Neither Backs nor Drum Scans...

[alanmcf]

I have been facinated by this and recent articles comparing 4x5 drum scans to digital backs. Being an amateur that will rarely afford either... I would love it if that "intentionally left blank" spot in Managing Megabytes was filled with an Epson 4990 or a V700 scan of the 4x5 transparency.

In liew of that, just some comments from you folk on your experience with 4x5 Epson scans vs drum scans would be appreciated. I am quite excited about using this "volkswagen" path, which includes paying for an occasional 9600/9800 prints.

A little extra pandering to us poor folk who want to make big beautiful prints would be appreciated .

Thanks, Alan

[Dmitry Reznitsky]

...
filled with an Epson 4990 or a V700 scan of the 4x5 transparency.
...
A little extra pandering to us poor folk who want to make big beautiful prints would be appreciated .

Colleague,
  neither 4990, nor V700, nor even Imacon 'pseudo-drum' scanners provide the quality of drums. This is a fact. Treat this fact just like axiomatic. Plastic lense with a piece of class in between media and lense... that's awfull.

  If you really want to make large prints out of 4x5 film, just use darkroom printing. That would be much better, then those 4990 & Co.

[Quentin]

Colleague,
  neither 4990, nor V700, nor even Imacon 'pseudo-drum' scanners provide the quality of drums. This is a fact. Treat this fact just like axiomatic. Plastic lense with a piece of class in between media and lense... that's awfull.

  If you really want to make large prints out of 4x5 film, just use darkroom printing. That would be much better, then those 4990 & Co.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=65886\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Its more complex than that.  I own a drum scanner and an Epson 4990. Of course the drum scanner is superior, but with care you can get quite close with the 4990 - close enough for great results in 24x36" prints, for example.  The newer 750 is currently being tested by Vincent Oliver on the www.photo-i.co.uk site, where a while back I did a drum v 4990 comparison.

Quentin

[Stephen Best]

In liew of that, just some comments from you folk on your experience with 4x5 Epson scans vs drum scans would be appreciated. I am quite excited about using this "volkswagen" path, which includes paying for an occasional 9600/9800 prints.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There's a brief write-up of flatbed options in View Camera magazine for May/June:

[a href=\"http://www.viewcamera.com/]http://www.viewcamera.com/[/url]

An online follow-up on the V700 is promised soon (for subscribers only).

Basically, this article says current consumer flatbeds are good for prints up to 11"x14".

At this price they may be worthwhile getting to see what potential is in your neg/tranny then sending out for a quality scan. But a 24"x30" is only a 6X enlargement from 4x5 so maybe a good loupe would suffice. It depends on your quality demands, volume and access to someone who can give you good "raw" scans at a reasonable price.

[BernardLanguillier]

This article

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/lf-appeal.shtml

Contains some info about my comparisons between an Imacon Precision III and an Epson F3200.

Regards,
Bernard

[alanmcf]

Michael, you posted "But curiously, less than 200 people have bothered to purchase the available disk containing raw files." I for one would buy the disk if you included a 645 or 4x5 scan with an Epson V700 (though I will renew and probably get the disk anyway). Maybe 200 is the number of people considering buying a 39 meg back . I really think this comparison should get some attention!

Thank you all for the responses and links.

Alan