the question. The question is what level of quality you want, what kind of printing are you doing, what does your work look like, etc. Different scanners, including a digital camera shooting at the film on a light box, all yield different results. Choose the results you want and the criteria for which system to employ becomes clear.

Lenny

[Leonard Evens]

For 4 x 5 film, I use an Epson V700. I got a BetterScanning film holder to determine the optimum film height above the glass. But once I had determined it, I found I could get close enough for most routine scanning using the film holder provided by Epson with the scanner after making appropriate adjustments.

I don't use the highest sampling rate provided by the scanner. That gives me lots of pixels, but the optics of the scanner can't provide better than 2400 ppi, so that is what I scan at. I get results adequate for making prints as large as I want, assuming those prints are viewed at normala viewing distance for the size of the print. If one insists on getting close enough to a print, no amount of resolution willl suffice.

[Lenny Eiger]

If one insists on getting close enough to a print, no amount of resolution willl suffice.

Leonard,

I would disagree. This may be true for a scanner that tops out at 2400, but it isn't true for a drum scanner. I have 40 inch prints on the wall and people stick their noses into it.

In the old days many people said you couldn't drum scan color negs. That was because they didn't know how to adjust the aperture on their Tango's. It was hardware (and knowledge) based, not reality for all scanners.

It's important when making a general statement, that it really is a general statement, and that you aren't limited by the equipment.

Lenny

[Kirk Gittings]

There is no such thing as a "normal print viewing distance". I don't know who thought that up but it was probably a 35mm shooter. One of the reasons people appreciate LF is the extraordinary detail. Every time I go to a show of LF prints people stick their nose right up to the print=myself included.