Newbie Seeking Advice

<p>Hi Everyone!</p>

<p>I recently purchased a used Cambo 4x5 view camera along with 5 film holders and a lens board (no lens). Since they didn't have any lenses at the time I ordered a older, in nice condition Schneider 210mm lens. The camera store gave me a sheet of already exposed film to practice loading. I practiced a lot! I ordered a box of Ilford B&W film. Loaded 4 sheets into two holders. Took all four photos and sent off to be processed. The film came back however it took almost 3 weeks.</p>

<p>Success!!! All four negatives look "okay" under a loupe. And now I am a bit stuck....I have no way to really see what I captured.</p>

<p>I want to see my 4x5's in high resolution on a monitor, be able to do some PS and then print. I currently print up to 13x19. So I feel as if a scanner should be my next expense. But a decent LF capable scanner (V700, V750, V800, V850) are not cheap. Best deal I've seen so far is a refurbished V750 directly from Epson so I would also get the Silverfast Ai software.</p>

<p>A bit more background. I started out shooting digital. As a Canon shooter I've been less than happy lately with their direction (that's another topic I guess) so rather than jump ship I took a break from digital last year and bought a old Hasselblad 500cm with a 80mm CF and 150mm CF lens. After a first roll of Velvia I was hooked! My now all time favorite photo (digital or film) is an outdoor portrait of my daughter shot on Tri-X with the 80mm lens. I also helped shoot a wedding (at the groom's request) and we shot two rolls of 120 and I think one of the B&W shots was just stellar and was requested as a print.</p>

<p>For the 120 film I bought a cheapo Canon 8800F and scan first. If I find a winner, I have been re-scanning with my 5D2 and 100L macro lens. Its a bit of a pain but they are very sharp, just maybe not the range I was hoping for. And working with negatives isn't as easy as positives.</p>

<p>This brings me back to 4x5. I don't want to even start with stitching countless 5D2 shots together (6 shots for 120 was more than I liked). And my cheapo Canon 8800 scanner doesn't have a upper light source large enough for 4x5. I tried doing it in parts but I kept seeing unwanted light getting in and said why bother.</p>

<p>So, this early into 4x5 should I invest in the scanner next? Or am I missing something? I think I will eventually develop my own B&W but what good is going there next if I still have no way to see things. Maybe I should shoot some velvia first (but that is expensive all around).</p>

<p>Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated,</p>

<p> - Brad<br>

</p>

<p>There are several older scanners that ran on WinXP, Vista, or possibly Win7 that would scan 4x5 in a single pass.<br>

Microtek 8700, i900 , and Epson 4990 are 3 of them. VueScan is a scanning software that runs on many operating systems and works with most scanners made to date.</p>

<p>I currently use a Epson V500 and a flimsy 4x5 holder from a Epson 1640su and do a two pass then stitch in ps. Cut a piece of rigid, opaque material to fit the bed of the scanner so that it places the edge of the film at the edge of the transparency scan area for easier alignment and stray light/reflection blocking. </p>

<p>Use the same 5D2 and macro lens to digitize the film. It will give you a good enough scan to make a 16x20 print or smaller. Send the really good ones out for a drum scan.</p>

<p>Looks like you want to shoot 4x5" for a reason, so I understand the only way is to buy a good scanner, that is a V700 or V800 series scanner.<br /> Shooting 4x5" just to have poor scans is highly unpractical (and a nonsense!). As is not to develop your own film. I`d advice to you to start into the full traditional process (developing, wet printing, an enlarger); I by far prefer it to scanning, but I suspect it`s not what you`re looking for.<br /> So as a friend of mine use to say, you have two options; or to buy anything and after that a good scanner, or directly to buy a good scanner. The second option is cheaper.</p>

<p>Epson 2450 or 4490 would provide pretty decent results compared to the V700 and siblings. But the 2450 has an early version of USB interface, so it's slow as molasses on large negatives at high resolution. (The primary reason I replaced it with a V750.) Consider a Better Scanning film holder for whatever scanner you get.<br>

See what scanners SilverFast supports for your operating system.<br>

Also, you don't need much darkroom to contact print 4x5 negatives.</p>

 

<p>Re: Charles - Thanks for you insight and suggestions!</p>

<p>I guess I would rather pay more money to have a scanner that can also be connected to the same PC that I currently use to catalog, edit and print.</p>

<p>I have been keeping my eyes open for a used 4990 as it might work on Win8 and later but I would need to be sure and thus wouldn't want to pay very much. Otherwise I'm going to pass on the older stuff that requires older PC's or dual boots, etc.</p>

