Best Scanner for Medium/Large Format Film?

<p>Hi, I need your help. With the ever-changing world of technology and gadgets, I wanted to check with everyone here about a new scanner or improved scanner software. <br>

I currently scan my 6x45, 6x7 and 4x5 film and slides on an Epson V750-M scanner and I typically use Silverfast AI 6 as my software for scanning. I wanted to check with everyone here to see if there was anything newer on the market that supposedly produces higher quality results.<br>

Is there a new scanner or new software that will produce better results for MF and LF films/transparencies than the Epson V750-M and Silverfast AI combo? I fully understand "better" is a highly subjective term. <br>

Thanks for your time,<br>

Tim</p>

<p>Most people would agree "better" means more resolution, dynamic range and DMax. If you mean "affordable", then read no further.</p>

<p>For 4x5 and smaller, you would look at Imacon, Scitex (flat bed) or a drum scanner. For medium format and smaller, a Nikon LS-9000 is an option. A new Imacon is in the $20K class. You can find an used Scitex flatbed for about $12K. The Nikon, if you can find one, is about $2300 with an optional (but necessary) glass holder.</p>

<p>I guess it is safe to write this below Edward's "then read no further". ;-)<br>

One of the Imacon (now known as Hasselblad) scanners. They will do all formats up to and including 4x5", and are the best you can get.<br>

Very expensive...</p>

<p>Agree with all previous advise.</p>

<p>And now for a word of caution: like anyone, I would love to get my hands on even a 2nd hand Imacon and behold - I found one on the fleebay at the very very reasonable initial price of US$2.200. Person was registered in Sweden, where also I was born, so I asked a few questions in Swedish about the scanner. The seller replied in what looked like "google translation" and then offered me to buy it for US$1.100 only - outside of the bay...Even saying that it would be promptly delivered from China (not Sweden) as soon as payment was received. I turned and ran of course.</p>

<p>"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is..." Beware...</p>

<p>Scanner development has now been abandoned by most manufacturers, so unfortunately the dreaded Epson has little competition in the "affordable" category.<br>

Just an idea: It's quite possible to get high-resolution digitisation by re-photographing your slides or negatives using a modern digital camera. A 5x4 can be reproduced by stitching several digital frames together. This way you can circumvent the 10K pixel TWAIN limit and probably do a "scan" in far less time than a flatbed takes. You'll need a bright and consistent lightbox and a decent digital camera with a low-distortion macro lens (Total cost new ~ $2500 US). You could even extend the dynamic range by altering the exposure of one set of digital dupes and then use HDR software to do exposure stacking.</p>

Thank you for all of your responses and suggestions so far. To give you a little more background in my thinking. I

pondered the differences between film and digital as it relates to the final product. I have found in my own tests that

unless I am shooting college sports and some wildlife I find myself going back to my medium and large format cameras for

a superior final product. My initial tests with the Epson V750M and the Silverfast AI software has given me good results. I

am looking for great results and it seems like the manufacturing world is pushing us another direction. For a lot of my

work I don't mind the much slower work pace and the added step of scanning to get the image into my digital workflow. I

am most concerned about the final product and controlling costs.

 

I could easily invest $20k or more on a number of medium format digital cameras that will be outdated in a year or two. I

was thinking that if I made the investment in the scanning technology instead of the next wiz bang digital camera I can

keep using my medium and large format film cameras year after year and by updating my digital workflow (i.e., scanner

software, Lightroom, Photoshop) . I think about the RZ67 Pro II that I bought new over a decade ago that still produces

stunning images within its intended target. I think about my Nikon D3S and how it will be outdated in the near future and

that is why I am going down this path of exploring these options.

 

Rodeo Joe mentioned using a light box and a macro lens on a DSLR. I've thought about that but wouldn't I be limited to

the capabilities of that DSLR and then I would lose effective pixels because of the aspect ratio differences that would force

me to crop? For example, If I used my Nikon D3S and one of my top end Zeiss Macro lenses I would end up with a

12MP image, where as if I scanned that same negative or slide I would end up with a 100MP or more image depending on

the scanning DPI. I just want to make sure I am not missing something before I don't pursue that option.

 

Thank you and I look forward to more thoughts and suggestions.

