Flatbed scanners for MF neg scanning?

[Arne Norris]

I need a scanner only for 120 BW and color negs, as I'm not scanning 4x5 anymore.

I can't afford a dedicated film scanner like a Coolscan 8000 or 9000. I currently have a Canoscan 9900F. Unfortunately good quality film holders aren't available for the 9900F, plus I would need to buy Silverfast or Vuescan software, as the Canon software isn't great. And I would like to find a scanner that gives me better quality than the 9900F.

I had heard about the Epson V700/V750, then just "discovered" that Epson makes the V500. As I don't need to scan 4x5 film, I'm thinking this might be a good choice, considering the low cost. The V500 can take Betterscanning film holders too.

Does anyone have any feedback about using the V500, and the scan quality they are getting, verses scans from a dedicated film scanner or a scanner like the 9900F? Also, any suggestions for software to use if I get a V500, ie Silverfast vs Vuescan?

Thanks!

[Jack Dahlgren]

I have a V500 which I bought for MF scanning and it works quite well for medium format. I am getting ready to sell it though as I bought a 4990 so I can scan 4x5 and larger. The V500 is slightly better and faster (no warm-up waiting) and it looks better too.

The Epson scan software that comes with it is adequate. Use it in professional mode and see what you think. Ken Lee has a tutorial on how to get the best out of it. I find no compelling reason to get any other scanning software. But I think you can get trial versions of those other tools to try out if you like.

[Arne Norris]

Thank you your comments Jack.

In thinking my questions through, maybe I should ask a more general question:

What is the best choice for a lower cost scanner to scan 120 negs? I ask this because I'm fast realizing that there are a lot of scanners out there. I just noticed that Epson has a V600 now.

My primary uses for a home scanner are for proofing my film, maybe trying to make "contact" prints of 120 6x6 strips (but only if this is easy to do given scanner hardware and the film holders available), and scanning select images for non-exhibition print output. I plan on sending select negs off for high quality scanning if I need exhibition quality files or files for publication.

[Jack Dahlgren]

If you are going to make "contact" prints or proof sheets, then look for a scanner that scans 8 1/2 by 11. Then just put your negatives in those plastic negative sleeves, toss them on the scanner and scan.

I bought an epson 4990 refurb from their site for about $290 or so and it will do whatever you are asking of it. The V500 and V600 only scan a strip about 2 1/2 inches wide so you would need multiple passes to scan a proof sheet.
The V700 does larger scans but it is more expensive. You generally get what you pay for....

[Tom Monego]

I have used a V700 since they came out, had a colleague who to save $ bought a V500. She traded it in on a V700, that much better. The problem I have is with medium format film the holder is terrible, the film sags, I get good scans with 35mm and 4x5 but have been unhappy with the MF scans. Better Scanning has more stable holders, if you buy this scanner I would go their and buy a glass or mf holder.
I find the professional section of the Epson software to be fine, I also find letting the scanner do anything automatic is not a good idea. I even outline my film when scanning.

Tom

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Anne,

Julia and I just bought an Epson 4490 to scan and archive our negatives and prints. We don't intend to make prints from our scans, so we looked for the least expensive scanner we could find that would scan 35mm and MF film, and prints up to 8x10. We reasoned that the number of negatives is inversely proportionate to their size, so proofing LF negs in the DR is not too much of a burden, and then we can scan the prints for our digital archive. I haven't even seen the scanner yet; I'm still at work in Alaska, but Julia has sent me her first scans from it. Julia has never scanned anything but a document before, and she managed to scan some MF negs with the 4490, without difficulty. The attached image was scanned at 300dpi without adjustments or editing of any kind, by a first time scanner-operator. I'm sure anyone with experience could get a better scan. At $149, I think it's a bargain.

[Lenny Eiger]

I need a scanner only for 120 BW and color negs, as I'm not scanning 4x5 anymore.

I can't afford a dedicated film scanner like a Coolscan 8000 or 9000. I currently have a Canoscan 9900F. Unfortunately good quality film holders aren't available for the 9900F, plus I would need to buy Silverfast or Vuescan software, as the Canon software isn't great. And I would like to find a scanner that gives me better quality than the 9900F.

A Nikon 9000 is $1800. A 750 is $800. The difference is huge. It's not even funny. Spend the money and get what you need.

