Scanning B&W 4x5 negs - options?

[Colin Corneau]

Hey all
I did a few test shots with TMax100, in 4x5. They turned out OK - for the time being I'll be sticking with D-76 1:1.

I have an opportunity to take part in a group project, and have a perfect frame for the collection. They are requesting digital files be sent in - does a flatbed offer a quality scan? Or am I better off making the best print possible, and scanning that? I've heard others talk about drum scans, is that a better option than the previous?

many thanks again (this will also help me get my recent China work online too!)

Colin

[Ron Marshall]

A consumer grade scanner, Epson 4990 or 700, will generate a scan good enough for about a three to four times linear enlargement. A neg scan will be better than a scan of a print.

Larger than three times or so you need a high-end flatbed, Creo etc., or a drum scan.

[Daniel_Buck]

Ron's suggestion of "3 to 4 times enlargement" seems to confirm my own findings with an epson 4990 and 4x5 film.

How large of a file are they requesting?

[jetcode]

does a flatbed offer a quality scan?

I've been scanning 4x5 with a Cezanne Elite and it's impressive.

[Ted Harris]

Difficult to make a judgement on what is "good enough" for your project with the scant info furnished. For record purposes and for smaller prints, as mentioned above, the consumer scanners will do ok. As you approach the upper limits of their capabilities you will begin to see resolution and, more importantly, shadow detail issues.

Depending on your image and your eventual use you may want to have a professional scan made using a high-end flatbed such as the Cezanne mentioned above or using a drum scanner; there is little if any apparent difference between the scans made with a drum scanner and a high-end flatbed but the high-end flatbeds are a very different machine than the consumer offerings.

A bit of blatant self promotion, if you are interested in having some scans done then send me an email or PM, I do some scanning for others as time allows.

[Ralph Barker]

Just to point out the obvious, if the purpose of the scan is to depict the artistry of the print (i.e. including any manipulation during or after enlargement), then scanning the finished print is more appropriate.

[Colin Corneau]

My apologies, I knew I forgot something.

The size requested is 16x20, @300dpi...it seems a high-end flatbed or drum scan is what I'm looking for, then.

FWIW, the project is by a group based in Toronto called PhotoSensitive. The URL is www.photosensitive.com, it's a wonderful collective that has done some great things.

[Ken Lee]

A 4X enlargement at 300 dpi translates to a scan at 1200 ppi. The scanners you mentioned, even if they deliver only 50% of their stated resolution, will give you that.

So unless you crop a lot, you should be able to make a 16x20 print that will appear critically sharp.