<p>I think I will take one more try and scanning the 4x5 in two halfs on the Canon 8800. I didn't go to the effort to make a dedicated cutout as you suggested. Perhaps that would work well enough to get a decent 1st scan. However I feel that I will also face focus issues but we'll see.</p>

<p>Otherwise I am now leaning towards the V700 series as the V800 series doesn't seem to offer enough more to justify the additional cost.</p>

<p>Re: L G - Thanks for your input.</p>

<p>Regarding scanning with DSLR. I have done it enough on 120 to know now that it is for "winners" only. Using a FF DSLR it takes 6 shots an near 1:1 macro. The images from the film are quite sharp - easily focusing on the grain. But its the stitching that is the PITA. With burred out of focus areas and large areas with little or nothing (skies) stitching 6 shots doesn't always line up nice.</p>

<p>Now apply that to 4x5 and you would need roughly 4x4 shots which means 16 images to stitch together. Add in some blurred out of focus areas, skies, large areas of grass, etc, etc and I already know the stitching would be a big time sink. However, the resolution would be stellar!</p>

<p>If someone wants sharp scans, using a high resolution crop (think Sony 24MP) or now the Canon 5Ds should easily exceed what is really on the film. I think the Sony sensor will be nicer when it comes to latitude. And if you have a 50mp DSLR you are at least at MF resolutions and starting into LF territory anyway.</p>

<p>All that said, if you can link me to any 4x5 which were macro scanned with a DSLR I would love to see their methods and how they turned out!</p>

<p>Re: Jose - You are right. Often the answer is on our own question!<br>

I was just wondering if I missed any other options. For example I know I can use a 120 back. But I need to see the entire frame to make sure I'm not ending up with dark corners, etc.</p>

<p>I'm old enough to know these days that if I cut a corner I'll just spend the money again so thanks for bringing it up.</p>

<p>I don't see much in advantage in the V800 series at this point and not enough in any reviews to warrant spending the extra money there.</p>

<p>Regarding developing - As you can tell I have sidestepped that yet I think it is inevitable. I think once I know am dialed in on using the camera (which I think I am pretty close) I need to start developing my own B&W negatives. And then from there think about wet printing, enlarging, etc. I love seeing prints that were made directly from film. Thank you for bringing it up.</p>

<p>Re: John - Thanks for your sharing your experience with the older scanners and your choice to switch to the V750.</p>

<p>I have already been researching the 3rd party film holders (Better Scanning) and it seems like there is obvious majority indicating they are worth the money.</p>

<p>I should verify that Silverfast Ai will work okay with Win8 as that is my main machine for work (software development) and photography.</p>

<p>I guess the other thing I like about the V700 series is that it will be a very good 120 film scanner as well.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"And now I am a bit stuck....I have no way to really see what I captured."<br /><br />Of course you can see what you captured -- you hold that big 4x5 negative up to the light. That's one of the beauties of large format. Looking at the actual negative, especially scrutinizing it with a loupe (magnafier) is actually the only way to really see and judge what you've captured. Scanning, printing, etc., introduce other variables that make it difficult to accurately judge forcus, exposure, etc. If it looks soft on the computer, for example, you don't know whether that's a soft negative or a soft scan. If it's too dark or too light on the computer, again you can't say if that's the negative, the scan or the monitor. Only looking at the negative gives you accurate answers.<br>

"I want to see my 4x5's in high resolution on a monitor, be able to do some PS and then print."<br />Working with 4x5 on a computer has a number of challenges. A lot of people scan medium format and large format on a flatbed scanner instead of an actual film scanner. But many postings on this web site will tell that even a great flatbed scanner doesn't scan as sharply as a film scanner -- maybe very good, but not as good. The result is that medium format scanned on a flatbed may only be as good as 35mm on a film scanner, and 4x5 may only be as good as medium format. Unfortunatley, 4x5 film scanners are horrendously expensive, so a flatbed may be the only affordable choice for most people. Scanning with a DSLR has a number of challenges as have been noted. One thing that I dont' think has been mentioned is contrast buildup.<br>

Given all of that, IMHO the best way to get everything 4x5 can deliver is to to the conventional darkroom route -- used darkroom gear is virtually free these days, the basics are very easy to learn (I learned at age 12) and while space can be an issue you can set up a tempoary darkroom in just about any bathroom. And for what it's worth, I personally think a lot of the esthetic of shooting 4x5 is about going back to tradition.<br /><br /> "I currently print up to 13x19."<br />If that's the biggest you're going to print, there's really not much point to 4x5 or even medium format, IMHO. 35mm and digital can easily print at that size. yes 4x5 would be sharper at 13x19 that smaller formats, but that doesnt' mean the smaller formats aren't more than sharp enough at that size. And if you are scanning on a flatbed scanner, the sharpness you're getting at that size may not be any more than what you get from your digital camera to start with, especially at normal viewing distances.</p>