Photography is expensive.

Lenny

[Brian Ellis]

I've made a few scans of 6x7 b&w film on my Epson 4990, which is essentially the same scanner as the 700/750 in terms of resolving capability. The reason I made only a few is that they were o.k. for prints of 8x10 or smaller - not great but acceptable to me. But any larger prints weren't acceptable.

Different people have different standards. I've read of people who think their 16x20 prints from 35mm film are fine whereas 8x10 prints from 35mm were a stretch for me. FWIW, if I scanned predominantly 6x7 (or of course anything smaller) and wanted exhibition quality prints I'd save up for a dedicated film scanner or send my best negatives to a professional scanner or go back to the fume room.

P.S. Sorry, I just read your second post. For your purposes almost any scanner will do if your "non-exhibition quality" prints are things you just want as a record and don't care much about.

[Keith S. Walklet]

I am both surprised and satisfied with the quality that is possible working with 4x5 with the V-750, especially when combined with wet mounting and careful processing of the file in PS.

But, for medium format, I'll bump Lenny's comment. The Nikon 8000 is SIGNIFICANTLY better than the V-750, though, my caveat is that you must also wet mount the film to get the most from the scanner.

The NIKONSCAN software is excellent (far beyond EPSONSCAN), though the scanner itself prefers being tethered to a computer with no other FIREWIRE devices.

The stock NIKON holders are worthless for holding medium format film flat. The (anti-Newton Glass) ANG holder is better, but the best solution I've found is the ScanScience wet mount system. Optical glass, film mounted under the glass, closest to the scanner's sensor, and economicial (half the cost of the competition). Julio cuts the optical glass to fit inside the stock tray like a piece of film. His LUMINA fluid is also excellent to work with, exhibiting none of the headache producing properties that I found when using KAMI.

The biggest downside of the NIKON scanner other than the film holders is that the 8000 is slow.

[Chris Strobel]

but the best solution I've found is the ScanScience wet mount system. Optical glass, film mounted under the glass, closest to the scanner's sensor, and economicial (half the cost of the competition). Julio cuts the optical glass to fit inside the stock tray like a piece of film. His LUMINA fluid is also excellent to work with, exhibiting none of the headache producing properties that I found when using KAMI.



I'll second that.Been using the Scanscience system with 8x10 and 4x5 coming up on three years now with great success.

[urs0polar]

A Nikon 9000 is $1800. A 750 is $800. The difference is huge. It's not even funny. Spend the money and get what you need.

Photography is expensive.

Lenny

I agree completely with Lenny -- though my 9000 was a little over $2k (I live in NYC so had to pay the in-state tax since almost everyone selling it in the USA is down the street, and I didn't want to wait 6 months, so I bought it from grrrr J&R).

I still use my v700 for scanning 4x5 with an ANG betterscanning holder via dry mount (i.e. Scotch magic tape), but the amount of time it takes to perfectly tape on one medium format neg at a time (6x7, 6x9, etc) and focus the stupid thing (by turning ten plastic screws the exact same amount, scan a small patch, screw some more , scan, screw, etc etc) was driving me so far up the wall that it was driving my fiance up the wall too, so she was like, "Why don't you stop fighting it and just buy the autofocus one (the 9000)?". (haha I need to cultivate this type of sentiment!!!) If someone came out with an autofocus flatbed for under $1000 (or even under $2000 and you could then do all the way to 8x10!), it would sell like crazy.

So, I don't wet scan or anything (yet), but even the stock negative holder in the 9000 is much better than dry mounting with the betterscanning holder on the V700. I get rid of film curl by putting the film sleeve under a thick book on the cable box for 15 minutes -- the heat from the box coaxes it flat (and I get to watch UFC reruns!), and then it goes straight into the Nikon holder, and it stays pretty flat. Haven't needed wet scan yet, but that's a good tip to look into the scanscience.

I still do 4x5 on the V700. However: I was helping a friend recently with high-res shots of his art for prints. He wants to print 50"-60" a side (which is about 1:1 of the original work). I took two cameras: my Tech V and my Mamiya 7. The Mamiya 7 shots were scanned on the Nikon 9000, and the 4x5 shots on the V700 (Delta 100 in both cameras).

