5x4 choosing a scanner

[james silverman]

I was wondering if anyone could offer advice.

I was looking into buying a scanner for 5x4 and even though i would like an Imacon it is not affordable.

So the only option i have heard about is the Epson Perfection 4870 Photo

my question is..to shoot and present to magazines and clients to make A3 size prints- scanning from Neg and tranny would it be of sufficient quality ?

Can it handle Negatives is the important question ?

does anyone have any samples i can view..

I live in Sweden and they have to be ordered in specially so i can not test and can not view anything either.

all advice welcome

James

[Stan. Laurenson-Batten]

Hello James.

I have been using a Cano Scan D24U for the past two years. It cost a reasonable £350.

It is used for all formats from 35mm 120/6X9 to 5X4 and all types of film plus print scans.

The results - I am unable to fault, suffice to say, I enlarged to 40X30 inches from a 5X4 trans.

There is little point in unloading an example - as the resulting loss of detail would be self defeating.

There are other models now available since the Cannon came on the market, I am confident they too will perform to your requirements.

[Kirk Gittings]

All the testing that I have done and a few other people that I have corresponded with agree that the Epson 4870 is the best under$1000.00 flatbed scanner available. I use it for all my commercial work for prints up to 16x20.

[james silverman]

how about negatives with the Epson 4870 ?have you scanned or just transparencies?

[Ed Pierce]

The images on my website (www.edpiercephoto.com) were made by scanning 4x5 negatives on a "remanufactured" Epson 3200. Works fine and didn't cost much.

[james silverman]

looks decent scans on your site ..nice pictures..

what about colour negs just as good in the shadow areas aswell..?

I have an older epson not comparable at all Epson 1240u flatbed adapter..the colours are over saturated and shadow details are lost negative scanning s terrible . this is my only comparrison..but totally non commercial.

[Ralph Barker]

Here's a sample scanned with the Epson 3200, the 4870's predecessor. The scan is of an Ilford FP4+ 4x5 negative from the group's recent Mare Island excursion, scanned for 11x14 output @ 300DPI, and then reduced in Photoshop (a higher-res scan could have been done):


http://www.rbarkerphoto.com/misc/SFBayAreaMisc/MareI1104-03Ad4cranes-600bw.jpg

Here's a clip at 100%:

http://www.rbarkerphoto.com/misc/SFBayAreaMisc/MareI1104-03Aclipbw.jpg

[Ted Fullerton]

James,

I've been very happy with my 4870 for color transparency and B&W and color negative scans. I've printed at 8x10 with scans originating at 600 dpi with great results. I've scanned several transparencies to 1200 dpi for resizing to 16x20 and, though definately not drum scan quality, the scans produce nice highlights and shadows without blockyness.

I'm pretty value-conscious and I'm happy with the quality for the price.

I have negs and transparencies scanned with the 4870 at
http://www.tedfullerton.com (http://www.tedfullerton.com) if you'd care to view samples.

-Ted

[Jim Rice]

While not germaine to the topic at hand, once again I admire Ralph's wrk.

[Shilesh Jani]

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2478442

4x5 Fuji Provia scanned on a 4870 for grayscale16 bit grayscale output at 2400 dpi.

[ISO 2]

The Epson F-3200 Film scanner is rumoured to be affordable. For your colour work, 48 bit should do it.

www.epson.co.uk/products/scanner/F-3200.htm

[martin_4668]

I am just curious. I know many of the readers and contributeurs are having LF and ULF as hobbies, and therefore has a limited budget.
but......I have to the day not seen anyone saying that these flatbeds scanners are crap...wich they are. Not in value for money....but if anyone has ever put a TriX or Velvia in an Imacon Flextight scanner, they will concour that this type of scan is much much much better. Colour depht, resolution, contrast etc is just in another league.
Due to a lot of photographers are going digi, from scanner to DCB (digital camera back) a lot of these high end 10.000 USD scanner (or even 20.000,-) has ended up on the secondhand market.
I´ve got my Flextight Photo (up to 6x17cm) for just 1500,- USD, new price was 10.000 USD just 4 years ago.

Any other with experiences like that.??

[james silverman]

finding a flextight second hand is difficult where did you find yours? bear in mind i live in Sweden..

I have been scanning with the latest flextight 900 series 6x6 trannies ..hiring by the hour which works out £30 an hour...and have for some reason not seen magazines print my scans particularly well even though my screen is callibrated..So i feel a bit disilusioned with handing in digital files all together but i know that it is the way to sell stories quicker.

[Ralph Barker]

Martin - I don't think many here would dispute that Imacon scanners do an excellent job on the sizes they can handle, nor that desktop scanners can compete with Imacons or drum scanners. Affordability is a key factor for many, however, and getting the best possible scanner in the sub-$500 range is often the goal. Individual images aimed at large digital reproduction can always be sent out for drum scans, if necessary.

James - magazine reproduction is often questionable due to the limitations of both the paper they use and the printing process. The color balance of images can easily be affected (usually adversely) by colors used in ads within the same "signature". Ads using large areas of striking color can be particularly troublesome for photos falling in the same signature. Keeping the brightness range within 3½ to 4 stops, as is done with most ad photos, can help, but not all images lend themselves to that sort of control.

[Brian Ellis]

When I attended a digital workshop at the Palm Beach Photographic Workshops a couple years ago I asked them to scan a 6x7 black and white negative on their Imacon scanner for me. I don't know the model of their Imacon, I remember it was a very big upright affair. I was expecting that the Imacon would knock my socks off in comparison with the same negative scanned on my Linoscan 1400 flatbed scanner ($1,000 or so when new, now discontinued). I was surprised to see not much difference at all. A very little more detail in the darkest shadows and when viewed at actual pixels the blades of grass were a very little bit shaprer. That was about it for $15,000 or so. Maybe a color negative would show greater differences or maybe my negative for some reason didn't allow the Imacon to show all it could do, but it sure didn't produce $15,000 worth of difference to me.