What are you using to scan

[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