Epson 4990 or dedicated film scanner

[iwong]

I am trying to decide what scanner to get, a dedicated film scanner

or a flatbed. The only flatbed will be considered is the Epson 4990,

which I think has the best quality among the flatbeds.

 

The application will be scanning mostly negative film, 95% of the

time. The reason is I shoot weddings and still many clients demand

film. I need to build up my portfolio and still keep all of my best

images without holding custody of my clients' negatives forever

(typically I release them after 1 year). In the past I either double

print (at my own cost) or ask the lab to scan them to a CD at the

time of processing. But this has proven to be wasteful since not 100%

of the images are keepers and the lab charges an arm and a leg for

high-res scanning, otherwise I'm stuck with screen-size scans only

suitable for emails or web use.

 

I've decided to scan my own because I can pick and choose which ones

to scan and scan them at 2400dpi and above. I want to be able to

print them later at 8x10" at a minimum.

 

It would seem like this is screaming dedicated film scanner here, but

given that I shoot medium format as well as 35mm, a dedicated 120/220

film scanner like the Nikon Coolscan 9000 is out of my price range

for something that's for my own use mostly. That's why the Epson 4990

is in serious consideration.

 

Please comment which one(s) I should get. Please keep in mind this is

for scanning negatives, not transparencies. If the Epson 4990 is out

of the question in terms of quality, I'm willing to delegate the

120/220 scanning to my lab still, but I'd like a long term solution.

Thanks.

[tedharris]

The Epson 4990 will do OK with MF but you are pushing it with 35mm. By OK I mean that

with some care you can get a good 8x10 print. Actually, the 4990 and similar offerings from

Microtek and Canon are only the beginning of the range of flatbeds that are capable of

scanning film. Since you mentioned cost there is no sense in discussing those that range

from 3000 to over 25000 but you might want to consider 1) the Miucrotek 1800f, which at

900, is a major leap ahead of the 4990 or 2) a used Agfascan Duo 2500 or Microtek 2500

which are excellent machines that can be had for around 200.

[custom film holders for fl]

You might compromise and look at a used 8000 if you will be needing to print many images larger than 8x10.

<p> Doug<p>

<a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mainintro.html">Dougs

MF Film Holder for batch scanning of 120/220 medium format film with flatbeds</a>

[awindsor]

From what I see in Vincent Oliver's review the 4990 will produce scans virtually indistinguishable from a dedicated film scanner on an 8x10 print even on 35mm film. If you crop significantly or further enlarge then you will get to the point where the additional detail extracted from a good film scanner is apparent. Since you will be enlarging the MF frames even less you will have even greater leeway. <p>

 

I have a dedicated 35mm film scanner and am going to pick up a flatbed for scanning 6x6. There was a nice comparison <A HREF="http://www.photo-i.co.uk/BB/viewtopic.php?t=49">posted</A> in Vincent's forum by Quentin who had a drum scanner (Howtek), an older Imacon, and a 4990. His verdict. The 4990 was better than the old Imacon but worse than the drum scanner. His verdict the 4990 was sufficient for his purposes. <P>

 

If you are really finicky it is possible to wet mount the negatives on a flatbed.

[steven_clark]

I own both an Epson Perfection 4990 and a Minolta Scan Dual III. The 4990 is capable of 8x10 from 35mm film if you do your sharpening properly, but the SDIII is much more detailed if you get close. A dedicated film ascanner like an SDII or Nikon V would give you much more room to enlarge if you're using 35mm film.

[mattb1]

Well, based on the fact that you say 8x10 prints at minimum and that you shoot MF. I would say that a dedicated film scanner is the only option. However, if your favoriate subjects do not need a lot of detail or sharpness, or you really print smaller than 8x10, then most of my comments do not apply.

 

IMO the Epsons are definitely not the best flatbed scanners. They are fine for web and smaller than 8x10 prints, and for some subjects you can do 13x19 prints from them. However, for most subjects they are pretty disappointing. They take a lot of work and IMO are NOT good for MF. My experience was that my prints from MF were no better than 35mm, which was very frustrating. I shoot MF for detail and tones, not just because its fun. My Epson flatbed makes MF look like 35mm. IMO if you must get a flatbed, look at Microtek. But remember you get what you pay for. The cheaper scanners will have cheaper lenes, film holders, and software.

 

A dedicated film scanner is a much better choice if you are going to be printing larger than 8x10 for a variety of subjects. Minolta, Polaroid and Nikon all have made fine dedicated film scanners for MF. I would suggest looking for one that had more than 3,000 ppi and ICE. The resolution being the more important factor, you can always remove dust spots in an editor but you cannot add detail. You can find good deals used. However, if you were going to send MF out to be scanned for any type of quality you would run up a large sum of money fast. Non-custom scans would not be very successful for prints larger than 8x10. Custom scans are fairly expensive, and the number of scans it would take to equal the price of a new Nikon 9000 is probably very low. For me, it would have been only 30-40 scans to equal the price of the 9000. So, I just saved for a while and bought it. The quality is also much better than I had been able to find from the local labs. My film scanner makes MF look like MF.