<p>Hi Craig,</p>

<p>Thanks for taking your time to give me more insight on 4x5 and film in general. As you can see my main weakness is not being comfortable with judging negatives. Its funny how things can so easily go one way or the other. When I started with film on medium format, the person I bought the old 500CM from gave me a roll of velvia. So I just shot that first and paid to have it developed. As soon as I saw those negatives it was like a whole new dimension opened up. Each slide was like a little world.</p>

<p>Then I tried some color negative film (Portra) and I was immediately put off. I think I was put off because I couldn't just "see" the image on the negative - like I was able to with the slide film. I only shot 2 rolls of porta and in the end was ho hum with that experience. However, to practice and learn I shot part of a roll with off camera flash, backdrop, etc. While I was at it moved the flash trigger over to my 5D2 and took the same shot. In the end (flatbed scanner at 2400dpi) they were quite close to each other in appearance.</p>

<p>After that I switched to black and white on the medium format camera and have shot 7 rolls now including 12 shots at a wedding. I am really like the final (flatbed scanned) "on screen" and (digitally) printed look of these images. I can only imagine right now what a complete darkroom and enlarged print would look like. So far I have liked the Tri-X film's look but then again a lab developed it.</p>

<p>One thing I noticed about B&W negatives is they are still hard for me to read quickly. I do use a loupe so I can judge focus but after that the final look of the image is hard to see. Repeating myself, probably just because I haven't done it enough.</p>

<p>For large format, learning to focus properly, use movements, etc I have been seeking a more coarse / quick way to see the pictures I have taken thus the scanner question. I think if I were shooting velvia 4x5 I probably wouldn't have even dawned on me to post - but that stuff is expensive all around.</p>

<p>So I figured the cheapest way to get started was with some Ilford B&W, send them off to a lab for development and scan back at home so I can see and understand better. However, I really don't want to blow $600 on a decent scanner right away or spend $20+ per lab scan. But then I ran into the issue of my cheap Canon 8800F didn't have a backlight big enough for 4x5.</p>

<p>However, I did manage to have some success accomplishing a cheap scan of my first 4x5 which I will include that in different post.</p>

<p>But any scanning success will not take away from yours and other's experience and suggestions to go the traditional route. I believe my next step is to develop this B&W film myself and then do coarse fast scans immediately at home. Doing just that will eliminate 1-2 weeks of waiting on the lab. And maybe the sheets won't be so scratched and dusty. Then when I am comfortable I will probably shoot some velvia now that it is spring and everything is turning green. And after that (fall or winter) I will probably join a photography club or school that has the lab and printing equipment and learn from the masters. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Just an update. I said I would give one more try with my Canon 8800 following Charle's advice of doing two passes.</p>

<p>I had previously tried scanning part of the 4x5 but was getting wicked unwanted light so I bought a few sheets of dark construction paper and traced the 120 film cutout area onto it and then cut it out. I tried it and the scanner indicated an error (bummer). So then I cut out this other area where the 120 film holder was cut out (near the start of the scan). And viola it worked! Thanks Charles for your advice.</p>

<p>I did two scans which stitched nicely. For these scans I used Canon's scan gear which is only 8-bit grayscale. I scanned at 2400dpi, full resolution, emulsion (dull side) facing up toward the light in the lid and shiny side down towards flatbed glass. The final stitched scan was 11145x8346 or about 260MB - way overkill for this test but those are the numbers if anyone is interested.</p>

<p>More interesting to me was that I had tried some shift and swing and I think I generally got it right, however maybe too much swing. I was trying to get the plane of focus through the apples and berries. Wow, the LF depth of field is so shallow. I was working with window light and didn't have a cable release so had to live with fairly fast shutter speed. The subject isn't all that interesting however I can finally see it somehow. Viewed up close (loupe and on screen) the tablecloth and that patch of material just below the leftmost apple are quite sharp. </p>

<p>So, $100 for the old used LF camera and film holders, $200 for the lens, $45 for the Canon Scanner (used) and another $3 for the construction paper. It could be worse.</p>

<p> </p>

<center><img src="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/PhotoNetSubmissions/LF_SCAN_001.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="541" /></center>

 

