Scanning 4x5 negs

Has anyone tried using one of the small Kodak print scanners? If the

resolution is any good this would be a good option rather than buying

an expensive FB scanner.

 

Just wondering.

 

Eric

I assume you are talking about reflective scanners designed for scanning prints. Such a scanner is going to produce awful results when used for scanning negatives or transparencies. You need to scan film by transmitted light rather than by reflected light. That means having a scanner designed to do that.

I'm not really sure by your post what you're looking for, but the subject indicates 4x5 negs.<br>

I wholeheartedly recommend the Epson 2450. It's about $300 (maybe less now that its replacement is being released), and scans everything from 35mm up to 4x5. Much better with negs than slides, but for the money it's great.

Your right it is reflective, but what I was thinking of doing is take it apart and put the light source under the path of the negative so it would shine up thru it to the CCD sensors. I know it may be hairbrained, but hey it gets cold up here in Canada and the nights are long!

 

If someone who is using one of those Epson scanners could post a picture generated by scanning a 4x5 neg or tranny then I could see if that's acceptable or not.

 

I have to buy a new scanner, but the hokey systems they seem to use for negative scanning turn me off. I want to get something that will give me a better file than contact printing my 4x5 neg and scanning it on a FB scanner, but not break the bank.

 

I would rather spend hours on end in the darkroom than sitting at a computer messing around with PS, want something quick, but still provide enough quality that you can tell it's a LF image on the net.

 

To date I have been very disappointed with what I have seen on the net for image quality, except for those fortunate people that have access to a drum scanner or are rich enough to get their negs scanned that way.

 

You look at Michael A. Smith's site and the pictures look like crap. You know the originals are mind blowing, but there is no life or zip to the web versions.

The 2450 is probably the scanner you want. For $300 you can have a scanner that does great with prints and large neg's. Buy Vuescan as well and you will have a very nice, inexpensive scanning system.

 

To prep the images for the web, you have to have a good workflow from scanning to fixing dust/scratches to color adjustments to resampling to sharpening to saving as JPEG. Photoshop is king here, but you have to know how to use the tools properly. It takes a lot of work after the scanning is done.

I say yes as well to the Epson 2450. I just bought a refurb from

B&H for $299. You want to avoid the Epson software at all costs.

I'm on a Mac, and SilverFast SE ships bundled with it. But go

ahead and buy the full version of 6AI to go with it; it's quite nice

software and makes the Epson into a pretty sweet little scanner.

 

You can download trial versions of 6ai from silverfast.com, to get

a feel, but it watermarks, so don't get greedy...

 

Mark Tucker

Sounds good. But come on guys! Show me the money!! Lets see a pic you have scanned from a 4x5 neg or slide.

 

Just call me curious Eric.

Curios Eric,

I too vote for the 2450. You can see results here. http://www.auroradude.com/4x5page.html If these look like crap, it is mostly my fault for lack of experience. Also: the subject I shoot demands fast lenses shot wide open and this in itself can introduce much error even before the film hits the scanner.

These images are all scanned from 4x5 transparencies with software that came with the scanner. I have better luck with positives than negatives but again, this is mostly inexperience and I have seen better and better results as I learn the machine.

One problem I have run into is the possibility of Newton rings if the film sags too much in the holder.(You can see the effect in the image "fish-eye lens test".) I don't really like the cheapo film holders and the scanner seems very slow but the price is great for a scanner that will handle 35mm to 4x9 inch at up to 2400dpi.

The newer version is said to be 3x faster and has even higher res. but I think it is going for quite a bit more.

Regards,

Dennis A.

Wait, Eric. The Epson 3200 is about to hit the decks sometime this spring or early summer. By all acoounts it is much better than the Epson 2450, at a list price of around $600 with professional add ons like Monaco color calibration software. See it in:

http://www.epson.co.uk/sohoprod/imaging/scanner/perf3200/index.htm

I have seen scans from 4X5 on the 2450 and they were good but not quite as sharp or rich as what you get from a drum scanner. To be practical it will be difficult to match drum scanners at $600. That said, you can't judge a scanner by a web image without also knowing the technical details of the web image. Seems to me that if the original paper prints are good then the web images from film scans should also be if properly rendered. Good luck.

See

 

www.mathematics.edu/~len/photos/pages/e2450.html

 

for examples of what can be done with the Epson 2450. The negatives in this case were 6 x 7. Needless to say, it is even more impressive with 4 x 5 negatives.

I too needed a scanner that would do 4x5 since I decided that medium format nor digital was not for me. It produces good results for the price but for any images I want printed I send them out for Heidelberg Tango drum scans. Someday maybe I will be able to afford a 4x5 capable Imacon. I found the Imacon Photo to be as good as a drum scan from the Screen.<p>I have compared the Epson 2450 to the Imacon Photo and a Screen DT-S1030ai drum scanner on my <a href="http://www.painted-with-light.com/scannning.html">website.</a>

<i>"I would rather spend hours on end in the darkroom than sitting at a computer messing around with PS, want something quick, but still provide enough quality that you can tell it's a LF image on the net."</i><br><br>

Sorry, but you're never going to be able to tell from looking at an image on the web that it was shot on LF. I've got tons of scans of 35mm film that look worlds better than some people's LF scans. It all comes down to how good your editing is in PS, and of course how good the original neg is to begin with.<br><br>

