Beginner at film scanning (4" x 5") - learning resources?

[NancyP]

So I am getting the urge to ramp down my shooting to less than 12 shots per session - AKA - let's give this B+W "film" thing a whirl again, for the first time in 30 years, this time around in the Jumbo size of 4" x 5".... In anticipation of eventually generating something that deserves better than the office grade fax/scanner/copier, I probably need to be learning about high quality scanning, software, and looking at a decent flatbed scanner accommodating a 4" x 5" negative. In my flounderings, I have encountered Epson film scanners 700, 750, now 850 that take 4" x 5" film, and have heard of "fluid mount accessory" for same scanners, supposed to give better quality, but Epson doesn't actually carry that fluid mount accessory part they mention by product number in their scanner product brochure.

Do you have any suggestions for "learning how to scan well"? Should I be asking myself if I want to be photoshopping and printing ginormous scan files on the current computer? Is Epson the only reasonable option short of eBay old drum scanners?

[SZRitter]

To my knowledge, as far as scanners go, those are basically your two options. That said, myself and others have been using our digital cameras to "dupe" the negatives with fairly good results. The workflow, at least where color print film is concerned, can be a bit slower and involve extra steps, but the end results are fairly good. If you are curious, there is an article on the homepage right now talking about two such methods. Mine is similar to the all Photoshop version with some variations that I found work better for me.

[Doug Peterson]

Even high-end institutions are moving to direct capture film scanning.

Here, for instance, is our industrial grade high-end film scanner.

[hubell]

Doug:
Apart from the digital back to use with the DT system, what are the required components for film scanning and the cost? How do the results compare with a high end drum scan?
Thanks.

[Doug Peterson]

Doug:
Apart from the digital back to use with the DT system, what are the required components for film scanning and the cost? How do the results compare with a high end drum scan?
Thanks.

We normally like for clients to make their own comparisons, but we do have comparisons to various systems. I completed one yesterday, for instance, against a Tango. We haven't lost yet except on 8x10 scanning where we'd need to go to X-Y stitching which is a great bit more tricky than one-axis stitching.

The system is very modular so it's hard to give a specific number. Some clients already have lightboxes they are happy with, or already have decent holders, or already have a copystand or studio stand and only need the lens/body/stage. Full setup can be many tens of thousands (including 80mp digital back and our DT Rcam with 120ASPH lens) while individual components can be in the hundreds. If you're interested shoot me an email at dep@digitaltransitions.com and I can send you component pricing.

It is definitely aimed at the service bureau and institutional markets where the heavy use of a film scanning system of any kind means that even in a few months of use the cost of labor is an order of magnitude more important than the cost of the equipment, even across a 6-month period. With our system it's reasonable to scan many frames per minute (anywhere from 2-40 depending on format and condition), as compared to many minutes per frame for a drum scanner. Such markets also greatly appreciate the conversation-friendly handling of the transmissive materials - nothing touches the film inside the imaging area.

I would not pitch it as a replacement for a mid-end desktop scanner for an enthusiast. I brought it up in this thread only to reinforce that the pursuit of direct-capture of film rather than traditional scanning of film is something that is not "doing it on the cheap" but a technique that is growing even at the very highest end of the film scanning market.

[SZRitter]

/Hijack

Doug, your system looks an awful lot like what I was trying to build, only much, much nicer. I would love to get my hands on it, but my photography doesn't warrant that type of system.

/end Hijack

[Chris Livsey]

http://www.epson.co.uk/gb/en/viewcon/corporatesite/products/consumables/overview/1865

Fluid mount accessory, noted for the v7XX series but is the same for the v8XX series.

Just taken delivery of one, free with the V850 in the UK but not in the box you have to ask for it.
Now I have it I will look at fluids etc, just for fun really as I have the scanner for 120 hobby stuff, for which it is amazing for the money (£610).
7XX series are only slightly cheaper at the moment and the 8XX has two sets of holders for each format included.