<p>Developing B&W negatives yourself would be a good next step even if you don't get an enlarger right away. Larger format negatives are traditionally developed with stainless steel film holders and tanks, but that requires a darkroom because you move the holders from one tank to the next during the process. Instead, look for an "HP Combi" plastic tank that leds you load half a dozen sheets of film into the tank inside a changing bag, put the lid on the tank and then pour the chemicals in and out of the tank with the lights on. No darkroom needed for that, just a bathroom sink. <br /><br />One reason to do large format yourself is the hassle of sending it to a lab. With 35mm or 120, you just drop the roll in an envelope. But as you've discovered, sending large format to the lab requires an extra light tight box, wrapping it up, etc. before you can even drop in in the envelope.<br /><br />"Reading" negatives just takes some getting used to. Besides converting from negative to positve mentally, you can hold a negative at an angle against a dark background and tilt it until the light hits it a certain way. When it does, it appears as a positive. Not exactly like a print but enough to get a better idea of what it will look like. <br /><br />The next step beyond developing your negatives is to make contact prints. No enlarger needed. Just lay the negative emulsion side down on top of a piece of photo paper, put a piece of glass on top and turn on a light bulb for a few seconds. Develop in trays. You do need a darkroom for this, but it can be a temporary setup in the bathroom.<br /><br />You mentioned negs coming back from the lab dusty or scratched. That's absolutely unacceptable from any lab. Never use that lab again.</p>

<p>The "TWAIN" drivers for older scanners usually have a limit of 10,000 pixels along the longest axis of the film. This means you can get no more than the equivalent of an 80 megapixel digital capture (or about 6 stitched frames of an average DSLR). Even so, that's usually more than enough to see the film grain and equal the resolution of most LF lenses - unless you use a cheap Epson scanner with crummy copying lens that can't even manage a couple of thousand LPPI. Ignore Epson's lying boast of "True optical resolution 4800 DPI" - Yeah, right!</p>

<p>Even if the scanner driver allows a higher number of pixels, it's not going to be a quick process scanning 5x4 film at anything higher than 2400 PPI. Nor will editing the files in PS.</p>

<p>I'd go for a film-capable Canon flatbed scanner. These were generally fitted with a higher quality lens than in Epson's consumer scanners, and can be bought for a lot less than a V750 or whatever.</p>

<p>BTW, the contrast of your sample image appears to be very high. Could be that the lab over-developed the film - a common occurrence I'm afraid. Developing yourself would be a good idea. Looks like that particular shot could have used a bit more exposure as well.</p>

<p>Thanks Craig!</p>

<p>I really appreciate all of the info and advice you shared for getting started o developing my own film. I really like the idea of keeping this more compact as this hobby has to coexist with a very patient wife and a very curious child.</p>

<p>I should probably clarify the dust and scratches comment regarding the lab. I was probably wrong to do that. I could easily see the dust being an issue on my end. So I will watch and see what the next set looks like.</p>

<p>Regarding scratches - is it possible I did those myself while loading? I started thinking maybe all 4x5 sheet film has to have a few scratches from sliding into the holders. Since it was my first time maybe I was a bit too rough or perhaps my nervousness to make sure they were loaded resulted in sliding them back and forth a bit too much. Unfortunately, no way to verify that unless I want to trash one unexposed negative right out of the box so I can verify no scratches before going in and no scratches after I load it in the dark.</p>

<p>Thanks Rodeo Joe!</p>

<p>I appreciate your advice on the scanner. I currently have the Canon 8800F which I bought on Craigslist for $45. It came with all the holders for 35mm and 120. I used it for 120 and I think the scans are "okay". Scans with the DSLR were obviously sharper. I never scan above 2400 lines per inch. I tried once at 3600 and didn't see enough to warrant the extra time and bigger file. For this 4x5, the 2400 seems to be more than enough. And I can live with 10,000 lines on the long side. Actually, since I am stitching two images I ended up at 11,500 on the long side after stitching and cropping unwanted borders.</p>

<p>For the scanning part of the equation, I just want to make two changes. Right now the Canon Scan Gear does not allow 16bit Gray scales scans. It gives an error. I will probably just buy Vuescan (well, try a demo of it first). The other item is to verify focus height. Right now I am using three sheets of construction paper and focus looks pretty darned good. But it is easy enough to add / remove and rescan to find there sweet spot.</p>

<p>Thanks for your review of the image.Yes, I think it looks underexposed. I shot it back in February to available light coming in the window. The meter was reading close to 16EV facing back at the window. I was so worried about camera shake and reciprocity (which I am aware of but haven't grasped yet) that I think I went for a fast shutter speed and clearly wasn't stopped down to much so perhaps my shutter speed was just too fast. I was also dabbling with quite a bit of swing and some shift so I probably lost some light there as well. And with film I feel that I should underexposed if in doubt as I should be able to recover shadow detail - I hope I understand that right. But maybe the lab over developing gets in the way of that?</p>

<p>My only other shot was of my daughter sitting in the living room. In that shot I overexposed by about 1 stop. I simply metered on her chin. Clearly I still have to learn the zone system as well.</p>