A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Large Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What Scanners are you using for LF?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 25th 05, 04:33 AM
rafe bustin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #2  
Old February 25th 05, 05:35 AM
Frank Pittel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
-------------------

  #3  
Old February 25th 05, 05:37 AM
Shelley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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



  #4  
Old February 25th 05, 06:12 AM
Frank Pittel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
-------------------

  #5  
Old February 25th 05, 01:34 PM
Jim Hemenway
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #6  
Old February 25th 05, 06:03 PM
Christopher Woodhouse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


On 25/2/05 12:34 pm, in article , "Jim
Hemenway" wrote:

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


  #7  
Old February 25th 05, 06:48 PM
rafe bustin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #8  
Old February 26th 05, 01:33 PM
Dr. Georg N.Nyman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #9  
Old February 26th 05, 04:37 PM
Christopher Woodhouse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #10  
Old February 26th 05, 04:37 PM
jjs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Scanning glass mount slides ITMA 35mm Photo Equipment 21 September 16th 04 03:41 PM
thought's on Pacific Image Film Scanners - Like the PF3650U has anyone Mike Koperskinospam 35mm Photo Equipment 7 August 9th 04 04:02 AM
Any thought's on Pacific Image Film Scanners - Like the PF3650U has anyone used it yet? Mike Koperskinospam Digital Photography 0 July 10th 04 10:40 AM
below $1000 film vs digital Mike Henley Medium Format Photography Equipment 182 June 25th 04 03:37 AM
M/F film scanners - again? Rod Medium Format Photography Equipment 17 May 31st 04 04:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.