What are you using to scan

[Pfiltz]

4x5 negs with? Not many on FleaBay to be had, however; MF and LF are all over the place to buy....

[Light Guru]

There is tons of info already on the forums about what scanners people are using. Epson has the most widely used model for large format but hp also has one. A quick search will give you all the info you need.

[sully75]

best buy to me is Epson 4900 with the betterscanning calibratible film holder. good price/quality/speed match.

[Heroique]

Epson occasionally sells refurbished 4990s on their clearance site, and the price, for several years running, has been $279 (w/ all accessories, plus a one-year warranty & free shipping).

However, these scanners don’t appear very often anymore – maybe once or twice per year, and they always disappear within 2-3 days.

People know a good value when they see one!

[Pfiltz]

Thanks.... I'll try to keep my eye open for the epson. I may have to just break, and get a V700...

[Lenny Eiger]

You can scan 4x5's with anything. I use a top-of-the-line drum scanner. However, that isn't the question. The question is what level of quality you want, what kind of printing are you doing, what does your work look like, etc. Different scanners, including a digital camera shooting at the film on a light box, all yield different results. Choose the results you want and the criteria for which system to employ becomes clear.

Lenny

[Kirk Gittings]

ditto


You can scan 4x5's with anything. I use a top-of-the-line drum scanner. However, that isn't the question. The question is what level of quality you want, what kind of printing are you doing, what does your work look like, etc. Different scanners, including a digital camera shooting at the film on a light box, all yield different results. Choose the results you want and the criteria for which system to employ becomes clear.

Lenny

[Leonard Evens]

For 4 x 5 film, I use an Epson V700. I got a BetterScanning film holder to determine the optimum film height above the glass. But once I had determined it, I found I could get close enough for most routine scanning using the film holder provided by Epson with the scanner after making appropriate adjustments.

I don't use the highest sampling rate provided by the scanner. That gives me lots of pixels, but the optics of the scanner can't provide better than 2400 ppi, so that is what I scan at. I get results adequate for making prints as large as I want, assuming those prints are viewed at normala viewing distance for the size of the print. If one insists on getting close enough to a print, no amount of resolution willl suffice.

[Lenny Eiger]

If one insists on getting close enough to a print, no amount of resolution willl suffice.

Leonard,

I would disagree. This may be true for a scanner that tops out at 2400, but it isn't true for a drum scanner. I have 40 inch prints on the wall and people stick their noses into it.

In the old days many people said you couldn't drum scan color negs. That was because they didn't know how to adjust the aperture on their Tango's. It was hardware (and knowledge) based, not reality for all scanners.

It's important when making a general statement, that it really is a general statement, and that you aren't limited by the equipment.

Lenny

[Kirk Gittings]

There is no such thing as a "normal print viewing distance". I don't know who thought that up but it was probably a 35mm shooter. One of the reasons people appreciate LF is the extraordinary detail. Every time I go to a show of LF prints people stick their nose right up to the print=myself included.

[Pfiltz]

You can scan 4x5's with anything.

Lenny

Thanks, but I have an epson V600 which I've put up on the auction site to sell since it won't scan 4x5 negs unless I cut them down, and do two scans and stitch 'em together... which I'm not even going to attempt. I don't do any printing in house. All my daily work is done via a lab. I don't see me printing in the future either.

I've thought about the lightbox solution as well, and have actually looked at some.

What type of quality am I looking for in the way of prints? At the very least, the same I get now with my digital camera, and my current lab.

[Brian Ellis]

I've been using an Epson 4990 since it was introduced some 8-9 years ago. It does an excellent job with my 4x5 negatives - good enough to exhibit - with prints up to about 4x (16x20) from 4x5 negatives. I wasn't very happy with it when I tried it with my 6x7 negatives and prints larger than about 8x10 but some people seem to be. I haven't used 35mm film in decades so I have no experience scanning it. But based on what I saw from 6x7 I don't think the 4990 would be suitable with 35mm except maybe for tiny snapshots or the web. This is of course all based on my standards, which may or may not be the same as yours or anyone else's.

If I was buying today I'd certainly consider a drum scanner but would probably end up with an Epson 700/750 scanner. I don't print, exhibit, or sell enough to make the cost of a new drum scanner or the hassle of a used one worthwhile. I wouldn't buy an Epson 4990 unless I was on a really really tight budget. Not because it does an inferior job but because like most things related to film, prosumer scanners for serious photography are a dying breed IMHO. I don't think there's going to be many if any new ones coming out in the future. So I'd want something that would last as long as possible and for which parts would be available for as long as possible.

[Leonard Evens]

People certainly stick their noses right up against prints. I sometimes do it myself.