 

Tim

<p>Rather than seeking advice, you are trying to revive the pointless "film v digital" debate. You're preaching to the choir, but what's new about that?</p>

<p>(1) Digital cameras do not become obsolete after two years unless your competition has something to offer your present equipment can't match.</p>

<p>(2) Not all pixels are equal. Roughly speaking, direct digital pixels are worth three off the film. A 6x7 negative yields approximately 90 MP, which would be matched or exceeded in every practical aspect (except USAF resolution targets) by a 30+ MP digital back.</p>

<p>(3) There are several MF digital backs with more than 30 MP selling for $13K new (the H4D-31 a complete camera for that price), and used backs are becoming more available as they are supplanted by 60MP backs.</p>

<p>(4) There haven't been any new scanners for nearly 5 years, and far fewer being produced than ever before. It is likely that Nikon is simply selling off existing inventory of the LS-9000, and perhaps Hasselblad as well.</p>

<p>(5) For me, a digital back gave new life to my Hasselblad equipment, making it a professionably viable tool, whereas scanned film is strictly for personal use (artisan photography, if you prefer) due to the time required, incremental cost and general inconvenience.</p>

<p>1) You state that you could easily invest 20K in MF Digital. <br /> I'm not sure if that means, what you would have to pay for your needs, or what you are willing to pay/afford?<br /> 2) You state that you want to control costs.<br /> 3) You want the best quality results.</p>

<p>The following has been said here, and in many other sites and forums.<br /> If you want the best quality film scans from MF and LF, go with drum scans. <br /> You have to decide, based on your volume of printable images, or keepers, if owning a (possible) 20K scanner is in your budget. <br /> If not, then you continue to use your Epson for preview scanning, and send your keepers to a lab with a drum scanner.</p>

<p>Only you, know the best answer.</p>

Edward and Marc thank you for your responses. I really was not trying to stir up a film vs digital debate. I am just going

through this journey and struggle at this point and time and I am sure many have come before me that I know nothing

about. Maybe I did not say it very well, but what I was trying to say was: I could invest $20k in a new H system (e.g.,

H4D-31 and a couple lenses) or I could potentially invest a similar amount if some scanning technology and continue to

use my film equipment to get similar results while leveraging this solution over a much longer period time lowering my total

cost of ownership over the same time horizon. What I didn't realize and learned from this thread was the abandonment of

the scanner technology by manufacturers. I also did not know that the film and digital pixels were not equal as Edward

pointed out. Marc had an excellent point about continuing to use the Epson as my "preview" and for my fine art large

prints send out for drum scans. I appreciate your willingness to share your knowledge and I come away from this with

some very good input and new knowledge. Thank you.

 

Tim

<p>Tim, I can appreciate your dilemma, because I was in the same situation but chose a different solution. I was using medium and large (4x5)format film, and I scanned the medium format on a Nikon 8000 and the large format on an Epson V-750. But it seemed as if I was squeezing all that 4x5 information through a very narrow bottleneck and getting relatively little of the full potential out the other end. I had enough 4x5 keepers that sending transparencies in for a professional scan felt cost-prohibitive. In the end, I decided to give up large format, because I was unwilling to invest in and learn darkroom printing. I've since added a Hasselblad 501cm system to my camera bag, and I enjoy it immensely. Fortunately, I can get excellent scans from its output on my Nikon 8000. However, I'm slowly coming around to thinking about a medium format back for the Hasselblad, and I'll seriously consider the Pentax 645D for all of my 645NII lenses. I enjoy film, I like to scan, but some of my favorite films appear to be in jeopardy, and I've never been one to see a strong difference between film and digital: both can be spectacular. Any of these solutions will be expensive, but for what I get out of photography, it will be well worth the cost.</p>

<p>I gave up on 35mm film a long time ago, as DSLR quality was far superior to what I could get out of such a small format from a scanner. However, I have hung on to my 645 and 6x8 film systems. I spent the past 3 years in the digital desert myself before finally coming to grips with reality and separating out the hype and myths. The reality of film, at least for the hobbyist, is that 35mm is not worth the time, and 4x5 may not be worth the cost. However, the photographers at Architectural Digest may think differently. To get the real goody out of 4x5 you will definitely need a high quality drum scan. Scanning a 4x5 on a mass consumer market flatbed is not much different than photographing a Victoria Secret model with a Holga. Not to slam the Holga, but you get the point.</p>

<p>As for MF, the best possible non-megabuck scanner out there is the Nikon LS-9000. It has current software support through either Silverfast or Vuescan. In addition, it's an LED (as opposed to white florescent light) scanner which gives it excellent and predictable results that don't drift and shift over time. In addition to the rgb LEDs, it also has has an infrared LED for dust detection. Both Silverfast and Vuescan can make use of this capability. And while 4000 dpi may be beyond the resolution of a 35mm lens, I can do 4000dpi all the out to 6x8 with excellent results. Though such a scan takes a considerable amount of time, especially with multi-sampling noise reduction enabled. You can sill find new ones online for around $2400 dollars. But suppliers typically have inventory levels down to one or two units. When they are gone they will probably be gone forever.</p>

<p>Oh, and the myths vs reality... there is no doubt that all commercial photography, now and in the future, be an all digital work flow, time is money. However, photography that intends to document the existence of one's life and that of his family for the benefit of many generations yet to come, should be done on film. I use a Mamiya 645 AFD-II for family gatherings and special events, and a Fuji GX680-III for more studied subjects. Both of these systems can record Date & Time data directly in the margin of each film frame. A viewer of my images 120 years from now will be able to see my analog world as I saw it. In addition, he'll be able to see it with light and his own eyes, no obsolete electronics required. This, by the way, is why I only shot transparencies.</p>

