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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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).

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

www.mondragonfineart.com

a very impressive front page ... was that slide or negative?

I'm living and photographing in Finland and I have found clearly that many films which I have worked with perform quite differently depending on image location. While in Japan I could get great results with Provia

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/4620868-md.jpg

I can get nothing like this in Australia, where I turned to Negatives (such as Pro160s) on my 4x5 work. I suspect that the contrast range of light is just beyond what the slide can give.

I took some 4x5 chromes in Canada some time ago and found chromes worked well there too ...

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

Can't speak for Sandy but maybe it's something related to LF optics? LF lenses (combined with play in focusing screen / film holders / film sagging and what not! You got the idea...) won't give you 80-100 lp/mm resolution @ film and you need something like 8-10 lp/mm for a totally sharp print at reading distance. (25-30cm) 8 lp/mm @ print x 3 (reproduction ratio) = 24 lp/mm @ negative = ~ 20 micron circle of confusion / airy disk size. To my knowing that's a pretty serious figure for LF... On the other hand MF optics have better resolution compared to LF (comparing good with good), and 35mm optics have better resolution compared to MF. (Again, comparing good with good...)

Sandy, am I close or talking nonsense? (AFAIK, he'll be off-net for a week or so BTW...)

Regards,
Loris.

P.S. I did the simple math and found out that you'll be diffraction limited at F29.8 (practically F22 + 1/2 stop) with a CoC requirement of 20 micron... So, 20 micron is a really serious figure for LF indeed - impractical if you like. Since you often use much smaller apertures with LF there's no point in scanning at higher dpi values; simply because you'll not be able to get more detail... If you need bigger files it would be better to interpolate yourself, because you'll have more control over the process. (???) 1200dpi is more than enough to get all detail present in a LF negative exposed at F64 aperture, just like 1800dpi is enough for another exposed at F45...

Loris




P.S. I did the simple math and found out that you'll be diffraction limited at F29.8 (practically F22 + 1/2 stop) with a CoC requirement of 20 micron... So, 20 micron is a really serious figure for LF indeed - impractical if you like. Since you often use much smaller apertures with LF

personally I tend to work at f16 or f22 on my 4x5. I tend to use movements to get DoF where I want.

I only have 2 lenses though (90 and 180mm) so perhaps that's a limit??

dunno ... I seem to never need more

ps: except money ... all donations gratefully accpeted :-D

The main image was a made on Fujichrome Velvia 4x5 and drum scanned with the Heidelberg D8400.

The file creates a tack sharp 30x40 print.

www.mondragonfineart.com

Carl


The main image was a made on Fujichrome Velvia 4x5 and drum scanned with the Heidelberg D8400.


thanks for the detail ... it had the look of that areas light and a chrome on a light box ... your scan did it more than justice

I've been pretty happy with my Epson V750. I use the Betterscanning mount, but do not wet mount. Unfortunately, a drum scanner was just not a real practical option for me. I've gotten some very good scans out of the epson, but to really get everything you can from it requires some care in setting up the mount, taping the film down as flat as possible, etc. It comes with the full version of Silverfast but I'm mostly using VueScan with it. I'm sure fluid mounting would be better, but I don't want to deal with it right now.

Coolscan VED for colour negative and slide film in 35mm,
Coolscan 9000ED for 35mm b&w and all MF work.
The 9000 has heavily modified film carriers, with AN-glass and brass custom frame to keep everything flat.
Also have an Epson 4990 which I use with modified frames as well. Mostly for scanning old prints but also the odd larger negative.

I now use an Artixscan M1 for 5x4 negatives. I agree that the lighting in Australia is often too contrasty for transparency film. Now that I have Windows 7 I can scan at 4800DPI (with 8 times multi-sampling to reduce noise) and do a 50% image size reduction afterwards in Photoshop. (Nyquist sampling theory says that, in one dimension you need two digital samples to define a single point, in two dimensions you need four samples. So if your lenses can deliver 2400DPI on the negative [about 40lp/mm] to scan at less than twice that resolution introduces quantisation error during scanning).

I use a V700 because it's all I can afford. But then again, I don't make any money off my photography so it doesn't bother me.

I'm trying out the Epson V500 to see if I can live with it. I've had a Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED for four or five years, but may sell it. It's great, but I'm wondering if it's more machine than I need since I'm trying to shoot more, print less, if you know what I mean.

If I can live with the V500 for proofing, my thought is that next time I have a gallery show, I would have professional scans done for me by someone who really knows what they are doing.

So, for me, V500 and Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED (with the later being boxed up for now).