Large Format Users - How do you have your transparencies scanned?

[hugh_sakols]

I'm curious how E6 Large Format uses scan their transparencies. Do

you all have drum scans made at $80.00 or more a scan? Unlike the

35mm and medium format I don't know of any desk top scanners that

would come close to say an imacon drum scan. I am really interested

in working with large format but would only be able to afford two or

three scans a year on a Tango Drum. What do you do to make quality

prints? Is Large Format only a rich persons activity??

[jerry2]

Hugh, for starters you can get drum scans done less than $80... try infinite editions.com. One of the benefits of LF film is the fact you do not have to enlarge it as much vs. smaller formats, which enables you to use lower cost scanners. You did not mention what enlargement factor you are looking for. Nor did you mention the size fim you are trying to scan. Assuming you are shooting 4x5 and the enlargements you desire are not more than 5x, you can use a low price flat bed tranny scanner, or a film scanner. 1600 dpi scanners are not terribly expensive... in the $300 price range. The only major differences with drum scans is film grain, film scratches (eliminated by wet mounting) that show through.... and if the film has a lots of information burried in shadow detail, the lower end scanners can not grab all the shadow detail as vs, a drum scanner ...but all this can be overcome other ways.... for example, scan twice, once for the highlights and once for the shadows then blend the two in PS. As for grain and scratches, all this can be corrected in PS also... so don't think there is only one way to skin a cat. I owned a drum scanner for years and I could produce the same scans with cheaper scanners by utilizing good digital knowledge and tools.

 

However, beware...just because a scanner claims 1600 dpi, it does not neccessarily mean this is true. There is no policing of this industry, so makers tend to exaggerate. So I would try to read some of the web reviews of the scanners you would consider and see if anyone has run some resolution tests. The new Canon F9900 (don't hold me to the model number) is suppose to scan 3200 dpi in both directions, if so, this is a good scanner to look at. I think US retail is about $300 - $400. Hoope this helps...

[dick roadnight cotswolds]

I would be prepared to spend real money on a 10 x 8 4,000 ppi scanner that I could use for a whole 35mm or 120 film, 4 617s, 2 54s etc. - does anyone make one?

[jerry2]

Dick, not sure what you mean by whole 35mm? Entire roll?

You did not mention a budget.... there is many scanners that meet this criteria.....

[hugh_sakols]

Anyone have experience with a Leafscan 45 scanner?

[alex_batchinski1]

I used to scan my 4x5 transparancies with newlab.com (drum scanner as far as I remember). The quality is excellent but it costed too much. Then I found some labs who make scans with Imacon 848 and it's alot cheaper. The quality is slightly less than with drum scanners but more than enough. And besides that I do scans with Imacon 646 in Moscow (Russia) occasionally. It costs me there 10$ for 300+Mb file + cost of CD-R disk (plus 750$ for tickets, of course :))

[lars ake vinberg]

At the moment, 8x10 trannies go on the light table, to be snapped by a 4 MP digicam... Yes, I know, but it's better than nothing!

[blueviews]

4x5 transparencies go on the Epson 3200 with "good enough" results.

Bill

[douglas_finlayson]

Hugh,

 

I'm working on the same problem right now. Here are my conclusions... as of 2:30pm Sunday. The Epson 3200 seems to be a favorite, but, as noted, it won't scan a negative larger than 4x5. The Microtek 1800f is supposed to be pretty good and it can handle larger negatives / transparencies.

 

Yesterday, I read a post from an experienced photographer with good equipment who had done the comparison and found that a dedicated 35mm negative scanner couldn't match a flatbed scan of a medium format negative. A 4x5 negative should be that much better. Then, for that once or twice a year shot, yes, get a drum scan.

 

Doug

[john_hoang1]

I am new to LF, shooting 4x5. I've learned to shoot 2 frames for each scene. Here is what I am thinking: cut the second tranparency in halves then scan them with my 4000 dpi medium format film scanner, then stitch them up in PS. I have not done it yet, just thinking... What are your opinions?

[kelly_flanigan1]

The Epson 2450/3200 flatbeds will scan a negative or tray up to about 4x9" . One must make some homemade holders; and have the prescan adjust slot at the start; like the stock holders. One must consider the giant file sizes that a "home" flatbed; or a labs drum scan can produce. These giant files can choke many computers; who dont have enough ram. A 4x5 RGB file at 2400 ppi is about 300 megs roughly. We use 2gigs of ram; in order to have two 4x5 images open at once.

[oskar_ojala]

I shoot 9x12 cm (maybe 4x5" in the future, minor difference) and use my Epson 3200. At 1800 dpi it's pretty decent. It's enough for me since my printing budget won't allow for those several-square-meter Lambda/Lightjet prints anyway (and I'm kind of attracted to sub-16x20" prints)

[ian_greant]

1) Use an Epson 3200 (or something like it) <br>

2) Invest some time into learning how to be a good scanner operator. <p>

 

First transparency scans I made with my 3200 and I was ready to take it back and not even bother with digital imaging. They were *that* bad! FFWD a few months and my scans are starting to look like what I see on the light table. Maybe in another 3 - 6 months I'll even be a competent scanner ;) <p>

See pg 46 of July/Aug View Camera Magazine for comparison between Tango Drum scan, Epson 3200 and Polaroid. <p>

Cheers,

[scott_walton2]

There is really no need for the expensive drum scan these days but... (I put

the but in tere as a disclaimer so don't flame me for this statement!). We have

two imacons and they work great. Excellent quality and large optical dpi's

when we need them. They are very fast for large scans, well compared to the

Leaf we have as a backup. The Leaf45 works very well but it it very slow... 1-

1.5minutes per color (RGB) for a 4x5 image output @300dpi... VERY slow.

They are nice for a non deadline oriented setup and can be bought at some

auction houses for several hundred dollars (US). Save your money and try to

pick one up but you do need a dedicated SCSI port on your computer.

[greg_prior]

I use a UMAX PowerLook 3000. It scans 8.5x11 at 1200 dpi, and 3.4x11 at 3048 dpi (optical). It scans both transparencies/negatives and reflective. So if I'm looking to blow up a 4x5 to 30x40 or more, I scan a 'cropped' 4x5 (3.4x5) at 3048, or do two scans and 'stitch'. Haven't had to stitch yet though. Up to 24x30 I use 1200 dpi. I print at 200 dpi on a Colorspan Giclee drum printer.

 

HTH - Greg

 

www.ElegantEditions.com