MF scanner suggestion

[shoebox]

Hi,

 

I'm looking into buying a second-handed scanner to scan MF film. Do you have any good

suggestion? I don't know much about the price of a MF scanner. My budget is about

$300-500.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Jeff

[sw12dz]

Hi Jeff,

 

I've got an Epson Perfection 4870 photo scanner that I'm quite happy with and from reading other threads it seems to be a very popular MF scanner. I paid around $500 new about a year ago, so it should fall into your price range. I believe it's been replaced with the 4990, so you may still be able to find a new one at a great price.

 

Stu

[ken_kuzenski]

It's a few years older but you may be able to find them cheaply; I've had an Epson 2450 for several years and am pretty pleased with it. I may not be the most critical user but I've got some 16x20 B&W prints from 6x6 negs, with scans running around 50mb, and they look just gorgeous to me. FWIW. :-) The prints aren't quite as striking as good FB traditional prints, but I doubt I'll ever go back to a wet darkroom--just too much time and bother. :-/

[shoebox]

Thanks all for your replies. I searched on the auction site. Are the Epson 4870 and 2450 a

flatbed scanner? How do you scan negative with a flatbed scanner?

[Vaidas]

Epson 4870 and 2450 are flatbed scanners as others Pesfection series clones, actually I'm using 3200 and Silverfast SE software. Quite happy in results with BW film. I'm scanning them as positive (not sharpening) and reversing (and sharpening, levels, etc) with PS. Color negative scanning is more tricky.

[bob_cook]

Jeff - just noticed there is a Minolta Dimage scanner for sale in the classifieds for $390. I don't have hands-on experience, but it has always gotten good reviews.

[custom film holders for fl]

You might be able to find one of the used older Minolta dedicated film scanners in the upper end of that price range. I forget the model designation (Minolta's are very confusing in my opinion) but I think it may be the Multi Scan (?) and about three generations back from the current Minolta dedicated film scanner for medium format film. Hopefully, someone here will be able to give you the exact model name or you might search the archives here and in the Digital Darkroom forum.

<p>

Film scanning on a flatbed is possible with varying degrees of success if the flatbed has a second light source in the lid (like some Canons and Epsons) or a drawer system (like some Agfas and Microteks). The film is suspended in the area between the scanner lens and the light source so that the film is illuminated for scanning.

<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>

[david_henderson]

I'm always kind of puzzled by the questions and answers on this issue, because so rarely do those seeking or giving advice relate it to the purpose of the scan. Surely if the reason for scanning is to get things up on the web or your computer or some small guide prints made then a flatbed may well be ok with medium format. If you want to make large prints of exemplary quality for hanging or for sale then you're going to need a film scanner, aren't you? The issue with scanners is fitness for purpose, not quality in the abstract sense.

[michael_ferron1]

I don't know David. I have a 2450 and have made some very nice prints up to 11x14 from 645 and 6x7 film. Sure a dedicated film scanner will do better but he's looking the $300-500 range right? From what I've read and understand the 4880 and 4900 will capture little or no extra detail over the older models but do scan cleaner and faster with a bit better dynamic range.

[david_henderson]

Michael- I do understand your point but I might respond that the poster isn't guaranteed to get what he wants for a budget he happens to set (and if so then the best advice this group can offer might be to indicate that), and also, as Doug Fisher points out, there might be a way of getting a film scanner within that budget anyhow. Fact is that we don't know what he wants the scans for and its very difficult to know that advice we may be able to give is appropriate. Lets use an example- if Jeff wants to make 18" sq prints from 6x6 Velvia originals to hang or exhibit, then I suspect most people won't suggest a flatbed not only because of pixel count but also because of the effect of a restricted dmax on what is a very contrasty film. On the other hand if what he wants is to build a web-site then a decent flatbed is likely to be pretty much ideal.

[William Kahn]

I'd look for a Microtek ArtixScan 1800f. It's a combination flatbed and film scanner, using a drawer and film holders of various sizes. It's excellent for 6X6 and larger, pretty useless for 35mm. At the same time, I would avoid the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi II for MF work. It sandwiches the negative in a glass holder which adds dust problems and, sometimes, newton rings to the image. It is, however, excellent for 35mm work.

 

I've just described my setup, and have only one thing to add: Whichever you choose, invest in Lasersoft's Silverfast AI6 scanner software, which is superior to just about anything else out there....

[Ed_Ingold]

The quality of scan you get from 6x6 on an Epson 2450 is comparable to that of 35mm from a Nikon film scanner - if you apply liberal amounts of USM sharpening. It is not as sharp as the image you would get from a 6 MP DSLR. You may be satisfied with a flatbed, as long as you never use anything better. 11x14 is hardly a challenge - it's hard to see the difference between a DSLR, 35mm and mf at that size, even with high-quality scans.