Posted a shot in the non-pro thread an example from the first scanning session, early in the learning curve.
If it can pull that from 6x4.5 then  4x5 will be stunning.

[NancyP]

Thanks, Chris! I wonder why the US Epson site was so deficient.  Simple and small is how I like things. My workspace is a desk and a movable wire commercial shelving unit for printers, storage, etc.

[noah a]

I think you can't go wrong with an Epson V750 or V850. I use a Howtek HR8000 drum scanner for my final scans, but I also have the Epson V750 which is extremely valuable for quick preview scans. It doesn't really compare with the drum scanner, both in terms of resolution and more importantly, in its ability to capture a wide tonal range and a really nice separation of colors and tones. But the epson is surprisingly good and it's easy to use, relatively compact and relatively cheap.

Perhaps I got lucky with a good one, but my V750 is very sharp. I've made some 24x30 inch prints from it (from 4x5) and they look quite good with careful sharpening. I get the best results by scanning at a higher resolution then downsampling in PS to around 2000-2400dpi. Most folks say this machine tops out around 2000dpi, but on my machine there is definitely a difference between scanning at 2000 and scanning higher then downsampling. The latter is better.

I use fluid mounting on my drum scanner, but honestly I've never tried it on my Epson even though I have the wet-mount kit that came with it. But in general, wet mounting helps fill in fine scratches in the film and also helps minimize dust in your scan. It's entirely worth the trouble in my opinion, and if I ever used my Epson for more than just a preview scan, I'd definitely try wet mounting.

I strongly recommend Kami mounting fluid. It evaporates fast and requires little or no cleaning of your film after you scan. You can buy it from Aztek in california.

The only other option is the Imacon/Hasselblad scanners. They do a great job, they're very sharp and you can scan in a raw (.fff) format that means you can scan your film very quickly then process the scans later like you would with a digital camera raw file. I'd say the Imacon is marginally sharper than a good Epson scanner but with perhaps better tonal range and color. The main problem with the Hassy scanners is that they pick up each and every flaw in your film, from dust spots to fine scratches.

I think the Epsons are almost a necessity if you shoot large format film and want a scanning option. If you make moderate size prints, it's probably all you'll ever need. The only reason I bother with the drum scanner is that I occasionally print very large. But most photographers I know just use the epson and then outsource drum scans when they're necessary.

Have fun!

[EricWHiss]

Even high-end institutions are moving to direct capture film scanning.

Here, for instance, is our industrial grade high-end film scanner.

Doug, what is CH doing for color negatives?   I have been messing with this for a while - I sampled the orange carrier in the films I use mostly (Kodak Portra) and inverted the color in photoshop and printed it out to a clear film which I layer over the light table to neutralize the orange.  Then I shot several color charts with different light sources and tried to make  'styles' in C1 to just apply to the negs, but it never really worked right.  I would look good on the test charts, but not so great with real images and not all were the same because well …. film may just be like that.   

 

[Pics2]

Noah, really great info. So useful, since I'm looking into film scanning options just like OP.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have a dedicated film scanner, and also have some drum scans made.

Reprophotography as suggested by Doug makes a lot of sense. The downside is that a really good and dark setup is needed.

Best regards
Erik

[Doug Peterson]

Hi,

I have a dedicated film scanner, and also have some drum scans made.

Reprophotography as suggested by Doug makes a lot of sense. The downside is that a really good and dark setup is needed.

Only sort of. It's not that the room needs to be very dark, it's that the ratio of the transmissible light to the room light must be very high. We use a very bright transmissive light to keep shutter speeds fast and allow workable dim-but-not-dark working environment. After all you can only scan hundreds of frames per hour if you can see well enough to retrieve/prep/load/unload/return the film! We also strongly gate the light to keep the operator position from being bombarded with bright light.

If naming a DIY solution with a standard grade light box as your transmissive source then I'd definitely suggest working in near complete darkness.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Velvia, that I have tested with has very high density, so what I saw that the amount of stray light needed to be minimal and that includes the light source, of course.