[nikos peri]

Easy answer: both. <p>

You're not going to be happy with a flatbed scan of a 35mm neg. You (nor I) can afford a MF film scanner. Solution is... buy both. A dedicated film scanner for 35mm (Nikon CS V for me) AND Epson for MF. Total spend, about $1000. Nikon 9000 is what, $2000? And what happens when you want to scan in your 4x5" sheet films... ;-)

[ole_hjalmar_kristensen]

I think the Epson 4990 would be adequate for 8x10 prints from medium format negatives, but you should probably invest in a better film holder for medium format. The Epson software is good, I never bother with the bundled version of Silverfast. A more expensive alternative would be to get a used professional flatbed scanner like the Screen Cezanne, which should be able to handle both. Or like others have said, buy the 4990 of Canon equivalent, and a good 35mm film scanner.

 

I have the Epson 4990 myself, and I am using it to scan an old collection of B&W and color MF negatives, but I have also put quite a bit of modern negative film through it (mostly Kodak Portra 160 & 400, Kodak UltraColor 400, Techical Pan, Fuji Superia & Reala and Ilford Pan-F ). I have compared the results to my Scanmate 5000 drum scanner, and the results are interesting. It seems to me that you have to have a pretty fine-grained film to really

exploit the better resolution of the drum scanner. On fine-grained B&W film the difference is obvious, but on film like the UC 400, the difference is not that great. The drum scanner easily renders individual dye clouds in the negative, but the image from the 4990 is sharp enough, and may actually be more pleasing because it softens the grain much the same way a drum scanner will if you use a larger aperture then the one corresponding to the distance between the samples.

[upscan]

Hi Isaac:

I fully agree with Ted Harris? recommendations on the choice of a scanner. Furthermore, if you want best results with 35 mm, a dedicated film scanner will be called for. For medium format, the Epson is a good scanner and in the price range the best of its kind but as you are doing professional work you may be able to justify a better scanner, the Microtek 1800f. (Skip the Microtek 900f, a poor cousin).

 

The Microtek 1800f is IMO in the top tier of ?affordable? scanners, a superior machine with higher dMAx, better resolution than the Epson and manually adjustable focus via software and it comes with Silverfast 6Ai. Resolution numbers can be confusing because of the inflated numbers for the Epsons for Dmax and resolution, which everybody knows are not real and I would disregard. The 1800f will cost you double the Epson or about $1000 but with it you get a superior scanner. For medium format the 1800f should do you admirably well.

 

You can furthermore upgrade the 4990 or the 1800f to scanner?s that cost many times more with Wet Mounting. After proof-scanning the regular dry-way using Doug?s MF holder for faster workflow, you can apply Wet Mounting to the keepers to obtain the best imaging possible. I would not advice you to wet mount directly to the glass in a flatbed. There are turnkey kits available that will get you running quickly with optimum results. You can find out about those in

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCANMAX/

[otto_burgess]

this was hard to call for me. i wanted to scan the last wedding shot on 6x4.5 film. after some extensive research and soul searching, i decided on the epson 4990 pro. with the pro version you get it8 test targets, monaco color calebration software for scanner and printer, and silverfast ai 6 scanner software. the hardware may be *good* but the software needs to be the best. the extra cost of the pro version is worth it for the it8 targets and calebration software, let alone the scanner software which is the best if you have time to use it. however, after that i ended up getting the pro version of monaco optix monitor calebration too. i found the silverfast software too difficult to learn quickly, and ended up getting vuescan, which i hightly recommend. i may never learn silverfast. after scanning more than 120 negs, i can tell you that i am very impressed with the epson 4990 when using vuescan software. post scan edit was done with photoimpact. i have printed several 8x10's and even a few 11x14's on my epson 1280, and they look great. what have i learned. scan the full frame 6x4.5 neg at 2400 dpi and 24 bit. use the vuescan software to calebrate for film base color. only make one pass, plus the long exposure pass. it seems like the more passes, the more fringing you get around *white* objects. don't bother with ice unless you really need to, use post edit. ice does remove detail. i was eventually able to scan six frames at a time. i did some 35mm slide scans, and got really good results with 3200 dpi / 42 bit.

[oleg_novikov]

I find that the realistic maximum resolution of the Epson 4990 is 1200dpi. Beyond that the scanner does not extract any real detail and is ridiculously slow. See my <a href="http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/epson4990/epson4990.shtml">comprehensive tests</a>. I would go for a dedicated film scanner - paying a bit more might turn out to be a cheaper option in the long run.