Before my cataracts came out, my extreme myopia allowed me to get within an inch of a print, without glasses, and any reasonably large print showed some fuzziness, if for no other reason, because the limited resolution of the taking lens. Also, that close, my maximum circle of confusion was so small that there was effectively no depth of field so only the exact plane of focus had a chance to be sharp. Now that my cataracts are out, I need to use reading glasses, so I can't get closer than about 12-14 inches. Except for very young people or extreme myopes without glasses, that is about the closest anyone can get without a magnifier.

No matter how sharp your print is, someone will find something wrong with it by looking closely enough. But does it make sense to let such people determine what you do? If that is your audience, then by all means spend enormous amounts to obtain the highest resolution possible. You probably shouldn't be scanning at all, and if you do scan, you shouldn't be using a moderately priced scanner like the Epson V700. In addition you should give up on expecting any significant depth of field.

I am not rich enough and I don't expect to live long enough to have the kind of equipment which will satisfy nose sniffers, and, even if I had such equipment, I would not succeed at so doing. So I try to do the best I can with what I can afford. If I didn't I would have to give up on large prints entirely. I would get an 8 x 10 camera and make contact prints. But still some people using magnifiers would find my prints were not sharp enough.

[Pfiltz]

I have a bid on FleaBay for an Epson V700 right now. I have to get something. I'm tired of cutting my 4x5's down to MF widths so I can scan them on my V600 ;(

[scm]

I have a bid on FleaBay for an Epson V700 right now. I have to get something. I'm tired of cutting my 4x5's down to MF widths so I can scan them on my V600 ;(

I scanned a lot 0f 4x5s on an V600 without ever cutting one up; I might still be doing it if I didn't have 5x7s and 8x10s I need to scan.

I made a jig out of thin plastic sheeting with a 4x5 hole cut from it that positioned the film in middle of the scanner bed along the scanning path, I also cut a 3" x 1/2" notch for the calibration area. I would scan one side and flip the film 180 degrees and scan a second time. I have no way of knowing for sure but it may have helped in the stitching process to already have the film somewhat in register, there is also a good amount of overlap of the two scans, a bit more than a quarter of an inch from each side.

I tried a couple of different stitching programs but found that the Photomerge function in PhotoShop CS5 worked the best for me.


http://home.comcast.net/~smidgley/IMG_1706b.jpg

[gilestown]

I have used perviously a v700 for most of my work at uni and lets be honest, it does a reasonably good job. It really does come down to the purpose/output of the files. I've gotten away scanning them through a v700 and printing decent 90cm wide prints for exhibitions.

But I have been dreaming of a iqsmart3 these past few months. *fingers crossed my lotto ticked won something*

[Matus Kalisky]

I found that sending my 4x5" films to a lab and get very nice 2040 api scans made with Imacon X5 for about 7€ for 16bit file is a much better alternative to hours of time invested into getting mediocre scans with my Microtek F1 (which I sold once the thing got an issue - man I am glad it is gone). The Imacon scan delivers about 70 very decent Megapixels with shadow detail better than one would hope. Surely a professional drum scann would be better - no doubt - but would cost 10 to 20 times as much (here in Germany) and I have yet to print for a gallery exhibition ;)

[Pfiltz]

Well, I have a almost brand new V700 coming this week, so I'll see what shakes out.

[buggz]

Let us know your opinions.
I am in a search for modest equipment also.
Thanks!


Well, I have a almost brand new V700 coming this week, so I'll see what shakes out.

[alexn]

I recently went to an exhibition of 4x5 and 6x7 prints. The 4x5 prints were professionally drum scanned and printed 40x50 on fujiflex. Standing one foot from the prints you could see masses of clear sharp detail. The 6x7 prints were v700 scanned and printed on metallic paper at 20x24 abduction at one foot from the print it was evident that the scanner did not pull everything from the film. At 6 feet the only real differences in the detail was in the shadows. I scan on a microtek i900. I wet mount slides to the glass tray and have printed at 24" onto fujiflex. The prints at 24" were nice, but for anything bigger i would pay for either flextight scans or drum scans. My 24" prints were from 6x12, i assume i could do 36" prints from 6x17

[Pfiltz]

Let us know your opinions.
I am in a search for modest equipment also.
Thanks!

Will do. I hear a lot of good things about using "better film holders" with the V700, helps maximize the output. I'll probably get those to as well.

I've only started messing around with film around 4 months ago, so all of this is still new to me. Developing it, scanning, etc...

I have a ton of 16x20's hanging in the studio, and around (10) 20x24's. If I ever capture anything just astonishing, and would require a larger print than 20x24, I figure I'll pay to have it drum scanned. This is just a hobby with me, with regard to film.

[chuck94022]

If you are going to scan any 120 or 35mm on a flatbed scanner, you might check out the Digitaliza holders at Lomography.com. You will have to shim them to get them to the perfect focus on an Epson, but that is easily done with postit note shims.

