What are you using to scan

[Pfiltz]

You can scan 4x5's with anything.

Lenny

Thanks, but I have an epson V600 which I've put up on the auction site to sell since it won't scan 4x5 negs unless I cut them down, and do two scans and stitch 'em together... which I'm not even going to attempt. I don't do any printing in house. All my daily work is done via a lab. I don't see me printing in the future either.

I've thought about the lightbox solution as well, and have actually looked at some.

What type of quality am I looking for in the way of prints? At the very least, the same I get now with my digital camera, and my current lab.

[Brian Ellis]

I've been using an Epson 4990 since it was introduced some 8-9 years ago. It does an excellent job with my 4x5 negatives - good enough to exhibit - with prints up to about 4x (16x20) from 4x5 negatives. I wasn't very happy with it when I tried it with my 6x7 negatives and prints larger than about 8x10 but some people seem to be. I haven't used 35mm film in decades so I have no experience scanning it. But based on what I saw from 6x7 I don't think the 4990 would be suitable with 35mm except maybe for tiny snapshots or the web. This is of course all based on my standards, which may or may not be the same as yours or anyone else's.

If I was buying today I'd certainly consider a drum scanner but would probably end up with an Epson 700/750 scanner. I don't print, exhibit, or sell enough to make the cost of a new drum scanner or the hassle of a used one worthwhile. I wouldn't buy an Epson 4990 unless I was on a really really tight budget. Not because it does an inferior job but because like most things related to film, prosumer scanners for serious photography are a dying breed IMHO. I don't think there's going to be many if any new ones coming out in the future. So I'd want something that would last as long as possible and for which parts would be available for as long as possible.

[Leonard Evens]

People certainly stick their noses right up against prints. I sometimes do it myself.

Before my cataracts came out, my extreme myopia allowed me to get within an inch of a print, without glasses, and any reasonably large print showed some fuzziness, if for no other reason, because the limited resolution of the taking lens. Also, that close, my maximum circle of confusion was so small that there was effectively no depth of field so only the exact plane of focus had a chance to be sharp. Now that my cataracts are out, I need to use reading glasses, so I can't get closer than about 12-14 inches. Except for very young people or extreme myopes without glasses, that is about the closest anyone can get without a magnifier.

No matter how sharp your print is, someone will find something wrong with it by looking closely enough. But does it make sense to let such people determine what you do? If that is your audience, then by all means spend enormous amounts to obtain the highest resolution possible. You probably shouldn't be scanning at all, and if you do scan, you shouldn't be using a moderately priced scanner like the Epson V700. In addition you should give up on expecting any significant depth of field.

I am not rich enough and I don't expect to live long enough to have the kind of equipment which will satisfy nose sniffers, and, even if I had such equipment, I would not succeed at so doing. So I try to do the best I can with what I can afford. If I didn't I would have to give up on large prints entirely. I would get an 8 x 10 camera and make contact prints. But still some people using magnifiers would find my prints were not sharp enough.

[Pfiltz]

I have a bid on FleaBay for an Epson V700 right now. I have to get something. I'm tired of cutting my 4x5's down to MF widths so I can scan them on my V600 ;(

[scm]

I have a bid on FleaBay for an Epson V700 right now. I have to get something. I'm tired of cutting my 4x5's down to MF widths so I can scan them on my V600 ;(

I scanned a lot 0f 4x5s on an V600 without ever cutting one up; I might still be doing it if I didn't have 5x7s and 8x10s I need to scan.

I made a jig out of thin plastic sheeting with a 4x5 hole cut from it that positioned the film in middle of the scanner bed along the scanning path, I also cut a 3" x 1/2" notch for the calibration area. I would scan one side and flip the film 180 degrees and scan a second time. I have no way of knowing for sure but it may have helped in the stitching process to already have the film somewhat in register, there is also a good amount of overlap of the two scans, a bit more than a quarter of an inch from each side.

I tried a couple of different stitching programs but found that the Photomerge function in PhotoShop CS5 worked the best for me.

[gilestown]

I have used perviously a v700 for most of my work at uni and lets be honest, it does a reasonably good job. It really does come down to the purpose/output of the files. I've gotten away scanning them through a v700 and printing decent 90cm wide prints for exhibitions.

But I have been dreaming of a iqsmart3 these past few months. *fingers crossed my lotto ticked won something*

[Matus Kalisky]

I found that sending my 4x5" films to a lab and get very nice 2040 api scans made with Imacon X5 for about 7€ for 16bit file is a much better alternative to hours of time invested into getting mediocre scans with my Microtek F1 (which I sold once the thing got an issue - man I am glad it is gone). The Imacon scan delivers about 70 very decent Megapixels with shadow detail better than one would hope. Surely a professional drum scann would be better - no doubt - but would cost 10 to 20 times as much (here in Germany) and I have yet to print for a gallery exhibition

[Pfiltz]

Well, I have a almost brand new V700 coming this week, so I'll see what shakes out.

[buggz]

Let us know your opinions.
I am in a search for modest equipment also.
Thanks!

Well, I have a almost brand new V700 coming this week, so I'll see what shakes out.

[alexn]

I recently went to an exhibition of 4x5 and 6x7 prints. The 4x5 prints were professionally drum scanned and printed 40x50 on fujiflex. Standing one foot from the prints you could see masses of clear sharp detail. The 6x7 prints were v700 scanned and printed on metallic paper at 20x24 abduction at one foot from the print it was evident that the scanner did not pull everything from the film. At 6 feet the only real differences in the detail was in the shadows. I scan on a microtek i900. I wet mount slides to the glass tray and have printed at 24" onto fujiflex. The prints at 24" were nice, but for anything bigger i would pay for either flextight scans or drum scans. My 24" prints were from 6x12, i assume i could do 36" prints from 6x17