Scanning medium format

[michael_salomon]

I shoot medium format (645 up to 6 x 7)and would like to scan them

for output. Im using an epson flatbed (I know its not the best

option)and recently have started to scan some of my medium format

slides, the problem is, they look grossly unsharp when scanned at a

high resolution. But under the loupe the slides look sharp and in

focus!, the frustrating thing is that when i scan 35mm slides or

negatives with the epson flatbed, they are sharp all the way up to

11 x 14 on my I9900 - Im thinking the loss of sharpness in the

medium format slides has to do with the epson supplied medium format

film holder?, it seems the film does not lay very flat....

any suggestions?

[tree]

I regularly scan medium format negatives and chromes on my Perfection 4870 at

resolutions from 2200dpi through 4800dpi and have been very satisfied with the

sharpness. Which scanner are you using?

[kaiyen]

I'm sure Doug Fisher will jump in here, but he sells a great film holder that lets you get an entire strip (up to 3 6x6) for scanning. If you want it to be really flat, you can even get an anti-newton glass for it. Works great for me.

 

allan

[pavelp]

Doug's holder and ANR insert are worth every penny. Much less hassle with scanning and the sharpness is little better too.

[troyammons]

I am sure the 4870 DOF varies some from scanner to scanner. Mine seems fairly generous, but mine is fuzzy too compared to a drum scan. A while back when I bought my 4870, I had a scan done at a local shop on a Nikon 8000 and they were almost identical. My mistake was assuming the the 4870 was just as sharp, but in reality it was a softish photo which just happen to max out at the 4870 top resolution, which IMO is somewhere around 35 lp/mm. The photo looks sharp under a 8X loupe.

 

I would imagine that is whats happening to you, since top 35mm lenses are a lot sharper than most medium format lenses. I have a few 35mm shots that scan a lot better on my 4870 than MF photos.

 

All that said I recently read a comment somewhere on this forum about film crawling due to heat on a flatbed so that could contribute.

 

Also IMO scanning past 2400 dpi on the 4870 just does not reveal that much more detail to make it worth the extra time and file size.

 

What kind of MF camera and film are you using.

[steve-walton]

Unfortunately, it's a fact of life that you will not obtain repro quality scans from a flatbed scanner. If it was possible, who would go to the expense of Imacon or drum-scanning? Flatbeds, even the 4870, will only produce adequate quality for web use at best because none of them, despite the claims of the manufacturers, have either the dynamic range or optical resolution to be a serious option. By "serious", I mean of repro output quality, which from the tone of your post, this is what you are looking for. You might get a result that you are reasonably happy with by using some 3rd party film insert. But in every case, that result will not compare with an Imacon or other high-end scan. If you are really serious about scan quality, there is only one option: a dedicated high-end film scanner. At the very least a Nikon or Minolta or something similar.

[david_f._stein]

My gut feeling from my own equipment and many posts is that the 2450, which was first generation, might actually be the best of the bunch. I am sorry I sold mine. I still feel that the earlier Pro Level flatbeds like the Agfa Duoscan, Powerlook III and Linocolor Saphir2 are capable of outstanding results. Not that many agree when these questions come up but I persist!

[geoffrey goldberg]

I started scanning MF 6x6 bw on the Linotype Ultra Saphir a few years ago, and got

spoiled, big league. Apart from some Newton ring issues sometimes, the scans were pretty

nice and worked well up to about 12-15" square. I had to use Genuine Fractals, but they

were pretty good images. With piezography, very nice.

 

When I decided to upgrade, I bought the Minolta Dimage 2 (SCSI - so it was v. cheap) and

was not terribly impressed. Good for slides, sort of, but no real image improvement. Really

not. And I sent it back for tuning to Minolta too! Still can't get it to work with OS X, either!

 

Tried the Imacon 343 and did find significant noticeable improvement, and bought one.

The quality out of the box is amazing, and one can scan to final prints of about 25" square

in one step. Amazing. And the lack of glass holders makes the scans so much cleaner.

 

Went to Cone workshope where they did some drum scans. They are definately better, no

doubt, but then, there is the cost of a small house involved there.

 

The Imacon isn't cheap, but I am not sure about the quality of any of the lesser scanners

these days. Many claims, but test them before buying.

 

Geoff

[edward_kimball]

I have the same problem with MF transparency film. I get much sharper images from negatives. I have no idea why they have less curl to them.

[wendy_t1]

<p>Does anyone still scan Medium format films?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Sure. Why do you ask?