Buying a Deardorff 8x10 and 8x10 scanning?

[scott_squires]

I have been using a 4x5 for 6 years and have decided to give 8x10 a

try. I am interested in buying a nice Deardorff 8x10 and want to know

if there is anything important that I need to know, like the year,

model etc. I do want front swing.

I also use an Epson 2450 to scan my 4x5's. It does a great job but

cannot do 8x10. Is there a flatbed scanner that can do 8x10?

Thanks

Scott Squires

http://www.scottsquires.com/

[darin_cozine]

there are full-size adapters that replace the lid of the scanner, only available for certain models. Search ebay for 'transparency adapter'.

[henry_suryo]

HI Scott, I use both equipment and have been quite happy with the results. One thing about the Deardorff is to look out for is separating bed, which is a major effort to repair. Bellows can be fairly easy to replace. All in all a fine camera. The front swing comes handy for my use. I scanned my negatives for proofs on an older Microtek scanner with a transparency adapter. The optical resolution is 600 lpi, somewhat low by today's standards, but have found that for the 8x10 negs they do quite well. Good enough for proofs and in turn used to evaluate how you want to adjust for the final print in Photoshop. Good luck, Henry.

[leonard_evens]

The Epson 1600 series scanners will do 8 x 10 and scan at 1600 ppi. There are similar scanners made by other manufacturers. But make sure what you get can handle transparencies. They all seem to cost $1000 or more. It is possible you may be satisifed with a scanner with a maximum scan resolution of 600 ppi, but in my experience, you want as much overkill in your scanner as you can afford.

 

As you already know, there doesn't appear to be any way to adapt the 2450 for larger scans except scanning in to sections and trying to stitch in a photoeditor.

[cxc]

Hi, Scott,

 

I'm just curious, why do you want to scan your 8x10s? Do you intend to do 8x10 with a (1/2) digital darkroom?

 

Personally I only scan up to 4x5 (Epson 3200), and only contact print or Polaroid the 8x10.

 

You can get a scan from the 8x10 print that is good enough for internet posting.

 

CXC

[brian_ellis3]

I use a Deardorff and scan the negatives with a Linoscan 1400 scanner. The scanner works very well now that I've replaced the bundled Newcolor 5000 software with Vuescan. The Linoscan 1400 was discontinued a year or so ago but they can be obtained used occasionally for around $500 or so.

 

With respect to buying a Deardorff, here are a few things to look for: (1) make sure there are no cracks in the bed or separation along the seams - crackling of the varnish is o.k. but cracks in the wood or separated seams aren'; (2) make sure the leather handle isn't rotting - the clamps that hold the handle in place are attached to the camera with rivets or something like that, not screws, so replacing the handle isn't easy; (3) make sure the front and rear standards extend smoothly without any binding or cutting into the wood and that the front and rear racks don't droop significantly when fully extended; and (4) extend the bellows as far as it will go, it should go the full 31 or so inches - if it's less than that then either it has shrunk over the years or is a too short replacement for the original - in either case your use of longer lenses will be restricted; then check for pinhole leaks with a flashlight in a dark room. There were no years or serial numbers that are noted as being any better than others as far as I know. However, Deardorffs tended to be used by professionals and most of them got plenty of wear. If you're buying on e bay I'd look carefully at the pictures (don't buy without pictures) and try to buy from a seller who has a return policy. I've seen quite a few on e bay that were described in the text as excellent condition but looked much worse than that when the pictures were examined closely. $1200 to $1500 should get you one in very good to excellent condition. Much more than that and you're getting into mint condition collector items.

[tim_atherton2]

For scanning you should be able to find a (used?) Umax Powerlook III for $300 or so that will do pretty good for scanning. Make sure you get the version with the transparency adapter lid. 1200ppi. Using Vuescan software.

 

I find I can do decent sized enlargments with this from 8x10 (and 4x5). If I really want to go bigger than 3 or 4 feet or so then I get a drum scan made of the neg/transparency and take it from there. Mostly I print up to about 16x20 size or around there.

[Troll]

I fail to see the point in going from 4x5 to all the complications and expense of 8x10 if you're going to scan the negatives with low resolution flatbed equipment. 8x10 contact prints, yes. 4'x5' enlargements, fine. Even drum scans, maybe. But half-assed flatbed scans -- Well, EXCUSE Me!

[tim_atherton2]

"I fail to see the point" - obviously you do Bill... :-)

(For one thing, why does everyone seem to assume anyone only ever shoots B&W in 8x10? And that contacts are the only thing to do with those? - using traditional darkroom techniques I can easily see the difference between a decent sized enlargement from a 4x5 compared to an 8x10 B&W - not just technical detail but look and feel - the fact that you need a totally different focal length to shoot the same, equivalent scene gives a different feel for one thing. My experience is you can't "just shoot it in 4x5" and get the same look)

 

As a further example Bill, I have a 30x40 test print I did from an 8x10 original - one scanned on my Umax and printed up on a lightjet and one hand printed "conventionally" by the custom lab I've used many times before who do good work. Technically, I can see no difference between them in terms of sharpness, apparent grain etc. The big difference is that in the one I scanned I was able to control the contrast, colour correction, highlight and shadow detail, saturation etc etc. In the lab print I have to trust the technician to try an interpret what I want, with a much more limited set of tools (and she is 1000 miles away so I can't stand by her side to check it). An if I know I ned to go biger, then I can get a drum-scan done

