Scanning 8x10s

[vinny]

v750 will be fine for your needs. I own two drum scanners and a v750 and have made plenty of 16x20's from both machines and 8x10 film. While the v750 doesn't scan chromes as well as the drum scanner, it does a decent job. With b+w film, the quality from the v750 and 8x10 film is pretty damn good for 16x20's. And no, I don't wet mount my epson scans.

[Jim Andrada]

I just upgraded from a 750 to an IQsmart 2. It's a big piece of gear, and I love it. Results are way better than anything I could get from the 750. I looked into drum scanning but decided that the tradeoff between ease of use and quality didn't justify getting a drum scanner. I feel like I got a reasonable compromise with the IQsmart2. And it was nowhere near as expensive as $8k. I bought it from Genesis and it came with all the software and a parts warranty and outstanding support that was really helpful in getting me started with the software.

I always wet mounted with the 750 and for what it is, it's hard to complain about it. I shoot mostly 4 x 5 and 5 x 7 so I can use the wet mount kit. Everybody makes a big deal about how hard it is to wet mount but I average somewhere around 23 seconds to get a good wet mount, so it's not as bad as a lot of people say.

[Michael Gaillard]

What are you scanning: slides, color negatives, bw film? For slides, especially for Velvia, use a drum scanner. For the other media, flat beds (or dslr scanners) are viable.

I'm scanning Portra 160.

[dodphotography]

I had a frame custom made at a local metal shop, it was water cut. It sits 1mm above the platen, works for me.

I prefer a wet print though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[koraks]

I scan my 8x10s on an Epson 4990 flatbed and digital print to ca. 16x20" from time to time. The quality is good enough for my purposes. When I print at this size, the purpose is not to look at it with my nose pressed to the print. If you need tack sharp rendition that stands up to being viewed at very close distance or even with a loupe, then you may prefer drum scans or optical enlargement. I couldn't justify the cost personally though, but photography is a hobby to me.

In short: this is one of those questions for which the answer is really personal.

[dodphotography]

I scan my 8x10s on an Epson 4990 flatbed and digital print to ca. 16x20" from time to time. The quality is good enough for my purposes. When I print at this size, the purpose is not to look at it with my nose pressed to the print. If you need tack sharp rendition that stands up to being viewed at very close distance or even with a loupe, then you may prefer drum scans or optical enlargement. I couldn't justify the cost personally though, but photography is a hobby to me.

In short: this is one of those questions for which the answer is really personal.

Agree on the personal aspect... at the end of the day we need to love what we do.

Also, when you think about things in absolute terms of right and wrong you realize how many of our heros and champions were helped along the way, had access to knowledge and people we will never have, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DrTang]

ahhhh - the tequila conumdrum

cheap tequila is fine...until you get a glass of the expensive stuff

now only the good stuff will do

[dodphotography]

But a drum scan is only as good as the scanner themselves... seen plenty of crap drum scans. It's an art, people sometimes overlook that aspect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Corran]

You mention you need this immediately, but can you find a local V700 or better to just test it out? I know local libraries and schools often have scanners you can use, and then you'll know if the quality is where you need it to be.

If you aren't used to scanning or digital processing, getting the color correct (or to taste) from your negative film may be more difficult than you expect.

BTW, where are you located?

[j.e.simmons]

The wet scan adapter I received with my V750 is not large enough for 8x10. I had to improvise with a couple of pieces of picture frame glass.