<p>"The reality of film, at least for the hobbyist, is that 35mm is not worth the time..."</p>

<p>Hold on--you should add "....for high-detail scenic photography! For many other applications, it's artistically perfect.</p><div></div>

<p>Barry, you had a great point about long term image preservation. I always make prints of my personal family images the moment I capture them as to not let them get lost in the digital shuffle. I like your point about the transparencies and the image data printed on the outer edge of the film and being able to view these 100 years from now via natural light. For film I shoot with the RZ67 Pro II in the studio mostly and the Pentax 645N in the field as well as a Mamiya 7 Rangefinder that I love and yes I still use my F100 Nikon since I have a full lineup of glass for my D3S and D3X digital cameras. For family and candid stuff I love my little F100. Putting the brand new 85mm f/1.4 lens on that camera produces fabulous portraits/candids of my family and while I don't use 35mm for anything professional, I suspect based on my results that I could get exceptional 8x10's with that camera and my top end glass. I recently shot some Adox CMS 50 b/w super fine grain film and loved the results. <br>

I do have a question for you. I am not familiar with the Fuji GXxxx MF lineup. A quick search revealed several models ranging from 6x45 to 6x7, 6x8 and even 6x9. Since you own one any tips on models to consider or to stay away from? I am always inclined to go with the bigger negative so unless there is a reason, I would likely lean towards the 6x9 since I already have the RZ67 Pro II. I searched on KEH.com and they seem to have several to pick from. Anywhere else to look for a reliable used camera that you would suggest?</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Tim</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It is hard for me now as I reach advanced middle age to chase the <em>best </em>result. It now seems kind of neurotic. There are a million vendors out there that have the latest and greatest improvement, even if it's 2%.</p>

<p>An Epson to proof 4x5 seems like a good idea, but what about a light table and a loupe? Less work a lot less time and money.</p>

<p>A Nikon 9000 may be what you need for MF, they're showing up used for about $1600+. There are used refurbished drum scanners on the market also if your 4x5 volume and sales can justify those prices. Maybe it's time for you to just skip the scanning step and go with a MF digital back? An 8x10 shooter laughed and call 4x5 a snapshot camera, so where does the quest for higher quality end?</p>

<p>Hi Tim! A number of suggestions for upgrades have been made but there is one you can try for free! Although the my Epson gave good results out of the box it was soon clear to me that the resolution through a good loupe was rather better than I was getting from the scan. I found that there was a considerable improvement to be had by tweaking with shims the height of the carrier (the adjustment available on the holders is very coarse). Obviously one at all times ensures that the film is loaded with the correct side up!<br>

I also found that ensuring that MF transparencies were flat by inserting them (in their sleeves!)for a couple of days between the leaves of large heavy books helped a great deal especially if one removes the stressed area where the films have been joined to others by the processor. I am sure that the holders supplied by other manufacturers which incorporate inter frame supports will help. It is such a nuisance that with 6x7 trannies from the RZ the Epson holder will only accommodate two frames leaving the ends of the film totally unsupported and Epson have not supplied a means of overcoming this.</p>

<p>Tim, I have the Fuji GX680-III camera. It's a 6x8 with an electronic/motor back that automatically advances the film, time/date/exposure stamps the margin, and even automatically sets the correct ISO from the bar code on the film leader (for Fujifilm only). The body has bellows focusing on an extendable rail system. This camera is also know as being the only MF camera with full lens movements by design (not as an add-on). Although there is an "S" model with no movements that is cheaper. While the movements aren't as ranging as a LF camera, you definitely have a reasonable degree of rise/fall/tilt/swing of the lens board. All these movements are fully independent, so it's possible to apply any three of them in the same shot. Just be aware that there is the original GX-680, with later -II and -III versions. Most early accessories work equally well with the -I and -II. However, the -III is sufficiently different that its accessories (backs, finders, etc.) are unique. The -III can use any GX680 lens, while the -I and -II can't use the newer lenses for the -III. Here is a link to Danny Burks review: http://www.dannyburk.com/fuji_gx680iii.htm Most people have a love/hate relationship with this camera. I truly enjoy shooting with it, but it's somewhat heavy and the lenses are aren't cheap. Also, be aware that these cameras are no longer in production. But every now and then a NIB one comes up on eBay.</p>