 

To do that myself I would need a very comprehensive darkroom set-up with a big buggering 8x10 enlarger, giant trays etc. Instead I can do it all from my desktop and send the file off for printing. In addition, I can run small series of 8x10 or 11x14 prints here very easily (and to high quality if I wish) to check out how a print will look, try out sequences for exhibition or articles and so on. Al very easily done. It's much easier, for example, for me to run off 11x14 prints for my architectural clients like this than have to deal with a lab and try and get exactly what I want - or having to set up my own colour dark room. And as many of them also want digital files for use in promos, magazines articles, proposals etc - that's easy to do as well.

 

I also have a B&W set-up I am very happy with too.

 

So there is plenty of reason to do it.

[cxc]

Thanks, Tim, that's interesting info. Now I know that people actually enlarge from 8x10, specifically preferring it to 4x5. Learn something every day.

 

CXC

[Jochen_S]

Scanner: Linotype-Hell "Topaz" damned expensive, at least 1800 ppi.

[steve_barth1]

I have an 8x10 Deardorff V8. I shoot B&W and color transparency films. I also have an Epson 2450 scanner. I have scanned 8x10s on my scanner. I make 3 scans per neg using a jig that I crafted out of thin cardboard. The jig ensures that the film maintains alignment with the direction that the film is moved in for the 3 scans. I then use a fairly simple stitching process in Photoshop to reassemble the 3 scans. To me, the resultant scans are indistinguishable from a single scan. With a little practice it becomes a fairly straight forward process. The prints that these files produce on my Epson 2200 printer are noticeably crisper than that of my 4X5 negatives.

[ken_lee11]

Perhaps you intend to make huge prints, in which case the 8x10 negative might be justified.

 

<p>On the other hand, let's say you scan a 4x5 at 3200 ppi on the Epson 3200, which probably delivers something closer to 2400 ppi. Printing out at 300 dpi on a good printer, you could get a very good enlargement of at least 8x. That's at least a 30 x 45 inch print. The quality will be very high. If you opt for lower quality, you can print larger still.

 

<p>On the other hand, the affordable 8x10 scanners do not match the resolution, so you may actually be limited to smaller prints.

 

<p>I have a Microtek ArtixScan 2500, which does an 8x10 up to 1250 ppi, but a 4x5 up to 2500 ppi. I doubt that one could tell the difference. Meanwhile, my 4x5 equipment and film is generally cheaper, lighter, more portable, and easier to find on the used market.

 

<p>Ken Lee

<br><a href="http://www.kenleegallery.com">www.kenleegallery.com</a>

[saulius_eidukas]

Steve, I've thought of doing such a scan technique myself. Can you please explain your process a little more? Specifically what do you mean by

"I make 3 scans per neg using a jig that I crafted out of thin cardboard. The jig ensures that the film maintains alignment with the direction that the film is moved in for the 3 scans."

What is this jig? Thanks.

[scott_squires]

I want to thank everyone for their responses. As always there are pluses and minuses with all formats. My 4x5 has and will continue to serve me well. The Epson 2450 does a great job scanning 4x5's for most of my needs. Like many 4x5 shooters the 8x10 has always been in the back of my mind. I do shoot a great deal of 4x5 Polaroid (Type 55) and the thought of 8x10's is very tempting.

I always remember looking at an 8x10 piece of Velvia on a light table in 2001 and it was truly the most beautiful thing I have ever seen.

Scott

[john_cook1]

Don't know anything about scanners. But here is a site of interest for anyone wanting to purchase a Deardorff:

 

http://deardorffcameras.0catch.com/

[lars ake vinberg]

Scott,

 

As you point out, an argument for stepping up to 8x10 is the amazing experience of looking at an 8x10 transparency on a lightboard. For me, looking at my first - and perfectly exposed! - 8x10 transparency is the strongest photographic experience I have had so far.

 

That should be weighed against:

 

- Cost of film: four times 4x5

 

- Availability of film

 

- Cost of development

 

- Cost of equipment: Camera, lenses, film holders, darkcloth, change tent, carrying case, filters, tripod, etc.

 

- Weight of equipment - don't underestimate weight of film holders!

 

- Slower, more contemplative shooting style (at least for me, both due to more cumbersome equipment and more expensive film). Not necessarily a downside, though.

 

I'm giving 8x10 a serious try this year as a hobbyist, primarily color transparencies. I am presently not worrying about scanning, my focus this year is the photography and scanners seem to get better and cheaper every year.

 

I find that it is possible - and easy - to spend as much on film and development as on thr equipment itself. I just ordered 100 sheets of Velvia and 50 sheets of E100G - that's $1158 right there, plus Swedish duty and sales tax which brings it up to about $1400, or about $10 per sheet. E-6 development adds another $3-$7 per sheet.

 

I guess that what I am trying ot say is that be prepared for the cost and other downsides. If you can afford it and can accept the slower and more cumbersome shooting style then it is worth it, otherwise not.

 

Ake