Scanning MF chromes

[lanemeyer16]

Has anyone here used an Epson 4990 to scan MF Chromes? What I'm concerned with

are mainly print results from the scans. I'm talking gallery worthy prints.

Prints you can matt/frame and hang in a gallery. How big can you make the scan?

If you could please link some examples of scans you made I would appreciate it.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Gallery prints? I'd either buy a Nikon Coolscan 9000 or pay for drum scans.

[lanemeyer16]

I checked that system out. It seems to be a 35mm scanner. I posted this question in the MF forum for a reason. I shoot MF chromes and LF chromes for a reason. I ask that anyone else that responds please respond to the question w/pics to back up what your saying. Thanks

[lanemeyer16]

Ahh I see it is actually MF scanner, but I posted about the 4990 for a reason. Thanks again!

[nicholas_rab1]

"Has anyone here used an Epson 4990 to scan MF Chromes?"

 

Yes

 

"Prints you can matt/frame and hang in a gallery. "

 

Sure

 

Are they up to the standards I would want to hang in a gallery?

 

No

 

It's a fine scanner for small prints. I drum scan when I need a gallery quality print, and use the epson for everything else.

[lee hamiel]

Brent:

 

I've heard nothing but praise for the Coolscan 9000 & a lot of wavering opinions with the Epson 4990 depending on user experience & films used.

 

However - the new Epson scanners to be released or are released are to be watched - not sure of model #'s but 700 & 750 come to mind.

 

Good Luck

[sandeep_singh_brar]

See the test of the Epson v700 and v750 at:

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/index.html

 

For critical stuff better to stick to a used Coolscan 8000 or a new Coolscan 9000.

[ilkka_nissila]

The 4990 I had wasn't good enough to use for 6x7 scans. I mean you could, but would not want to.

[lanemeyer16]

Ok the nikon coolscan 9000. Good results?

[berg_na]

The 4990 is more than fine for MF if you understand some of the basics of scanning. At 2400 dpi, the size of a 6 x 6 scan is about 5200 x 5200 pixels which yields 20 x 20 prints of excellent quality. The newer V700 should be even better. I posted a sample of a scan from the 4990 in an old thread (<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00G6cT" target=blank>link</a>).

[custom film holders for fl]

Here is another site with some comparisons:

<p>

<a href="http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/">Comparisons</a>

<p> Doug<p>

<a href="http://www.betterscanning.com">New film holder designs for Epson, Agfa and Microtek</a>

[frank_bunnik]

I use an Epson 4490. The largest prints I have had made from 6x6 slides I scanned with it have an image size of about 60x40 cm. They look excellent. Usually I have prints made with an image size of about 30x30 cm and these look terrific. I used them at several exhibitions and I never had any complaints about image- or printquality.

[rich815]

I get gorgeous scans from my 4990 with my 6x6 and 6x9 negs. I print mostly 10x10 inches, but have printed up to about 13x13, and get very nice prints, many of which I have sold. With good scanning technique and proper post-scanning and pre-printing workflow you can indeed get wonderful results using the 4990. Might want to consider the newer Epsons too, as mentioned above however, as I've seen some very impressive reviews and am considering upgrading myself.

[zenzanon]

Don't bother with the flatbeds. No way at all. The V700, V750, whatever. Forget those things.

 

IF you're shooting chromes, you're going to want the DMAX of a dedicated scanner on dense frames. And the difference between a dedicated scanner (or a drum scanner) and any flatbed is huge. I dare anyone to a duel : your V700 or V750 against my KM Multi Pro.

 

Of you're putting things up in a gallery, really, I'd get traditional prints from someone who knows how to get the most from the negs - but if you want to do it at home, by an Epson R2400 and a Nikon 9000ED. Or a Konica Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro.

 

Go here (my site) to see a comparison of bunches of scanners. Note the format, media, and scanner in the table - and beware that each crop is a link to a full frame (but not full size) image. Don't want to be reloading THIS page!

 

http://www.shutterflower.com/scanner%20comparison.htm

 

look and see

[zenzanon]

I used to scan on flatbeds. The Epson 3170, I know, nothing close to the 4990 . . . .but then I have an Epson 4870 on my scanner comparison, and it doesn't even come close to any of the dedicateds.

 

Trouble with flatbeds is that they are invariably soft on chromes, they lack the DMAX to handle dense chromes, they have lower true optical resolution than their ratings. . . .just see the site. The evidence is right there.

[theokeijzers]

Using the 4870, I've made some 50x70cm prints, they look pretty convincing for me. Off course a film scanner will give even better results, but I think you have to get close on the picture to see the difference.

 

With chromes, the Epson software does not work, cannot use all of the negative (or am I missing something?) Vuescan does a good job with this.

Here's an example of a chrome scan (not the best picture ever, just to give you an idea): http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3985114-lg.jpg

 

About the size, try the maximum, scanned in tiff it gives huge files. Succes with it.