<p>Reading Gareth's post, I realized that he has hit on an important fact--scan flatness. There are two solutions to this problem available for the Nikon 9000. One is a anti-newton glass holder that works really well and is made by Nikon for this scanner, but must be purchased as an accessory item (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/218836-REG/Nikon_9241_FH_869G_120_220_Strip_Film.html). The other solution is a third-party kit that allows for wet mounting your film (http://www.aztek.com/Products/NIKONKAMIHOLDER.htm). This kit no doubt yields the superior result, but it's considerably more effort than dry scanning with the Nikon glass holder.</p>

<p>It amazes me how there are so many people on the web telling folks what they need in order to do whatever... and have very little in terms of photographic work to substantiate their authority. People read the various photographic websites and parrot the most popular. "So and so says... and that guy said..." ad infinitum.<br>

Unfortunately, many of us take this as gospel. Even more unfortunate, it is a load of crap.<br>

Fact is, 35mm is still (after more than half a decade) worth the time... but only if you have enough talent to make compelling images in the first place. <br>

And 6x6, let alone 6x9, can be made to shine, in big prints, using some very good "consumer" flatbed scanners. At least, nobody complains about the quality of my prints... except maybe a gearhead or two...</p><div></div>

<p>Correction... <br>

there are many who talk about what you shoud and shoud not use, yet provide no examples of how their respective choices are substatially superior...</p>

<p><em>It amazes me how there are so many people on the web telling folks what they need in order to do whatever... and have very little in terms of photographic work to substantiate their authority.</em></p>

<p>Judge the responses in context, not based on some arbitrary criteria. Not all of us have work we are free to share, or don't have the need for constant approbation. Sometimes it is enough reward to know you have helped someone. It is usually obvious whether someone has been there and done that, or merely read what someone else said on the internet.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for commenting and sharing your thoughts and knowledge. I did want to mention that Gareth had a great point about needing to have the film or transparencies be flat when you scan them. His common sense solution is solid advice and I do use that method. One challenge that I have struggled with is the film holders that ship with the Epson V750-M scanner don't easily hold the film really flat in all cases. I suppose this is a design issue with the plastic holders. I found a third party after market MF and LF holders that are well made and absolutely makes the film lay flat. I will include the link below in case anyone is interested in researching for yourself. I will tell you up front the web site seems a little strange and not exactly modern, but I did not have any problems with the ordering process and the product is definitely a huge improvement over the Epson stock holders. <br>

http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/vseries.html<br>

Also, I would be interested in how you load your film on the flatbed scanner? The instructions with the Epson tell you to ensure the emulsion side of the film is up and for transparencies to lay them face down as if you were viewing them. I have read several other posts on various forums here and via google searches and since I don't have a lot of experience here, I would like to get some feedback from people that do it one way or the other and why? I've tried both ways and don't notice much of a difference, but I would like to use the method that yields the best results. </p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Tim</p>

<p>Edward:</p>

<p>If it is about helping someone, we should be responsible enough not to propose what we opine as irrefutable fact.<br /> The FACT is that only working with the materials first hand can determine what is appropriate for one's purpose. The rest is opinion, and, like an armpit, most of us have one or two.<br /> As for constant approbation, many artists are guilty of wanting/needing this; I make no apologies. I have beautiful images to share with the world, as do many artists. <br /> On the other hand, there are those who try to redefine the purpose of image making in terms of resolution/sharpness contests.<br>

I am an artist. Which one, if any, are you?</p>

<p>Most of the questions on Photo.net are technical, rather than artistic in nature, including the present thread. It is fact, not opinion, that a Nikon LS-9000 is sharper than an Epson V-750. It is my opinion that the V750 is not sharp enough, whereas an L-9000 (L-8000 actually) suits me to a "T". It is a fact that film flatness is an important issue when scanning on either machine. It is an opinion that the best way to assure flatness is between two pieces of glass (rather than pressing the film for months between books).</p>

<p>One would have to say that all artistic questions are opinion. That's <strong>my </strong>opinion, anyway ;-)</p>

<p><em>Emulsion side up (or down)?</em></p>

<p>I prefer to put the emulsion side down, on a flatbed or in a glass holder for my LS-8000. The reason is, film is more likely to cup so that the emulsion side is high in the center. Hence it is less likely to touch the glass, even in an holder, causing Newton's Rings. If it is flat, the emulsion side is less glossy than the back, which also help avoid Newton's Rings. In an high-resolution scanner, the lens focuses on the nearest side, and the thickness of the film may be enough to reduce sharpness. Some film has a matte coating on the back (e.g., Kodak Ektar) to reduce cupping and add resistance to scratching, which may reduce sharpness if the emulsion is scanned through the back.</p>

<p>The computer doesn't care if the pixels are inverted left-to-right, and there is no penalty to pay for changing that direction.</p>

<p>I generally always put the emulsion side toward the detector, which is typically down for most scanners. If you are looking at your film on a light box (or using a window as a light box) and the film's brand name in the margin reads correctly (not mirrored) then you are looking through the base toward the emulsion, which is away from you.</p>