I use the betterscanning holder for getting precise focus on critical scans (well as critical as one can expect on an Epson...), but for quick scans I've never seen a more ingenious holder mechanism to mount and hold the film flat on the order of seconds. The Digitaliza holders really are cool holders.

[Brian Ellis]

There is no such thing as a "normal print viewing distance". I don't know who thought that up but it was probably a 35mm shooter. One of the reasons people appreciate LF is the extraordinary detail. Every time I go to a show of LF prints people stick their nose right up to the print=myself included.

My understanding (based on an article by Rudolf Kingslake) is that to calculate the exact depth of field numerically you have to know the observer's distance from the photograph (plus the image magnification and the scale of reproduction in the camera). Knowing these, the diameter of the circle of confusion on the film can be calculated and when that's done the depth of field can be determined.

All of which seems to me to be of much greater interest to optical scientists than photographers. But I think that's the reason (or at least one reason) for coming up with some number for a "normal viewing distance." I don't think anyone is under the illusion that all prints of a certain size are viewed by everyone from the same distance.

[rdenney]

Yes, one has to set the circle of confusion standard somewhere. But I agree with Kirk that there is no "normal viewing distance". Everyone gets as close as they can, until the print disappoints them by no longer sustaining the sense of endless detail.

But I draw the line at serving people with magnifiers or extreme myopia. 10 inches is about my limit with the bottoms of my trifocals. That's what I use.

I suspect Kirk thought someone was assuming viewing distance could be longer than a normal person's ability to focus.

Rick "normal, at least with trifocals" Denney

[sanking]

Yes, one has to set the circle of confusion standard somewhere. But I agree with Kirk that there is no "normal viewing distance". Everyone gets as close as they can, until the print disappoints them by no longer sustaining the sense of endless detail.

But I draw the line at serving people with magnifiers or extreme myopia. 10 inches is about my limit with the bottoms of my trifocals. That's what I use.

I suspect Kirk thought someone was assuming viewing distance could be longer than a normal person's ability to focus.

Rick "normal, at least with trifocals" Denney

And 10 inches is the distance at which vision is best for most people. You can view the print at closer distance but in most cases a person's ability to focus is impaired by viewing a print at closer than 10 inches. Near-sighted people can focus much closer. Before I had cataract surgery I was able to see very sharply at 2-4 inches.

Viewing distance is not the only limitation to sharpness. Studies show that the human eye is capable of resolving from 5-25 lines per millimeter at the optimum viewing distance, but with considerable tapering off, especially from 10-20 lines per millimeter.

So is your output device (printer or enlarger) limiting the sharpness of your prints? Apparently not, if effective resolution is over about 635 dpi, or 25 lines per millimeter. My tests with targets clearly show that the Epson 3800, driven by QTR and using the Cone K7 Piezography inks, gives real resolution on paper of over 720 dpi.

What about the scanner? Assuming that 635 dpi of effective resolution is needed, if you scan a 4X5 negative you need 635 dpi for a 1X print (4X5) , 1270 dpi for 2X (8X10), 2540 dpi for 4X (16X32). You really can not quite get enough for 4X (16X20) with an Epson V700/V750, but it is close.

Sandy

[Pfiltz]

1 more question for the group if I may.

I know I can scan my 4x5's on my V700, but those that shoot 8x10, how do you get them to digital for printing, short of not having a darkroom to print my own yet. Drum scan's I would imagine.

[scm]

The V700/V750 will scan 8x10.

[Pfiltz]

The V700/V750 will scan 8x10.

Thanks SCM... didn't know.

[eberry_tapes]

I use a refurb Epson v500 that was maybe $100 or so when I bought it. You have to scan in two passes and stitch it together for 4x5, which is a little tedious, but at the volume I work at it's not really a problem. I use a little paper card to keep the negative straight and to know where to position it on the glass for each half when I'm scanning. I use Microsoft ICE (a free photo-stitching program) to put 'em together, and then follow my usual post-process work flow from there.

I have no doubt that v700 would make life much easier, but for pretty cheap this gets you going.

[kameraobskura]

Im using an Imacon Flextight 848 for most of my negs and a v750 pro for tintypes

[Pfiltz]

I got my V700 in. I really like it. I haven't scanned a neg to get anything printed so far, over an 11x14 yet, but so far so good. Only using Epson Scan Software at the moment as well.

[Brian K]

I use an IQSmart3. The software is not user friendly and it has taken me sometime to really get comfortable with it, but on a negative with a normal tonal scale I find it almost indistinguishable from drum scans I've had done in the past. Where the drums have an advantage is on denser negatives.

[Professional]

I have Epson V750pro, i scanned 4 sheets i did shoot so far, the quality is amazing over MF scans, and i can't wait to shoot with LF again and scan, i am just acceptd its limits and will not try to make it as a film or even drum scanners level, and because i don't have budget for higher quality scanners so i will keep using V750 until i can afford a drum scanner somewhere.