What Scanner Are You Using Now?

[Dave Pritchard]

What do you scan with?
What do you think of it?
If you have more than one, which one is best (yeah, there will be qualifiers).

I have two scanners, neither of which is working correctly. I can't find the power supply for one. The other acts flakey and locks up my PC at times.

I'm interested in your experiences, because I need a scanner.

Dave Pritchard

[pellicle]

Epson 4990 for 4x5 and some of the 35mm and Nikon LS-4000 for 35mm which I want the most from

I've got heaps of experiences on my blog ... just check out key words on the left hand side

[David Luttmann]

Epson V700 with the fluid mount for my 4x5. Minolta Scan Dual IV for 35mm. The V700 is surprisingly good...at least my copy is. The Minolta is showing its age, but I get decent results for the 35mm film I feed it.

[ctscanner]

I use a Nikon Coolscan V ED which I purchased the past year. So far I have been pretty pleased with the results. I use it with either Lasersoft Silverfast SE Plus, and to a lesser extent, Vuescan. I decommissioned my Epson 2450 Flatbed a couple of years and so far have have not had the need to re-install it again, and if I did feel the need, would probably be looking at one the newer Epsons.

[sanking]

I have more scanners than space.

The scanner that I use for LF and ULF negatives is a Scitex Creo Eversmart Pro. Big, very heavy (165 lbs), but about the best flatbed scanner ever made. Cost about $30,000 ten years ago and can scan up to 12X17" at 3175 ppi anywhere on the bed, or all over the bed. Stated optical resolution is very close to actual since I test it at over 60 lp/mm.

For MF I use an even older scanner, a Leafscan 45, made in 1997. I scan MF negatives with the Leaf in two passes at 5080 spi, and then stitch the files together. Sharpness is better than most drum scanners as real resolution when scanning at 5080 spi is over 4500 spi. The Leaf 45 is also fairly large and heavy (about 80 lbs).

I also have an Epson V700 which is used primarily for proofing. However, the model I have is quite good, delivering a maximum of about 2300 spi in real resolution. For LF film it would give great results up to about 3X, which would give a 16X20" print from a 4X5 negative, or a 20X28" print from 5X7. You could print larger with good processing. You will get best results using the super high resolution lens, and you must test and use a film holder that will place the negative to be scanned at the plane of best focus. I recommend the Betterscanning holder for the V700, which allows for even better scans with fluid mounting. The V700 would also be good enough for MF negatives for print size up to about 4X.

Sandy King

[excalibur2]

Well I have a soft spot for two old scanners..one was an Epson for prints only and only worked on a parallel port and win98 (now thrown away), the other was/is the Epson 2480 s/h for £8 which I still use now and again because it's on my second computer.

In my tests, if what is on the neg is all roughly kodak grey you can't see much difference on a computer screen between the 2480 compared with my V750 at 2400

[pellicle]

Sandy

I'm curious ...

I also have an Epson V700 ...
For LF film it would give great results up to about 3X, which would give a ...
The V700 would also be good enough for MF negatives for print size up to about 4X.

why the difference? Why not x4 for the 4x5?

[IanMazursky]

I have a few drum scanners, a Howtek 7500 and an Aztek Premier.
I use the 7500 for film and prints up to 16x20" and the Premier for film up to 8x10".
I used to have a few flatbeds but one burst into flames and the others kept dying.

They are both fantastic scanners and i wouldn't trade them for anything.

[tom_micklin]

Wow, Sandy, that is some serious hardware!
I have the Epson V700 which I use strictly for MF and 4x5. Some 5x7 when I'm motivated enough to shoot in that format.
35mm I take to the Lab.
Regards,
Tom

I have more scanners than space.

The scanner that I use for LF and ULF negatives is a Scitex Creo Eversmart Pro. Big, very heavy (165 lbs), but about the best flatbed scanner ever made. Cost about $30,000 ten years ago and can scan up to 12X17" at 3175 ppi anywhere on the bed, or all over the bed. Stated optical resolution is very close to actual since I test it at over 60 lp/mm.

For MF I use an even older scanner, a Leafscan 45, made in 1997. I scan MF negatives with the Leaf in two passes at 5080 spi, and then stitch the files together. Sharpness is better than most drum scanners as real resolution when scanning at 5080 spi is over 4500 spi. The Leaf 45 is also fairly large and heavy (about 80 lbs).

[Carl]

Dave,

After many years of wasting time and money trying to get flat bed and so called film scanners to work, I bought a Heidelberg D8400 drum scanner. This made a world of difference in my work starting with the very first scan. CCD based scanners do not have the true bit depth, optical resolution or dynamic range not to mention signal to noise ratio as a top of the line drum scanner. Film has so much information content that cant be gathered with consumer grade hardware or software. The difference can be quite striking depending on the original film. I thought originally I was going to save money by going the conventional route but there is no substitute for professional quality scanning. The cost of drums scans in the long run is a bargain compared spending all that money and time thrown away for camera equipment film, el cheapo scanners etc as apposed to getting the most out of your film right the first time. You tend to be more selective on what you think is "worthy" of a drum scan instead of forcing an image on a flat bed. If you would like to see a web site that is 100% analog capture and 100% drum scanned then go to:

www.mondragonfineart.com