Scanner questions

[Sam]

I still print everything from 35mm to 4x5 in my traditional darkroom, however we have just bought a new computer. My current 8 year scanner is not USB compatible so I must buy a new scanner. My scanning needs thus far have been for web usage mostly. My question is if I was to buy say an Epson 4990 to scan my 4x5 negs, what realistically could I expect? There are a few lower priced scanners that will scan 4x5 negs at a lower cost listed on b&H but if I could spend a little more and actually get something worth printing from a neg scan I may be willing to spend more.

What have your experiences been? How about output? papers?

[Ralph Barker]

Aside from price and format capabilities, after having bought a few scanners, I'm of the opinion that there are three things that one needs to consider: optical resolution (not interpolated), D-Max (which the vendors tend to inflate a bit), and maximum scan size. If the scanner is supported by either SilverFast or ViewScan, everything else pretty much falls into place - at least once you've gone through the learning curve of digital work flow (the importance of total system calibration can't be over-emphasized) .

I use the older Epson 3200 (the 4990's grandfather) to scan prints and 4x5 negs, and I've been pleased with the results. Is it the perfect scanner? No. I'd like to have better focus control, or at least a focus pass in the software. But, with the right handling, and scanning with the emulsion side down (like in the enlarger), I get good results (or at least acceptable for my purposes). For smaller formats (35mm and 120), I use a different, film-only scanner - (again) an older Polaroid SprintScan 120. For 8x10 negs, I use an even older Epson Expression 800 Pro, an 800 DPI scanner. Again, good enough for Web work or smallish prints (Super B and smaller). If I wanted larger digital prints, I'd spring for a professional drum scan of the neg in question.

[Frank Petronio]

Ditto what Ralph says, I have a similar set-up with an Epson 3200 for 4x5 and a Konica Minolta for 35mm scans. I can get a good scan for 11 x 17 plus inkjet printing but it is labor intensive. For web use only, an Epson is more than fine.

[Bruce Watson]

IMHO, it should be acceptable for enlargements up to the range of 4-6x, depending on the image and the film. Clearly, really dense slide film is going to give it a problem. Give VueScan a good look if you go with an Epson scanner.

[John Flavell]

I've been using a friend's Epson 4990 to scan black and white 4x5 and I've been very pleased. I've taken those images and made 11x14 prints and even sold a few. They work great for the website. I don't think the 4990 is as labor intensive as the 3200 and the Silverfast is very easy to learn. I'll probably buy the 4990 in the next couple of months to take driving somewhere else out of the work flow.

[Frank Petronio]

The nicest improvement the 4990 has is better film holders, which are important for holding the film flat and avoiding Newton's Rings. Hard to say they are worth the price, but it may sway you...

[Ted Harris]

The guts of the Epson 3200, 4870 and 4990 are basically the same with the improvements small and incremental. All the advice you have gotten so far is on the money. In the ~ 500 range, in addition to the Epson's you may also want to look at the Microtek i900 (glassless for film) and the Canon 9950. One point that cannot be stressed enough is that all the manufacturers inflate their specifications for these 'consumer class' scanners. See the May-June issue of "View Camera" for some detailed real world tests of the resolution and DMax of these scanners.

The 4990 or its cousins listed above will give you adequate performance for modestly enlarged prints (8x10 or 11x14) from 4x5 with excellent sharpness and detail. With any of the less expensive models it is a crapshoot. OTOH, if you can afford to go up to a bit less than a 1000 the Microtek 1800f is in an entirely different class for the quality of its output. If you don't mind shopping used you may also want to look at the Microtek 2500 and Agfa Duoscan 2500 (rebranded Microtek) which will still outperform the 4990 and can be had in the 200 range. One caution, they require a SCSI connection and may not work with current operating systems.

[Ed Richards]

I have had pretty good luck with the Canon 9950, using the latest (and much improved) version of Vuescan. I mostly do black and white and do not like that you cannot keep Siverfast from messing with the negatives. I will put a full size file from the scanner on a www site if you think it would help to look at.

[Paul Butzi]

I wish we could pick up the 1800f cheaply in the uk. The list price here is about 1400 uk pounds which is about 2,474 US dollars.

Well, folks over here in the US buy from Robt. White, and have stuff shipped across the ocean.

Any reason you can't do the same, buying from Adorama or B&H and have it shipped?

[tim atherton]

Voltage?

Unless it's a dual voltage machine, you'll blow it up putting 220 volts through it.... :-)

tim