Some newbie MF scanning questions

[uimike]

Hi all. Hope I am not posting in the wrong place.
I am starting to do some MF (just got a Kowa Kalloflex 6x6) - and for the moment I will send the film (mostly Bergger) out for processing - but I have been scanning older MF here on my old Epson V600, using the Epson tray, and VueScan but also Silverfast SE (the "free" edition Epson is pointing users to).

So if I can count on the collective wisdom here, there are 3 questions I have been pondering...

#1  Trays:  I do have 35mm BetterScanning trays and ANR glass, but not MF. For this I have been using the default Epson tray with OK results (after some post in Adobe Raw, Photoshop). What are your experiences with BetterScanning or other trays, and dry versus wet mount? Let's say for making B&W prints that are not that large - up to 16x20.

#2 How about the software? I love Vuescan, but found my new copy of SilverFast, in autopilot mode, to be very intuitive. For some reason I seem to be getting better results with less clicking.  Experiences anyone? And would it be worth updating to a paid SilverFast version (about $70-100) that they have been busy hawking to me?

#3 Well, why not ask - what about the v600 itself - for the print sizes (16x20 or less), would it be overkill to get a new (old) Epson v700, v750, or a series-800? - or ev en sending out to scan on an Imacon, etc?

Thanks for helping me!!

Mike (San José, California)

[cbcbell]

Mike, in 2015, Mark Segal and I spent some serious time investigating the relative performance of some scanners, including an Epson V850, a Nikon LS-8000, and an Imacon 848. That article will, I think, help you judge what can and can't be done with scanners at various levels, and it also looks at how one might use Silverfast for serious scanning on the Epson and Nikon scanners.

https://luminous-landscape.com/epson-v850-pro-scanner-context/

[uimike]

That's super useful Christopher, many thanks! Will dive into the article!

Mike

[siddhaarta]

I found this site quite interesting:

Comparison of scanners

good luck !

[uimike]

Thanks Siddhaarta,

Very useful!!

Mike

[uimike]

Christopher, I read the article - very very interesting and useful, many thanks for referring!

mike

[cbcbell]

You're most welcome. I will add that at this point in time, I think the very best film digitization is via instant capture with something like a Phase One medium format digital back, but that's neither simple, nor inexpensive (I'm currently using a Phase One IQ3 100MP Trichromatic). If you want to make large prints, sending your negatives out to a lab that uses one of the later Imacons is a reliable solution.

[uimike]

Thanks Christopher. I think I will get started this way: practice on my V600 + BetterScanning (or equiv?) tray + SilverFast Studio (the upgrade) - I have already been enjoying using SF-SE..
Then progress to a V750 or V850 for archival purposes, for the batching and jobbing capacity, and also for preliminary work, and occasional proofing for composition, cropping, tonality, and then,
Sending out (any) special negatives for outside processing. I suppose Leni is still scanning? (I'm not far from him in Santa Cruz).

The Phase One capture is very intriguing! (sure beats my Canon 6D with a Tamron 90mm macro mounted on my Kaiser RS-2 stand :-)

I want to say how much I appreciate your suggestion, and how impressed I was with the research. I do follow Mark Segal's articles here, but had not seen this paper.
So you were in Bruegge _before_ Bruges. Good taste. Moules frites and Bosch.

Best,

Mike

[design_freak]

If I can share my experience. Epson is not bad. It has a basic advantage, it is cheap, you can work alone in the comfort of your home. So you have full control over what you do and what you want to achieve. I would definitely recommend Silverfast. And everything is ok as long as you do not need really large enlargements and prints of the highest quality.
If you want to outsource scanning, choose the ones that can deliver what you want.
I would avoid Imacon / Hasselblad scanners - unless the scan service is very cheap.
Generally, high-quality services are not cheap, so why overpay for files that are quite average. If you already want to pay, pay for quality. Imacon unfortunately has a CCD that is doing quite well - but it is far from ideal when it comes to noise. Most of this equipment is also not regularly serviced, which also translates into quality. Find a good laboratory that specializes in scanning, preferably with a drum scanner. Unfortunately, this is not easy, many offer drum scanning, unfortunately most offer average quality. There are several worth recommending in the world. You are lucky to live in California - contact the guy at www.dot4dot.com Guys from Canada: https://studiomatthewbrooks.com/  From Europe: https://www.hiresscan.com


When it comes to using digitization systems based on MFDB, this is a nice solution provided that it is targeted for archival purposes. Especially where we deal with materials such as glass plates, other very old and valuable collections whose touching should be kept to a minimum. And wherever you need to archive collections in the shortest possible time.
I would not make large format gallery prints with this method.

greetings

[Doug Peterson]

When it comes to using digitization systems based on MFDB, this is a nice solution provided that it is targeted for archival purposes. Especially where we deal with materials such as glass plates, other very old and valuable collections whose touching should be kept to a minimum. And wherever you need to archive collections in the shortest possible time.
I would not make large format gallery prints with this method.

You mean because of quantity, not quality I assume? That is, because if you're scanning only a handful of frames for large-format gallery the cost of such a system is not justified.

Quality wise, the very best film scanning available is now done with our standard or XY camera-based capture systems. This method has replaced drum scanning as the benchmark for quality.

But I totally agree that for an individual user with only a few frames of film to scan per month it would be a nonsensical investment. It's much easier to justify if you have tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of frames to scan, since it's also much faster than legacy scanners.

[uimike]

DF and Doug,

Thanks for your comments!  Yes, only a few scans per month (my new 6x6 TLR Kowa Kalloflex running Bergger 400), and unlikely to be larger than 13x19 (if that).
Of course, I have a long ways to go to get even haf-decent shots and prints, so lots of experimentation. I just wanted to know what was reasonable to get started with, and everyone on this thread has been most helpful!

As for Phase One, Doug - these are a dream, of course! I even looked at some older Phase One 645 systems he he...

Cheers,

Mike

[RandB]

Since many large and ultra-large format film photographers remain wedded to their flatbed scanners, and claim satisfactory results, it would be fascinating and useful to update the Epson scanner analyses to include the Expression 12000XL-PH with touted 2400 x 4000 dpi, Micro Step Drive, and support for dimensions up to and including 12.2" x 17.2". Might prove an essential accessory to the Connestoga Wagon.