Scanner for MF

[eric_brody]

Finally, finally, at the end of this seemingly endless thread, you are getting some decent advice. Flatbeds, unless you have a Creo, are essentially useless for 35mm film, and inferior to the Nikon 9000 for MF film. The only reason people use them for 4x5 and larger film is that there are no "reasonably priced," eg under $2-3k super high quality scanners for LF film. The Imacon/Hasselblad scanners are good but costly, the high end flatbeds such as the Creo are also expensive.

 

I shoot small format digital, and medium and LF film and use a Nikon 9000 for the MF film, and a Microtek 1800f for 4x5. Since I do not print larger than 16x20 and mostly 11x14 (who has the wall space for these huge prints and how many images are that good anyway?), I get what I believe to be results comparable to my best darkroom efforts and am a 40 year darkroom veteran.

 

I question the wisdom of your decision to switch to 35mm film vs a 5D, but it's your money and your hobby. The larger formats will, with requisite skills on the scanner, a decent but not overwhelming learning curve, will give better quality than a 5D. Take your time, focus, pun intended, on the basics of image making.

 

Good luck.

 

Eric

[david_henderson]

"Finally, finally, at the end of this seemingly endless thread, you are getting some decent advice."

 

It seems to me that the vast majority of the contributors to this thread have been saying pretty much exactly the same thing from the outset. Why do you seemingly disagree? For once no-one's really promoted the cause of flatbeds as a better or even "good enough" option. If the OP is reading the thread carefully he should be in no doubt that a flatbed won't give the best scans for MF; that he needs to use a film scanner (at least) to get the most out of MF otherwise he won't see a meaningful advantage over his ex 5D; and that there are options to buy his own or use someone else's film scanner depending on his volume needs. I've clearly missed the Eureka moment.

[frankz]

I use an Epson 4990. Its capabilities include 35mm up to 8X10, either negative or transparency.

[mjferron]

I'm going against the crowd on the quality of the V700 scans. A Velvia 35mm scan from my new V700 actually extracted a bit more detail than my Minolta scan dual 4 did. Color looked better too. A 10x7 print from from a 35mm B&W negative is just as sharp and detailed as from the Minolta. I replaced my old 2450 with the v700 and am quite happy with the results and improvements. The 2450 never did a good job with 35mm. Can't wait to scan some B&W's from my new MF. A few scans of some old MF negs showed definite detail improvement over the old 2450. I see folks trashing the I-photo review. I guess some can't stand the thought of a flatbed performing that well. LOL

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here is 35mm scan with an epson 2450. A scan with a real film scanner like my canon FS7210 or FS4000; or Nikon unit just shows more detail in the Argus's knurled wind knob; in the matrix exposure meter; in the shutter speed numbers. This is just a scan with the stock epson 35mm holder and with the stock epson scan software. Getting a 35mm scan with a flatbed is real easy; it just doesnt pull out the high frequency info in the a negative. This is just a simple tri-x negative developed in d-76 shot about 1969. With our Epson 3200 and 4800dpi units; they scan no better; just BS info and bigger files. iun<BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/teletach/tripods-244.jpg?t=1201551047"><BR><BR> <img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/teletach/tripods-189.jpg?t=1201551120"><BR><BR> <img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/teletach/tripods-190.jpg?t=1201551144"><BR><BR>

[kparratt]

With this sort of business: "You can get MF scans from a Nikon 9000 from India for under a dollar." it's no wonder the US economy is on the brink. You folk ought to be keeping every penny at home and be as industrious as possible.

 

Suggestions of buying an Imacon are useless to 99.9% of hobby photographers.

 

The Epson V700 John Golden mentions is one of the best deals around, and will permit wet scans with the right kit. There are plenty of recent threads about this, including links to in-depth studies. Still learning to drive mine, I haven't yet got around to printing from the scans. My work is mostly for the web just now, but also some images for commercial printing (book content, catalogues etc) I'm scanning mostly 6x6 and with pleasing results.

 

That said, Kelly Flanigan's advice is worth printing and binding.

 

Cheers, Kevin

[kparratt]

A deviation - but couldn't resist it.

 

To Kelly: Seeing that improvised lens setup in your test image reminded me of this: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EnmW

 

But John has actually constructed a tele lens, utilizing an Elpro.

 

Kevin.

[Lou_Meluso]

Hello all: I know I will not change any minds here but I can relay some personal experiences. I use an Imacon 848, Nikon CS 4000ED and an Epson V750 at work. As far as bang-for-the-buck, the Epson is hard to beat. I bought it mainly as a reflective flatbed to replace our aging Microtek 1800f, but discovered the quailty of the transparency scans were excellent in 35mm, medium and large format. You must dial in the holder height and they need more sharpening in post but, when you do, the scans are surprisingly good. Now do they match the Imacon, our workhorse? In a word, no. But not by much! One of my staff is a serious landscape shooter and he did a head to head. The Imacon scan was sharper and had better shadow and highlight detail. But not a lot! And that was a dry scan! The Epson costs $750, the Imacon cost $17,000. When we scanned 35mm slides on the Epson and compared them to the (early model)Nikon Coolscan 4000ED. The Epson scans (after processing) looked as good if not better! You could have knocked me over with a feather. I had always poo-pooed desktop flatbeds for film. No longer. Sure, if you're well heeled or you make your living from your scans, by all means get the best scanner you can afford, but for those looking to scan multi-format film with a sub $1,000 budget, this little Epson is hard to beat.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Kevin; thats a cool link. The telephoto rig is one I built for an Argus A2 35mm camera. Its the idea out of Sam Browns 1950's/1960's Bookletes written for Edmund Salvage/Scientific. It has an edmund war surplus acromat as the objective; and my 1" 1 1/4 telescope evepieces. The film plane is replaced for testing with wax paper. One adjusts the camera towards and away to get the best illumination on the wax paper. Focus is by the draw tube adjustment of the eyepiece. Later I got a 35mm slr; an Exakta VX and used the 189mm F4.5 Achromat directly on the slr; a RADICALLY easier method than the afocal method.

[kparratt]

Kelly, I'm in Norway, and John Goodman of the Elpro tele lens on Visoflex 1 (PLOOT) housing is in Melbourne, Austalia. He's offline with a crashed computer at the moment, but somehow I'll get him to see your post. I once set up a rougher version using a Zeiss 1m Proxar mounted infront of a Hasselblad. I used an extension bellows between the two for focussing. Strongly filtered, it worked with B&W, but was otherwise all about colour fringing. Good fun though.