4x5 scanners

I have grown tired of shooting digital and have dusted off my ol' Linhof and

want to shoot for real again. I would like to get an affordable (<$1000)

scanner for my chromes and was looking at some of the new Epson models. The

specs look good, but I worry about how the film is held. I really don't want to

have it on glass (newton rings, dust, etc), and I was wondering if any use a

tray or anything to hold the film and does it hold it flat?

I have an Epson V700. It uses glassless carriers. For 4x5, two sheets are in the carrier. The scanner determines the film type by recognizing the holder. It's pretty easy to use, and will do scans as large as you might practically have a need for.

Epson V700 or V750M. Latter has better coating on the optical path, a glass tray for optional fluid mounting, and the full (48 bit) version of SiverFast Ai.

 

Even better than the supplied film holders (which aren't bad) are the products from http://www.betterscanning.com. For about $100 more, you greatly increase the available resolution.

Thanks for your input, I looked at an ad for the Epson but didn't see anything about the holders being glassless

Thanks for your input, I looked at an ad for the Epson but didn't see anything about the holders being glassless. The fluid holders are interesting and looked at some reviews and it looks pretty nice

The Microtek scanners use a glassless drawer. I have the old model, the 1800f. It works well, but I have also played with the Epsons and their holders sem to work ok. I have friends with Epson 7xx scanners whose 4x5 work is quite impressive. Fluid mounting is great but messy and time consuming. Micotek has a new model, the M1. It has been extensively discussed on the large format forum and there are a couple of reviews floating in the ether.

 

Good luck.

 

Eric

I too just came back to LF after a 5 year hiatus and purchased the Microtek M1, which has a glassless scan path and autofocus to compensate for any film uneveness. The film holders are a bit tricky to use because they are designed to stretch the film for flatness... not sure that this works as well in practice as in theory. But my initial scans are way, way better than I got using Epsons in the past. I have found however that if I leave the default sharpening on I get banding in even areas such as blue skies. With the sharpening turned off, and after you get the hang of the film holders this scanner is a real joy.

I have to second the vote for the Microtek M1. I have this with Silverfast SE plus, and scan 120 and 4x5. the learning curve is a little slow (at least for me), but I now have it dialed in, and my scans are excellent.

At last! Some competition for Epson. I'd be willing to bet good money that Microtek's 4800dpi scans are actually a darn sight sharper than Epson's claimed 6400dpi (Hah! As if!).

I sue the V700 for both 120 and 4x5 and am quite satisfied. The Epson holders are good for 4x5, but you must go to the Doug Fisher's betterscanning.com holders with the anti-newton ring glass for 120. This made a big difference in sharpness in my tests. I would say that with good sharpening techniques, you can make a nice 16x20 print from 4x5. Some would say larger, but I'm applying tight standards.

Best quality is at 3x enlargement (a 4x5 film is good to 11x14 inches). But many are happy to 4x. Not just my opinion, do your homework. Of course it all depends on you quality standards. I wouldn't go past 16x20 from 4x5 on a cheap consumer flatbed.

 

I would send out to West Coast Imaging, they do flatbed scans from a Creo IQ3 (pro stuff) for only $15 dry (a lot more wet). You will be far more happy, and done by pros. A creo many argue surpass a Tango scan.

 

http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/services/scan/stockcreo.htm

I may be missing something here, but I fail to see how a $15.00 dollar each (with minimum $100.00 order) at 200MB file size scan is better than my "cheap" Microtek M1 that can produce a 600MB file at 2400dpi or greater from a 4x5 without having to send slides or negs through the mail. As I write this, I am waiting to hear from UPS about a lost LARGE package, let alone worrying about a small envelope with unreplaceable film.

 

I can then send these files online to a lab that can produce poster size prints that I believe would be acceptable to most people at normal viewing distances. Just my 2c.

Craig,

 

1. The Creo IQ3 is $20,000 plus tax, yours is $700. The Microtek is a

toy! That's why. You can't compare. Both running dry....no

comparison. M1 gets spanked!

 

 

2. Pros have been sending out for scans, printing, and other

services for years to get the "best" prices to stay in business.

Don't like it, don't do it.

 

3. A 300mb file produces suberb 30x40 inch prints from a pro

scanner outputting at 300ppi (1440dpi printer). Th 600mb file

from a M1 is meaningless, because it can't print that big with

any kind of quality. The M1 may resolve 2400ppi, but not quality

pixels. There is more to it then resolution. That 2400ppi file won't

look nearly as good as a 2040ppi file from a Imacon 848 for 4x5...not

even close. The Imacon costs 20x more for a reason.

 

4. Spending $100 on min order gives you almost 7 images, where is

the problem? Shees....find out what a drum scan costs first. See

what quality work looks like, then tell me if your M1 is a match. Get

a Creo scan made, then be prepared to use your M1 for a doorstop.

 

5. A consumer flatbed is useful for editing before sending out for a

real scan when you want large fine art prints. If all you want is up

to 11x14 (occasional 16x20), the mM is fine. But you will still see

differences.

 

This is why we have Nikons, Imacons, drum scanners, pro flatbeds, and why pros are willing to spend big bucks. You get what you pay for.

Well, I am almost speechless after that reply! As I am not a pro and do this only as a hobby, I thought I was moving in the right direction with this new (toy) scanner. You seem to have vast knowledge that you eagerly share on this subject, so I will have to defer to your information as being correct. I have several doors in my house, I wonder which one needs the new doorstop the most.

Craig, just letting yu know for $15 you can get a really fine image, that can surpass any consumer flatbed. You can get pro quality cheap. Not saying the consumer flatbed does not have a purpose, because I also have a cheap Epson 4990 that I like. But the OP says he is dusting off his 4x5, so yu may as well not waste money, go for the best approach.

You only send out your best work, so convenience is not a real issue.

Ken: I have an older Microtek scanner model scanmaker 8700 , It will handle up to 4x5 negatives and 8x10 tranparencies, It does the job for me: BTW I got it shipped to my door for around $88.00 awhile back:

Another plug for the betterscanning holder! I've never used one but trying to get a truly flat scan at the correct focus height is impossible otherwise (bad experience!) and a wet scan will beat the pants off a dry one with consumer scanners.

Best to buy a cheapo and find out what your qaulity needs are.

I don't think there's anybody here that would argue that they don't need the best quality. I think that there are a lot of us that can't affford the ultimate quality certain processes can offer. If we are doing this as a hobby as I am, or semi professional, (maybe selling prints online, or through art galleries or other venues), then it becomes hard to justify a $20, $40, or as I have seen, a $140+ scan. I am getting older, and my eyes aren't as good as they used to be, so my "consumer" Microtek allows me to produce acceptable (to me) large blow ups that my friends and family say look awesome. I guess that's what it's all about, feeling happy about your work.

 

My apologies to the OP, this went way off course.

Both Microtek and Epson are ancient brands with 4x5 scanning. Here our first Epson that would scan a trany was a 600dpi one; the Microtek was a 800dpi one. Also both of these used glassless carriers; an benefited from experimenting with the z height. Maybe there is a time warp going on here with some folks; both brands have been making flatbed trany scanners for over a decade. The 800dpi Microtek we bought when Clinton was president cost more than a Hasslebad kit. There was a time that a high end service bureaus flatbed scanner was 5 thousand bucks for a 1200dpi unit; its BS to say that all brand XYZ's scanners are consumer grade if they now make units that cost 1/10 or 1/20 of an older pro unit.