web scanner

[Wayne]

I need a film/transparency/print scanner for web quality only. I will not be printing from scanned images. Do I need to buy a dedicated photo/film scanner or are there multi-purpose scanners that will suffice, and if so, what? I will be scanning mostly color 4x5 trannies and B&W negs and prints from 4x5 to 8x10. I have some old 35 mm B&W negs of my father's that would be nice to scan but that ability is not essential. Scanner technology has passed me by-I havent had one in 3-4 years. What are the cheapest decent units that will give me what I need?

Wayne

[vinny]

Try a search under "Search". this comes up several times a month.

[Wayne]

Actually i scanned all thread titles going back at least one month and did a search too before I posted, and didnt find the answer.

[steve barry]

hey Wayne...I'm in the same boat. I will scan all my LF negs to organize and view on the screen, but print in my darkroom. I have a cheapy ($150 new) epson flatbed that does plenty decent on MF (http://www.yrrabevets.com/noblex/noblexthumbs.html) but its pretty crappy on the 35mm. click on the photo for larger version - and thats scaled way down for the web - and scanned at low resolution - but plenty big/good for the web IMO. For anything 4x5 and bigger, the cheapest option I could find was either a used Epson 4990 or the new version - the Epson 750. You can find the 750 for around 500 new online. I am curious too if there is a cheaper option.

[Wayne]

hey Wayne...I'm in the same boat. I will scan all my LF negs to organize and view on the screen, but print in my darkroom. I have a cheapy ($150 new) epson flatbed that does plenty decent on MF (http://www.yrrabevets.com/noblex/noblexthumbs.html) but its pretty crappy on the 35mm. click on the photo for larger version - and thats scaled way down for the web - and scanned at low resolution - but plenty big/good for the web IMO. For anything 4x5 and bigger, the cheapest option I could find was either a used Epson 4990 or the new version - the Epson 750. You can find the 750 for around 500 new online. I am curious too if there is a cheaper option.

Wouldnt the 4x5 work even better than the medium format on your existing scanner, or am I clueless (very likely)? Those medium format scans look more than adequate to me. Can yours do color trannies? Like I said, I dont need to do 35mm especially if it costs me a lot more. $150 is right up my alley, though I can go higher if I have to. Just from the few blurbs I read on the Epson 750 when researching this thread, it seemed like it might be more machine than I need.

Wayne

[steve barry]

hey Wayne....i can not find/figure a reasonable way to scan 4x5 and bigger on my scanner. the problem is because the light source pushing from above (in the lid) down through the neg is a only the width of a strip of medium format roll film. ive tried scanning half of a 4x5 neg at a time and trying to stitch them tog in photoshop. even if i could do this, it would be time consuming. but i cant, because there is no holder to keep the film in the same position, or to flip the neg and keep it in the same position for the other side. maybe someone makes a neg carrier to do just that, but i have not seen one. or perhaps this is worth investigating....or perhaps im missing something obvioius...

[Ted Harris]

Most scanners are made as tools to scan reflective materials first and transparency material (film) second. Many of the low pried scanners have transparency adaptors that will handle 35mm film but few have an adaptor that will handle anything larger. Yu don't get the full 8x10 capability until you step into the $300 range which is about the price of the Microtek i800. Epson does or did have some units for less that would handle up to 4x5.

[Oren Grad]

Many of the low pried scanners have transparency adaptors that will handle 35mm film but few have an adaptor that will handle anything larger. Yu don't get the full 8x10 capability until you step into the $300 range which is about the price of the Microtek i800.

I used to have an inexpensive HP flatbed that could handle transparencies up to 8x10. The current model G4050, $170 at B&H, is described by HP as having a "full bed TMA", which probably means it can do the same, though the HP specifications explicitly mention only up to 4x5.

[Ted Harris]

I believe the HP 4050 handles only up to 4x5. This is from memory when I was talking with HP about doing a review of the scanner.

[Oren Grad]

I believe the HP 4050 handles only up to 4x5. This is from memory when I was talking with HP about doing a review of the scanner.

It could be, or it could also be HP representatives mindlessly reading an incomplete spec sheet - something that's been known to happen. My old 4xxx series scanner had identical specs to the G4050 but most definitely had a TMA large enough to cover an 8x10 placed directly on the glass, even though the plastic template provided for 4x5 had room for only one sheet and was specified accordingly. The G4050 specs do say it can handle 16 35mm slides or 30 35mm negatives, both of which also imply a large coverage for the TMA. The one hangup might be if the scanner refuses to scan transparent material without "seeing" one of the approved templates provided with the scanner, which hold only up to 4x5. Even if such a restriction is present, it might be possible to work around it with different scanner software.

Anyway, if the OP really needs 8x10 and really has a very tight budget, it's probably worth a few phone calls or a visit to a dealer to sort out. If that fails, or if there's a bit more slack in the budget, for sure the Microtek i800, which I still have, has room to spare for 8x10 transparent materials.

[Wayne]

I can afford the i800 if I have to, but if there is something less expensive that will do the trick I'd rather spend the difference on Ilfochrome expenses. :eek: . Seems a lot of people hate the i800 for one reason or another, but it does sound like it will do the trick for me if I dont mind its quirks and sluggishness.

Wayne

[Wayne]

I used to have an inexpensive HP flatbed that could handle transparencies up to 8x10.

Was it the 4010 by any chance, or do you recall the model?

Wayne

[Oren Grad]

Was it the 4010 by any chance, or do you recall the model?

If I recall correctly, mine was the Scanjet 4890. The G4010, if that's what you're thinking, is a current model that won't cover an 8x10 transparency.

[Wayne]

Still looking. Yikes. After reading some reviews of the HP Scanjets I think I'll pass. They sound pretty awful, quality-wise. Is there any way to speed up the Microtek, different software maybe? 1.5- 2 minutes per scan seems quite excessive...but I dont really want to sink $500 into this either.

Wayne

[Wayne]

hey Wayne...I'm in the same boat. I will scan all my LF negs to organize and view on the screen, but print in my darkroom. I have a cheapy ($150 new) epson flatbed that does plenty decent on MF (http://www.yrrabevets.com/noblex/noblexthumbs.html) but its pretty crappy on the 35mm. click on the photo for larger version - and thats scaled way down for the web - and scanned at low resolution - but plenty big/good for the web IMO. For anything 4x5 and bigger, the cheapest option I could find was either a used Epson 4990 or the new version - the Epson 750. You can find the 750 for around 500 new online. I am curious too if there is a cheaper option.


I've pretty much decided on the 4990. It doesnt have all the issues of the Microtek, although I might still snag one of those if I can find one very cheap. But the 4990 seems superior in just about all respects. I think if I'm diligent I should be able to find one for not much over the $300 that the i800 costs.


Wayne

[dfn]

The G4050 does scan 8x10 without problems. You can scan contact sheets and whatever you want without the templates, but, there need to be some free space on the top of the scanning glass (I think it is for calibrating).
I find the G4050 to be an underrated scanner. The software is not great, but it works and the scanner is cheap compared to the scanning quality. The greatest problem is the scanning time (or rather the processing time in the software). A workaround could be to let it work when you are at work or during the night (batch scan works very well and automatic).