Well, the 6x7 from the Mamiya were easily sharper than the 4x5 from the V700. Of course, there are enough other variables to basically make this non-scientific*, but still, that Nikon 9000 is worth it in my opinion -- it is EASY to get GREAT results... the flatbeds are a TON of work (seems like you are almost doing a drum scan's worth of work what with fluids and turning gears and cursing, though I've never done a drum scan hehe).

Thus, in frustration, end-of-the-day results, the 9000 is kind of a better buy in a way, even though it's 2x (or slightly more) as expensive.

I'm pretty anal about it.... if the v700 is even a little out of focus, it drives me crazy and gives me that wet-bread-in-the-stomach feeling. haha the 9000 is adding years to my life!

*The other non-scientific variables are:

4x5: 1960's 240mm convertible symmar at f16/f22, looooong exposures, AND my amateur (=terrible) ground glass technique -- I'm not sure I've done enough yet to be confident that I am focusing accurately. Also, I was using fidelity filmholders, and there's no way that film was as flat as the film in the Mamiya 7. Bracketed 4 shots (+/- 1 stop, maybe refocusing). V700, betterscanning ANG scanning station, dry mounted.

Mamiya 7: brand new 80mm lens at F4.0/f5.6 (which according to the charts on that website I forget are it's sharpest apertures), rangefinder focusing (the art has a lot of small ridges and so forth, so great contrast for lining up the rangefinder). I took 2 rolls as well, bracketing all over the place, so perhaps that's also an advantage. Nikon 9000, stock film holders.

So, to sum up, an amateur with a 4x5 versus one of the sharpest camera systems made ... but I still think the 9000 had quite a bit to do with it, and once you focus with the betterscanning holder, the 4x5 results look FANTASTIC, but they still aren't up to the 6x7 in the 9000 for a ginormous enlargement IMO.

Since this is the LF forum, I have to add that the LF scans looked better to ME (smoother and kind of more 3D-ish), but that wasn't the functional requirement unfortunately.

All that said, however, and in light of your original post, I would get a 4990 cheap and use it until it drives you up the wall (or maybe not), and then you yourself know why you need to spend more (or not). God knows, I never intended to spend this much on this stuff.... :)

On a related note, Does anyone know if there is any way to get 9000-like results on 4x5 for a 9000-like price?

Mark

[Lenny Eiger]

I still do 4x5 on the V700. However: I was helping a friend recently with high-res shots of his art for prints. He wants to print 50"-60" a side (which is about 1:1 of the original work). I took two cameras: my Tech V and my Mamiya 7. The Mamiya 7 shots were scanned on the Nikon 9000, and the 4x5 shots on the V700 (Delta 100 in both cameras).

Mark, next time you want to do a 60 inch print, drop me the neg and I'll throw it on the drum.



Well, the 6x7 from the Mamiya were easily sharper than the 4x5 from the V700.

It's clearly the scanner.



On a related note, Does anyone know if there is any way to get 9000-like results on 4x5 for a 9000-like price?
Mark

There have been plenty of Howtek 4500's selling in the $1500 range on EvilBay and the like. That's less than a new 9000. Of course, I say that with a caveat. If they break, it can be expensive, and if it doesn't come with everything, drum, mounting station, software, it can also be expensive.

Lenny

[rdenney]

I agree that a Nikon 9000 will be more than twice as good as a flatbed for only twice the money. But there is a middle ground if you search for it patiently: The Nikon 8000. The difference between it and the 9000 is tiny and the price is more like $1000-1200.

The resolution and optics are the same as with the 9000, and with Vuescan, the obsolete software isn't an issue. The 8000 takes the same carriers, too. The only sticking point is having a firewire port on the computer which is not a problem at all (at least not compared to the SCSI port required by my old Minolta Multi II scanner).

Rick "who would recommend spending the several hundred extra for a glass carrier for the Nikon" Denney

[urs0polar]

Mark, next time you want to do a 60 inch print, drop me the neg and I'll throw it on the drum.


Will do!


There have been plenty of Howtek 4500's selling in the $1500 range on EvilBay and the like. That's less than a new 9000. Of course, I say that with a caveat. If they break, it can be expensive, and if it doesn't come with everything, drum, mounting station, software, it can also be expensive.

That's interesting. Sounds like it may be a viable option.

Thanks!