Best regards
Erik

Only sort of. It's not that the room needs to be very dark, it's that the ratio of the transmissible light to the room light must be very high. We use a very bright transmissive light to keep shutter speeds fast and allow workable dim-but-not-dark working environment. After all you can only scan hundreds of frames per hour if you can see well enough to retrieve/prep/load/unload/return the film! We also strongly gate the light to keep the operator position from being bombarded with bright light.

If naming a DIY solution with a standard grade light box as your transmissive source then I'd definitely suggest working in near complete darkness.

[SZRitter]

Only sort of. It's not that the room needs to be very dark, it's that the ratio of the transmissible light to the room light must be very high. We use a very bright transmissive light to keep shutter speeds fast and allow workable dim-but-not-dark working environment. After all you can only scan hundreds of frames per hour if you can see well enough to retrieve/prep/load/unload/return the film! We also strongly gate the light to keep the operator position from being bombarded with bright light.

If naming a DIY solution with a standard grade light box as your transmissive source then I'd definitely suggest working in near complete darkness.

Doug, that rig you guys made is a thing of absolute beauty.

That said, I use a fairly cheap light table, and have found that as long as you don't have too much cross light (i.e. a window) it does just fine. You don't need complete darkness, just not bright daylight. Currently, I use a tripod with the camera mounted on that pointed directly down at it. I have an Omega System 700 enlarger that I was attempting to convert to a permanent rig, but so far it has been harder than I anticipated.

As for Nancy's original question, if you aren't reproducing them into massive prints, I am sure the Epsons would be perfect. I used a 4490 (I think that is the right numbers) in college, no wet mounting, and the 4x5 negatives were gorgeous. Hard to work on (1GB tiff at full resolution), but this was also 10 years ago. Computers are much more powerful now.

[biedron1]

I have found this site to have some good information: http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/scanning.php

Hope this helps

Bob

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Here are some images:

6x7 film scanned at 3200 PPI on Minolta Dimage Scan Multi
Same image drum scanned 6000PPO
Same image photographed with a 24 MP digital camera.

The photograph with the 24 MP camera has issues with film flatness, but I think it would be workable with some care.

Warning for large images!

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/ScanOrShoot/JPEG/

Best regards
Erik

[Chris_Brown]

Do you have any suggestions for "learning how to scan well"? Should I be asking myself if I want to be photoshopping and printing ginormous scan files on the current computer? Is Epson the only reasonable option short of eBay old drum scanners?

A flat-bed scanner is a good place to start learning, but this assumes the scanner software has a decent negative-to-positive conversion. While it can be done in Photoshop, the three software drivers I've used all had decent conversion algorithms and I never has to resort to using PS for that.

If your needs will only be B&W negs and color negs, and your max enlargement will be 500% of the original, a CCD flatbed scanner will work. The DMax of negs films is typically within the limits of a CCD scanner. If you will only stick to 4x5 negs, an Imacon will also work (quality degrades with smaller film formats, especially 35mm).

If you want the most flexibility in resolution from any format and film type, a PMT drum scanner is the way to go. A lot of people whine about oil mounting and cleanup, but it is, by far, the best way to scan all types of films.

If you want info specific to scanning from people using all sorts of quality scanners, here is the place to look.

[rpsphoto]

Nancy,

You might log on to the Large Format Photography forum and look at some of the scanning thread. There are people there who know their stuff and are happy to help (there are also some jerks but ignore them.

Good luck.

[drgonzo]

We normally like for clients to make their own comparisons, but we do have comparisons to various systems. I completed one yesterday, for instance, against a Tango. We haven't lost yet except on 8x10 scanning where we'd need to go to X-Y stitching which is a great bit more tricky than one-axis stitching

I'm curious how you're comparing the DT system to drum scanners. I can see the possibility the DT system could capture the same highlight and shadow detail that a PMT scanner could. But what about printing from those captures? Do you think it's possible to make large prints from your system (for example, 40" x 50" from a 6x7 negative), with comparable quality to a print made from a drum scan?