|
|
What Scanners are you using for LF?
What scanners are folks using for 4x5 film? Would love to hear what folks are using, how it works for them, and what scanners you all lust after. I'm doing "reasonably well" with a Microtek/Artixscan 2500. The sharpness and resolution are adequate, but there's no dICE, and an annoying problem with banding in dense areas of negatives. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
I have to admit to being new to scanning negatives
but I am getting good results from the Epson 4870. While it has digital ICE it doesn't work with B&W so it does me no good. rafe bustin wrote: : What scanners are folks using for 4x5 film? : Would love to hear what folks are using, : how it works for them, and what scanners : you all lust after. : I'm doing "reasonably well" with a : Microtek/Artixscan 2500. The sharpness : and resolution are adequate, but there's : no dICE, and an annoying problem with : banding in dense areas of negatives. : rafe b. : http://www.terrapinphoto.com -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
I use a Linscan 1400. It's a flatbed scanner discontinued shortly after I
bought itabout three years ago. I had a lot of problems with it at first and it never has been as reliable as it should be but with a lot of help from Linoscan when I first bought it (now unfortunately not available as Linoscan got out of the consumer scanner market a couple years ago), and a change in software from the bundled Newcolor 5000 to Vuescan, it now works most of the time. It does an excellent job when it works, I have no complaints on that score. It's only 1200 ppi max which makes it problematical for anything smaller than 4x5 but I think the claimed 1200 is pretty close to the actual and I do 4x5 almost exclusively these days so it's fine for me. I'll keep it until it breaks or until Imacon reduces their pro scanner prices drastically. "rafe bustin" wrote in message ... What scanners are folks using for 4x5 film? Would love to hear what folks are using, how it works for them, and what scanners you all lust after. I'm doing "reasonably well" with a Microtek/Artixscan 2500. The sharpness and resolution are adequate, but there's no dICE, and an annoying problem with banding in dense areas of negatives. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
Shelley wrote:
: I use a Linscan 1400. It's a flatbed scanner discontinued shortly after I : bought itabout three years ago. I had a lot of problems with it at first and : it never has been as reliable as it should be but with a lot of help from : Linoscan when I first bought it (now unfortunately not available as Linoscan : got out of the consumer scanner market a couple years ago), and a change in : software from the bundled Newcolor 5000 to Vuescan, it now works most of the : time. It does an excellent job when it works, I have no complaints on that : score. It's only 1200 ppi max which makes it problematical for anything : smaller than 4x5 but I think the claimed 1200 is pretty close to the actual : and I do 4x5 almost exclusively these days so it's fine for me. I'll keep it : until it breaks or until Imacon reduces their pro scanner prices : drastically. The price of the Imacon scanners are going to have to come WAAAAY down before I consider getting one. : "rafe bustin" wrote in message : ... : : What scanners are folks using for 4x5 film? : : Would love to hear what folks are using, : how it works for them, and what scanners : you all lust after. : : I'm doing "reasonably well" with a : Microtek/Artixscan 2500. The sharpness : and resolution are adequate, but there's : no dICE, and an annoying problem with : banding in dense areas of negatives. : : : rafe b. : http://www.terrapinphoto.com -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
I use an old, long in the tooth Epson Expression 836XL for my 11x14
chromes. It's an 11x17 flatbed with the transparency top. It scans at 800 spi which works well for printing the chromes as 11x14 "contacts". I think that I could probably print twice as large, but my printer is only 13x19. It looses detail in dark shadow areas so I try to shoot high key photos rather than low key. I use a Leafscan for 4x5 and smaller film. It's old and very slow, but does as good a job as the Imacon. Jim rafe bustin wrote: What scanners are folks using for 4x5 film? Would love to hear what folks are using, how it works for them, and what scanners you all lust after. I'm doing "reasonably well" with a Microtek/Artixscan 2500. The sharpness and resolution are adequate, but there's no dICE, and an annoying problem with banding in dense areas of negatives. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:03:02 +0000, Christopher Woodhouse