<center>

This was shot on 4x5 and scanned on a 2450:<br>

<img src="http://www.grantheffernan.com/pics/sales/main/flags.jpg"><br><br>

This was shot on 35mm and scanned on a 2450:<br>

<img src="http://www.grantheffernan.com/journal/journal_images/trumpet2.jpg">

</center>

<br><br>

Other than the obvious fact that I used movements in the first example, I think it's rather impossible to detect the difference between 4x5 and anything else when presented on the web, provided the scans are of high quality, the original negs are good, and you have some idea what you're doing.<br>

You can see the rest of my work at <a href="http://www.grantheffernan.com" target="_blank">http://www.grantheffernan.com</a>.<br>

If you can point to any of it and say for sure what format it was shot on (from a quality standpoint), I'd be very surprised. The prints are of course a completely different story.

I would like to see comparisons of the epson scanner vs drum scans. I have had non-drum scans done and mostly find their quality limit there use to on-screen. None of these scans came close to the drum scans.

 

4 or 5 drum scans a year is affordable to me. Are we claiming the epson will allow for professional output eventually?

What's your estimation of professional quality? Would I put 14x14 print I did using a scan of a 4x5 neg, mounted and framed, along side a print I did in my darkroom? You bet. But you're much better off trying it yourself to decide.

Grant:

 

are you advising the epson scans compare to a drum scan? I would consider professional quality to mean worthy of sale or display as a fine print.

 

phil

Worthy of sale or display: yes.<br>

Comparable to drum scans? I have no idea, I've never had one done. <br><br>

All my printing is done in the darkroom, with the exception of my 4x5 negs, which I print as duotones after scanning with the 2450 (I don't have a 4x5 enlarger). They're very nice... the asthetic is totally different than a traditional print, but they stand on their own.

Here's some Epson 2450 scans at:

 

http://www.uwgb.edu/galta/bairds/large_format.htm

 

Of course, it is impossible to appreciate their quality in these small reproductions.

Grant: I apologize in advance. I think you need to see what a good drum scan will do, particularly in comparison to something you have already scanned! I have scans done locally by a guy who has a professional grade UMAX ($15 a scan) and they do not compare to drum scans - even the owner admits that.

I'm just starting to use 4x5 again, and this is a negative scan from a 4x5 I took in the 1980's when I was doing a lot of LF.

 

I am using an Epson 1640 with the trans adapter. That is a flatbed scanner which came before the Epson 2450, so the newer unit might be even better. I had no problem making the scan and print. The 4x5 are easy to scan.

 

I used just Adobe Photo Deluxe 4.0 on this.<div></div>

Nice pictures Tony and Grant. Well I've got a lot of really great information. I have to agree with Grant, there probably really is no way to capture the 4x5 feel from a scan. There was a guy a month or so ago that had a few images posted for critique of mountain valleys and an old grist mill that had some stunning scans done. I believe he used a drum scanner, but you could really see the difference. I would imagine he also did some extensive PS work as well.

 

Beyond getting really great advise I also accomplished something else here. I finally got some PN, LF'ers to post some pictures!! Just kidding.

 

Have a great weekend, what's left of it.

 

Eric

Grant, I just spent about a hour going thru your website. Very nice. That prison must have been really amazing. Would love to get my 4x5 in there! Abandoned farms is another one of my pet project as well. Your lucky, I have been run off some property, even though it was in total decay. I would have asked permission but couldn't figure out who owned it. Oh well.

 

Is photography your full time job? If not you sure seem to find a lot of time to put towards it.

 

Take care,

 

Eric

Eric, check out my landscapes and things folder. I used a 2450 for all the 4x5 and 120 black and white images. I have made prints from high res scans that are very nice and in my opinion sometimes equal to darkroom prints. The jpgs here are so low res you really can't appreciate the quality and detail of a real print. I use Vuescan software, which I find has enough fine tuning controls in it to get a good scan.

Am I missing something here? What is the point in posting Epson 2450 scans, or any other scans for that matter and trying to make some kind of judjement on their quality when viewing on a 72dpi monitor screen! The Epson 2450 is a fine scanner and produces results which simply cannot be appreciated by viewing on a monitor. It is superb for medium or large format work.<p><a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">www.keithlaban.co.uk</a>

Eric

 

I'll try posting up a scan from 4x5 using Canoscan D2400U - equivalent to the Epson 2450 but maybe not so well thought of.

 

It's a crop, 1/8th area of original so about 40mm x 35mm. Best viewed using Photoshop or similar to enlarge and get better idea of definition. Just to emphasise - it's only 1/8th of the 4x5!<div></div>

I think some of us posted some samples because Eric asked us to. A 72dpi is not as good as a high resolution print and a high resolution digital injet print does not have the same feel as an LF contact print or even a finely made enlargment, but at least it gives Eric an idea that it can be done.

 

Digitally, I am printing most of what I photograph, in any format, on inexpensive Academie brand ordinary watercolor paper I get from the drug store, so that tends to compromise the advantages of LF but I like the results. If I had the proper set-up at this time I would print everything in the traditional archival method as I did in the '80s when I had a full garage darkroom with running water, but inkjet is the best I can hope for right now.

 

Many of us are in that situation due to the lack of space or proper darkroom equipment.

 

Right now, I can do 4x5 contact prints but that's about all, so I bless my scanner and printer for anything larger.