 

Been there, done that. To me, the cost of a medium format system is not justified in terms of the quality of output unless you have a dedicated film scanner. I eventually bought a Nikon LS-8000 when they went on sale prior to introduction of the LS-9000.

 

A flatbed is an inexpensive way to digitize mf film until you decide where you want your money to go. The Epson 2450 has good resolution, color and speed for multipurpose scanning, so it's not wasted whichever you decide - hold or fold.

 

The next tough question is whether to keep $xxxx worth of mf gear or put the money into a 12+ MP DSLR.

[david_lew1]

For $250, the Epson 4490 is an option.

[alec_kennedy]

For your budget I recommend the Epson Perfection 4870, (or even possibly the later 4990). I bought the 4870 new about 18 months ago for $440 US, so they should be available less than that on eBay, (or even new, having been replaced by the 4990). I am using it to scan 645 MF color negs. Initially some problems with color rendition until I discovered the optional Silverfast SE scanning software, in the same software package with the scanner. Silverfast allows you to nominate the brand and type of color neg film that you are scanning. I am perfectly happy with the results, and have no plans to replace it, even with the later 4990. I recommend you read this review for a critical assessment.<p> http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204870/page_1.htm .<p> See also his later review of the 4990, just search his index.

[gabre_kemp]

Have a look at the HP Scanjet 4890. It's a new product from HP and yields really great scans. Not too expensive either. Some examples of the scans can be found in this thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DXO7

[derek_stanton2]

Epson 4990. But, i paid more than $250 for mine.

[mattb1]

I would not recommend an Epson flatbed scanner. They just take too much time to get an "acceptable" scan if you hold it far enough a way. Aggressive USM is no way treat a good image. However, from looking at the photos on your site I would suggest ditching MF and scanner route for future shooting. $300 to 500 can get you a decent digital that will allow you to spend time taking photos and sharing them. You seem to be more into the journalistic side of photography, and I think a decent digital would allow you to experiment more and be more productive. A flatbed scanner would slow you to a comparative crawl.

 

So unless you have a large library of MF film you want to digitize I would say go digital. If you have a large library of film look at an older Minolta film scanner.

 

Btw I love my new FujiFilm F10.

[michael_ferron1]

Matt after viewing your beautiful 645 landscapes I'm very surprised that you would suggest someone could match those shots with a cheap digital camera. A D2x or 1Ds2 might but a $300 P&S??

[tvih]

My scans of 6x6 film with an Epson 2450 aren't really satisfactory. Even at 50% the 2400dpi scans seem quite soft and lacking detail, among other things. A well-scanned 6x6 should be better than my 8mp Canon EOS 20D, but with my scanner I don't really get anything comparable.

[tvih]

Although I guess I should mention that I only paid 70e for the 2450 a bit over a year ago for a second-hand unit.

[xato]

When using the Epson 2450, I find that I could use a whole lot of unsharp mask as if there was no inherent sharpening at all done to the raw scan. 50% images look pretty good then. (I have since bought an 8000ED and am pretty happy with it.)

[arie07]

From what I have read in this forum and elsewere I am starting to find that a flatbed scanners for MF will serve the purpose of having the images put on the web or make not very large prints.

Have been thinking that buying a $500 scanner that does not allow to make at least 12"x18" very good quality prints does not make a lot sense. It will be better to shoot 35mm and have a HP S20 scanner that you can buy in ebay for $100 or so. If you shoot MF, possibly buy a canon flatbed with a 60mm film adapter for $150, with decent scans to publish on the web and to have proofs.

If you wish to make larger prints, you always can take your film to a professional scanning service and pay $10 to get a good file that you can work on in PS and print up to 40" wide beautiful prints.

If you make money from selling your prints you can even have your film worked on a drum scanner and blow the images to a much larger file.

Any ideas?

[ilkka_nissila]

I can't really recommend an Epson flatbed for film scanning. It can occasionally do the job but 6 MP digital gives better sharpness than 6x7 slide scanned with my Epson 4990. I'm currently in an intermediate stage where I make proofs with the Epson and have the real scans made by labs.

 

I feel that I will eventually get a Nikon LS-9000 to do it properly but right now I don't have the money for that.

 

I also feel that if all you can get is an Epson flatbed, there is little or no point in using medium format equipment. You should be able to get a used Nikon 8000 and a glass carrier for 1-1.5k. Don't buy trash, buy the real thing - otherwise you diminish the practical value of your MF cameras and lenses.

 

The resale value of MF equipment is virtually zero anyway.

[arie07]

I am dying of curiosity where can I get MF equipment this cheap!!

If $300+ dollars for a battered Bronica ETR on e bay is zero I guess Ilkka Nissila is making a lot of money!!