Scanning 4x5 Negs

<p>I know I that scanning a negative works better than a print - but what if the negative scanner is a flatbed?</p>

<p>I have a VERY good pro-quality flatbed scanner what does prints only. If I were to buy an affordably-priced flatbed that scanned 4x5, what would the quality be like? Considering my situation, am I better off making a contact print and scanning it, or should I just scan the negs with the lower-quality scanner? I'm fine with spending a bunch of money to have a drum scan done a couple times a year, but I won't need to do that for the vast majority of my images, and I'm trying to figure out the best quality I can get without going totally bonkers.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for the help!</p>

<p>What flatbed do you currently have? You could possibly get a transparency adapter and film holders for it and do as good as with a new scanner.</p>

<p>Based on my own experiences scanning prints and negatives, even the most carefully made print won't give you as much useful information (details, especially shadow detail) scanned on a really good flatbed as you can get from a pretty mediocre transparency scanner. Especially when the scan is being run by a good scanning program like Vue Scan.</p>

<p>I used an Epson 2450 to scan 4x5 negatives for seven years. Digital prints up to 16x20 from those scans seemed fine, although a few experts might disagree. For smaller negatives, somewhat low contrast 8x10 prints were made and scanned. The low contrast preserved shadow and highlight contrast: the 2450 wasn't good at recording deep shadows in full range prints. A new Epson V700 seems even better at scanning negatives, but critical tests will have to wait a bit.</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses guys.</p>

<p>What I'm looking to do is something in the vein of Yousuf Karsh. Because I will be shooting contrasty negatives, clipped shadows (while unfortunate) aren't nearly as detrimental as if I were going Ansel Adams with this.</p>

<p>I'm currently shooting a Hasselblad, but considering a larger camera sometime in the semi-distant future. I realize I'll be spending $25-$100 to get a scan worthy of a massive print, so what I'm looking to do is figure out if my current equipment would give me a good enough scan to see how good my image is, to determine if it's worthy of an expensive scan, and possibly print an 8x10, or perhaps even an 11x14 once in a while. It appears that for non-critical applications, it just may be.</p>

<p>I'd really like to get an 8x10 camera and just contact print everything, but somehow I don't see myself buying a $1600 camera and paying $5 per negative right now. So we're rolling around the 4x5 :)</p>

<p>Thanks again for the advice all!</p>

<p>If you already have a print that looks like you want it to look, then there's absolutely nothing wrong or bad about just scanning the print. It will look exactly like the print... and it's a very easy, simple scan.</p>

<p>But if what you want to do is to scan and then do digital darkroom stuff to it, then you need to scan the negative. Personally, I think a flatbed does a good job of scanning 4x5. I did it a number of years ago, and it can't be any worse now.</p>

<p>Pierre, it probably is good enough. I'm used to scanning 120, where the resolution of a flatbed isn't enough. The 4x5 is obviously much larger.</p>

<p>And no, I won't be editing these past some basic contrast and spot-toning. Maybe a little auto-retouching on faces here and there. I generally prefer to shoot the image correctly in-camera, and I'm not going to waste several hours of my life on post-production of an image unless it's a drum scan or other extremely high-res image.</p>

<p>Scanning 4x5 with a decent flatbed like the V700, and a good holder, allows one to obtain superb 16x20 prints....and very, good 24x30 prints. 24x30 from 4x5 is like 11x14 from 120 and 5x7 from 35mm. </p>

<p>Zack, IMHO 5x4 (or larger) is about the only refuge that film and scanning has from the onslaught of digital capture. 35mm film is totally and completely trounced by the quality that digital has to offer, and medium format film is about evens when put up against direct digital capture. With MF the quality got from film is very depedant on having a very good quality scanner - read expensive - or by doing direct darkroom enlargements. Neither option is cheap since the cost of paper and chemicals is much higher for the darkroom route.</p>

<p>Using film the size of 5x4 changes everything. A modest flatbed scanner with transparency adapter will easily give a good 2400ppi scan from 5x4 film, which translates to a digital equivalent of just over 100 megapixels! Such a huge filesize is otherwise beyond the reach of anyone with less than about 25 grand to spend on a digital back. Now a modest 12 megapixel DSLR will easily print to A3 size with excellent quality, so you can see that printing to 10x8 or 11x14 from a 100 megapixel file is a total walk in the park. In fact you could scan at 1200ppi and still have more than enough pixels.</p>

<p>Personally I'd go for a Canon flatbed scanner with film adapter. I've used Epsons and don't rate them at all WRT image sharpness.</p>

<p>Dave Luttman suggests the Epson V700. I too have one and use it with for 4x5 with no complaints at all.</p>

<p>Rodeo Joe:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>35mm film is totally and completely trounced by the quality that digital has to offer, and medium format film is about evens when put up against direct digital capture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>1. It is off topic<br>

2. There are intrinsic qualities within the die and grain structures of film that are totally absent in digital capture. Period.</p>

<p>Kevin, I don't find that comment off-topic. I read it as Joe describing quality from an objective standpoint, while you are describing it subjectively.</p>

<p>I am first and foremost a film user (120) for all of my own personal work. In fact, I'm working on a book that is film only, and will remain so even if I get a D3X before it's finished. But I agree completely with Joe: if you compare what your average 35mm film user will get versus what your average digital user (with new or newish gear) will get, the digital user will have a higher-resolution image with less noise/grain. That doesn't mean it's a prettier image - that just means that according to science (and not art), the digital image wins.</p>

<p>I'm also not saying that 'art' fans only shoot film, or that you can't cite several examples where one camera/lens/film produces better images than another. Just that if you average it all out, he's right.</p>

<p><em>[A]m I better off making a contact print and scanning it?</em></p>

<p>No. A contact print will not come close to capturing all the detail in a good 4x5 film frame, even if you had some theoretical perfect scanner. Really, if you have any kind of film scanner that will handle the 4x5 film, the results of a scanning the film are very likely to far exceed the results of scanning any print on any scanner. If for whatever reason you really have to scan a print, I would try to use a print that's as close to the final print size as possible, if not bigger.</p>

 

<p>I use the flat-bed Epson V700 for sheet film. 4x5 negatives in the holder are about equal to a multi-shot Hasselblad back. A multi-scan tone map of a 4x5, done with delicacy, is beyond a dark-room print (and beyond the HB).</p>

 

<p>Your 6X6 camera and a good negative scanner should give you satisfactory results for prints to 16X20" I have been scanning negs. of 6x6, 6x9, 6x12, and 6X18 on an Epson Perfectrion 3200 scanner for several years. Newer scanners should work even better.</p>

<p>See samples of the scans at <a href="http://www.XtremeDigitalPhotography.com">www.XtremeDigitalPhotography.com</a>.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>While we are on the subject of scanners, I shoot everything. I use digital of course, but I still shoot some 35, some medium format (6x9), and 4x5. Each has it's own purpose, but film is a problem. I cannot justify an expensive scanner, but I do need to scan my film to get it onto my website, and sometimes, I need a huge print from 4x5. I looked at the Hasselblad scanners that print under the glass, and man, I would have to mortgage the house to get one! Any recommendations for a scanner that would be practical for me?</p>