[lanemeyer16]

Just to help clarify further. I will only be scanning 35mm and 120 chromes. I won't be scanning any b/w film. I have a good system with my darkroom for b/w so I'm not interested in scanning those negatives. I've read posts that say with proper scanning you can achieve almost the same quality of a dedicated film scanner with a flatbed.

[custom film holders for fl]

>>With chromes, the Epson software does not work, cannot use all of the negative (or am I missing something?) <<

<p>

Are you possible relying on the scanner software to autocrop? If so, it is often fooled. You need to manually manually crop. To do this, go into Professional mode, click on the small arrow to the right of Preview, choose Normal, re-preview, now manually draw your marquee. You can draw multiple marquees that each have their own "exposure" settings and then scan them all at once as a batch scan.

<p> Doug<p>

<a href="http://www.betterscanning.com">New film holder designs for Epson, Agfa and Microtek</a>

[jtk]

If you're a skilled inkjet printer you adjust the print's Dmax, just as you would with paper/development when starting with a flat film in a wet darkroom.

 

Print Dmax is the limiting factor, not scanner Dmax.

[theokeijzers]

Doug, thanks a bunch!

[pete_andrews10]

I have a Canoscan 9950F, which I put head-to-head against an Epson 4870. The Epson had the pants beaten off it.

 

However, having said that, would I use the 9950, or any other flatbed for professional gallery prints? Nope! And that's why I keep a proper darkroom running for "real" prints. Turnaround time per print is a lot quicker than the scanning and digital printing route too.

 

Incidentally, the Dmax argument is pretty bogus IMHO. There ain't a film out there that has a Dmax of 4. Most reversal film has a Dmax of around 3.6, and that's with perfect processing and no camera flare taken into account. In short, the average slide will scan just fine on a modern 16 bit flatbed or CCD filmscanner, just a little bit fuzzily, that's all.

[lanemeyer16]

Like I said, please don't post unless you provide links or examples.

[rich815]

<i>"Like I said, please don't post unless you provide links or examples."</i><p>You're going to make decision on which scanner to use for gallery work based on JPEG compressed examples online?

[Ed_Ingold]

Brent,

 

You seem to be looking for some reassurance that a 4990 will do well enough for "gallery" prints. From the endless stream of testimonials "loving" the 4990, it is obvious none have any experience with a Nikon scanner. On the other hand, nearly everybody with a Nikon MF scanner (myself included) started with a flatbed. I'm underwhelmed at the thought of a 30x30cm print (10x10 inches) in a gallery. I guess I think of something on the order of 20x24 inches. Then again, the traveling Ansel Adams exhibit featured some 4x5 inch contact prints. For 30x30cm, you could do as well using a slide copy attachment on a DSLR.

 

With that in mind, go ahead and get the 4990. See for yourself. You will only be out $500 or so, and will have a perfectly serviceable print scanner in the end.

[kelly_flanigan1]

One must remember that 15 years ago a drum scan of a 4x5 trany was many times only 600 lines per inch in the feed direction, and folks spent alot of money for scans. Our first pro flatbed was a 300 dpi device, the 600 and 1200 units cost more than a Hasselblad kit each. With the 1200 unit; we farmed out less drum scan work. Our one Epson 2450 units is sharper than other sister 2450 model, our old 1200 dpi pro that cost 2+ grand, and now folks piss, bitch and complain that flatbeds are crap, and they cost little. Flatbeds for pros a decade ago were suppose to have peaked at 1200 dpi, which is really a decent claim. What is happened is today flatbeds are mostly marketed to amateurs, thus the inflated BS numbers and claims, to feed amateurs longings for "big numbers" Having done several thousand of paid jobs with flatbeds for pros, debunking them is a sign of an amateur. They dont pull out the whole cigar for resolution, and are acceptable for many applications, even billboards and giant posters. Today a flatbed costs about nothing compared to yesteryear. <BR><BR>Flatbeds give a softer, truncated response to resolution compared to a high end drum scan or direct scan, or a Nikon 9000 film scanner. Here is a Epson 2450 scan of a 6x7 chrome; full "frame" and crops:<BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/epson6x7cm/tripods-505.jpg"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/epson6x7cm/tripods-506.jpg"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/epson6x7cm/tripods-507.jpg"><BR><BR>With a 4x5" original; the "sins" of the flatbeds lack of high resolution get tempered by the raw shear film area:<BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/epson4x5/tripods-467.jpg"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/epson4x5/tripods-468.jpg"><BR><BR><BR>HERE is a 6x6 cm scan of an old tri-x negative, scanned with the obsolete 2450 Epson. :<BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/kowa%206/tripods-489.jpg"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/kowa%206/tripods-490.jpg"><BR><BR>Here is a scan of a MF 6x6cm tri-x negative; with the super duper obsolete epson 1200U 1200 dpi flatbed at <b>600dpi</b>:<BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/biker/tripods-498.jpg"><BR><BR>Here is a 35mm negative from a Konica Auto s2; tri-x scanned with the old epson 2450 scanner; at 2400 dpi. :<BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/teletach/tripods-244.jpg"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/teletach/tripods-189.jpg"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/teletach/tripods-190.jpg"><BR><BR>