wrote: After a few false starts with 4870's and Microtek i900's I'm using the Epson F3200. I'm getting excellent quality for 6x6 negatives at 16" square and would obviously expect even better still with the larger negative. The scanning software plays a big part. Vuescan does mono best, the Epson seems to make effortless work of colour negatives and Silverfast seems best for Slides. Not quite the most minimalist approach! I worked out for critical resolution I would need 5lp/mm on the print, which equates to 330dpi ( a lot of integral calculus). The F3200 has an effective resolution of 2500dpi which is sufficient for MF negs and comfortable for 4x5. I'm also working on the basis that you don't examine a 20x16 from 12 inches off your nose. I'm sure I can do better, but unlikely with a consumer flatbed. Chris Woodhouse ARPS Chris, are you saying that the F3200 delivers more effective detail (or resolution) than the 4870? That would be interesting. The 4870, in my estimation, is delivering about half its rated resolution. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
Hi,
I am using an Epson 4870 with pretty good results and shall switch over most likely to the new 4990 once its out. If you are interested, see my review at http://www.gnyman.com and look for the scanner comparison page. Rgds George rafe bustin wrote: What scanners are folks using for 4x5 film? Would love to hear what folks are using, how it works for them, and what scanners you all lust after. I'm doing "reasonably well" with a Microtek/Artixscan 2500. The sharpness and resolution are adequate, but there's no dICE, and an annoying problem with banding in dense areas of negatives. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
After doing an APX 25 BW negative resolution test, in which it fared similar
to the 4870, I tested it with MF colour negatives. The scans were certainly marginally higher resolution than the 4870 and the images were sharper too. The size and speed of the F3200, and the possibility of buying a refurb one at a discount clinched the deal. The F3200 has much better resolution than the CNET touted Microtek i900, which was ranked above the 4870. The 4870 was giving the equivalent of a perfect 2800 dpi at best, but could be worse, depending upon film bow. The F3200 was consistently delivering 2500 dpi. It had less colour fringing and was considerably faster. My Expression Pro only delivered about 900dpi. In various reviews I have seen 4870's on a par, or slightly worse than a F3200. I think the one I borrowed was particularly well aligned. The other thing I like about the F3200 is the f3200 is the ability to scan 6x12 negatives. Also, unlike big flatbeds, there does not seem to be a sweet spot, so more consistent scans seem to be more likely. In all of this, it is quite obvious that results vary between similar models, depending upon manufacturing tolerances. There is a review of the F3200 on Photo-I, but IMHO it is flawed. The main comparison is done with mounted slides and then the author admits to there being a problem later on and demonstrates a significant better resolution with unmounted slides. I told me in a private email that if he had re-done the first part of the review it would have been clearly better. However he was of the opinion that he just tested it as it came to him. Slide mounts vary in thickness, so it seems that the F3200 has a shallow depth of field. Regards Chris Woodhouse MEng. ARPS Darkroom resources and products www.ktphotonics.co.uk On 25/2/05 5:48 pm, in article , "rafe bustin" wrote: On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:03:02 +0000, Christopher Woodhouse wrote: After a few false starts with 4870's and Microtek i900's I'm using the Epson F3200. I'm getting excellent quality for 6x6 negatives at 16" square and would obviously expect even better still with the larger negative. The scanning software plays a big part. Vuescan does mono best, the Epson seems to make effortless work of colour negatives and Silverfast seems best for Slides. Not quite the most minimalist approach! I worked out for critical resolution I would need 5lp/mm on the print, which equates to 330dpi ( a lot of integral calculus). The F3200 has an effective resolution of 2500dpi which is sufficient for MF negs and comfortable for 4x5. I'm also working on the basis that you don't examine a 20x16 from 12 inches off your nose. I'm sure I can do better, but unlikely with a consumer flatbed. Chris Woodhouse ARPS Chris, are you saying that the F3200 delivers more effective detail (or resolution) than the 4870? That would be interesting. The 4870, in my estimation, is delivering about half its rated resolution. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
"Dr. Georg N.Nyman" wrote in message
... Hi, I am using an Epson 4870 with pretty good results and shall switch over most likely to the new 4990 once its out. If you are interested, see my review at http://www.gnyman.com and look for the scanner comparison page. Specifically: http://www.gnyman.com/Personal/Epson...Canon9900F.htm |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com