Can anybody recommend a A3 flatbed scanner??

[lukefeeney]

Hi all,

I'm looking recommendations and experiences before buying a possible A3 flatbed photo scanner. I would like new but will be buying secondhand to save money.

The Epson Expression 12000xl is one that I've been looking at. But very open to other brands. It has to be a flatbed due to the fact I will be shooting on glass plates.

Any ideas and thoughts will be well received.

Thanks

Luke

[Jim Andrada]

One of the Eversmart or IQsmart scanners would work. I have an IQsmart 2 and it will scan 12" x 18". Max resolution (true optical) is 4300 dpi although you'd be over the file size limit if you tried scanning the full bed at that resolution. 5 x 7 at 4300 dpi is probably the limit, although the way the scanners work is that you define several independent "crops" which can be overlapping and each crop results in a separate file. When you start a scan it can scan all crops so if you really wanted the full bed at 4300 dpi you could stitch the files together. But realistically 12 x 18 at 4300 dpi would "probably" be overkill.

[lukefeeney]

Hi Jim,
Thanks for your imput, interesting. So what your saying also is that if I was to scan an 8x10 or 11x14 image in full I would not need a 4300 dpi scanner? The file would be just too huge anyway? Four separate files and stitching to me sounds like a bit of a pain? Someone who is just an amatuer photographer and would like to just share some images does not need to go to this extent? I suppose if I ever decided I wanted to blow an image up to poster size I would just take it to a proffesional for that one off?

[faberryman]

filmscanner.nfo has done a review of the Epson Expression 12000XL here (http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonExpression12000XL.html). Its predecessor, the Epson Expression 11000XL, also scans A3. It was reviewed here (http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonExpression11000XL.html). The 12000XL may be the only large bed film format scanner available new. Both scanners have an actual resolution of 2170, so for 35mm and 120, you would still want a dedicated film scanner. My personal experience with the V700 (which has a similar resolution), is that you don't want to enlarge beyond 6x. Still for 8x10 that's 48"x60". Other posters have had different experience, one even suggesting that 30x is practical. My experience is different.

[Ari]

Someone who is just an amatuer photographer and would like to just share some images does not need to go to this extent?

If those are your needs, then an Epson v700/v750 will be great for you.

[jim10219]

If those are your needs, then an Epson v700/v750 will be great for you.

Or if you have a digital camera, just get an old macro lens and find a way to backlight it with some diffused light and snap a photo of it. That's what I do for digitizing 35mm and sometimes other formats. I built an LED light box and covered it with some slightly opaque white plastic I found off a junked container. I power it with a power supply from a thrift store and lined it with aluminum foil. The whole thing cost me around $20. Then I just use a negative carrier from one of my enlargers to hold the film flat. I position my DSLR above on a tripod and make sure everything is level with a tiny bubble level. If I need to move something to get it level, I use a dab of clay underneath the light box.

You could do something similar, but since your glass plates are so much larger, you might consider something like mounting them in a picture frame and holding them up against a window on a bright day with a piece of tracing paper or translucent fabric covering the window. Or you could build a larger light box. The principle is the same.

Unless you're wanting to make enlarged prints or curve corrected negatives for alternative processes with these scans, I don't think it would be worth the money to buy a flatbed scanner for this. If your main concern is uploading them for viewing on a computer, then a DSLR scanning method may be a lot cheaper and give you just as good of results (because you won't be able to upload a 250MB picture to anything anyway).

[yeolde]

If your main concern is uploading them for viewing on a computer, then a DSLR scanning method may be a lot cheaper and give you just as good of results

That's the word of truth! DSLR copying is really a fast and painless method!

But if you want to spend a big time fighting with newton rings and waiting for scan to complete, do not spend a big money for a big disappointment, do not buy even Epson 12000xl because its optical density is 3.8D and this insufficient to scan a transpatency right. Buy a used Creo iQsmart with a density 4.2D (and this diffrence matters!) for the same $5000 and go fight with a chance to win!

[yeolde]

Also microtec artixscan f1-f2 looks interesting, with a density of 4.2 D

Sent from my MI MAX 2 using Tapatalk