What Scanners are you using for LF?

I use the epson 3200, sometimes with silverfast, although it crashes
on really large scans, and sometimes with the epson software. I've
tried scanning my 45's both in the carrier and on the glass, no
difference that I can see. The resolution is certainly sufficient for
printing 12 x 15 prints on my epson 2200, so it's good for proofing.
but for best results there's still nothing like a drum scan.

Georg, thanks for your excellent website; I have bookmarked it.

jack

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 05:33:14 -0700, "Dr. Georg N.Nyman"
wrote:

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

In article ,
metchikabool wrote:

I use the epson 3200, sometimes with silverfast, although it crashes
on really large scans,

You either need more ram or a reinstallation of the current and
appropriate driver.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article ,
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

Rafe,

I would be very surprised if you do any better than your Artixscan 2500
unless you go to a dedicated film scanner. That's one of Microtek's
high-end scanners (assuming we're talking about the 2500"f") with
impressive specs. I'm currently using the Artixscan 1800f with
satisfactory results. I don't need ICE, and unless you're scanning a lot
of old scratched films (or torn prints), I'm not quite sure why people
think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. I always clean my film
before I scan it and the minor spotting I have to do is probably faster
than waiting for the extra scan time using ICE. My 1800f has very good
dynamic range and I'm puzzled by your banding problem. Do you have the
same problem with positives? Have you tried multiple scans?

Claude

I just bought my first large format scanner, the Canon 9950F. It does not
have Digital ICE but does have a dust off feature that seems to work fairly
well. I've used ICE on my Nikon scanner and have found that I get better
results the old fashioned way - cloning - and the same holds true for the
Canon. Anyway, the 9950F has been doing an amazing job with my Velvia
chromes. The color accuracy is amazing and the dynamic range is just barely
enough to capture subtle shadow details. I basically scan flat with no
scanner sharpening and little to no color adjustment. I've never used a
scanner that did such an incredible job with color accuracy. The Epson 4870
seems to have similar specs and probably the same guts. I've made severval
13X19 inch prints and the detail is simply amazing. I have no doubt that I
could easily go to a 30X40 inch print size with no problem. I did have some
problems with Newton Rings on some scans. It seems this is a common issue
with flatbeds. The heat from the lamp dring the scan apparently causes the
film to buckle toward the galss. I added some layers of tape to raise the
carrier slightly off the glass which seems to not only have solved that
problem, but also improved the detail a bit.

--
Message posted via http://www.photokb.com

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 02:59:13 GMT, Claude DiBugnara
wrote:

In article ,
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

Rafe,

I would be very surprised if you do any better than your Artixscan 2500
unless you go to a dedicated film scanner. That's one of Microtek's
high-end scanners (assuming we're talking about the 2500"f") with
impressive specs. I'm currently using the Artixscan 1800f with
satisfactory results. I don't need ICE, and unless you're scanning a lot
of old scratched films (or torn prints), I'm not quite sure why people
think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. I always clean my film
before I scan it and the minor spotting I have to do is probably faster
than waiting for the extra scan time using ICE. My 1800f has very good
dynamic range and I'm puzzled by your banding problem. Do you have the
same problem with positives? Have you tried multiple scans?


It's the ArtixScan 2500, but not the "F" model --
the interface is SCSI.

I got this thing from Zones about a year ago,
maybe it was a closeout -- brand new for exactly $1K.
That was a terrific deal, but sometimes I wonder
if or how much better this thing is than an Epson
4870. It's a very old design.

As I've said, I'm reasonably content with its
sharpness and resolution, but the banding is
really giving me headaches.

The banding is invisible in areas of fine detail --
if it shows up at all, it's in large near-monochrome
areas, like clear blue sky. It doesn't show up
on screen unless you look *very* carefully, but
it does show up in large prints.

As I do most of my MF scanning with a machine
that has dICE, I've gotten a bit spoiled. I find
even on "squeaky clean" negatives fresh from the
lab, theres usually a good deal of cleanup to do.

Occasionally I see low-end drum scanners for
cheap on eBay and wonder if I should try (again.)



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

In article ,
"stephen zimic via PhotoKB.com" wrote:

I just bought my first large format scanner, the Canon 9950F. It does not
have Digital ICE but does have a dust off feature that seems to work fairly
well. I've used ICE on my Nikon scanner and have found that I get better
results the old fashioned way - cloning - and the same holds true for the
Canon. Anyway, the 9950F has been doing an amazing job with my Velvia
chromes. The color accuracy is amazing and the dynamic range is just barely
enough to capture subtle shadow details. I basically scan flat with no
scanner sharpening and little to no color adjustment. I've never used a
scanner that did such an incredible job with color accuracy. The Epson 4870
seems to have similar specs and probably the same guts. I've made severval
13X19 inch prints and the detail is simply amazing. I have no doubt that I
could easily go to a 30X40 inch print size with no problem. I did have some
problems with Newton Rings on some scans. It seems this is a common issue
with flatbeds. The heat from the lamp dring the scan apparently causes the
film to buckle toward the galss. I added some layers of tape to raise the
carrier slightly off the glass which seems to not only have solved that
problem, but also improved the detail a bit.

If your getting Newton rings try flipping the film and scanning from the
other side then reverse the image in PS. Its more than likely the smooth
side of the film is contacting the glass.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Did you drive the Canon with Vuescan? I agree about the Canon software, but
with the current version of Vuescan the 9950 does very well.

Ed
"jjs" wrote in message
...
"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

Did you drive the Canon with Vuescan? I agree about the Canon software, but
with the current version of Vuescan the 9950 does very well.

Ed
"jjs" wrote in message
...
"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

I have a Nikon LS4500AF film scanner that does very well. Lots of
choices for the scanning. I do some scans for a studio here. They like
the most detail so the scans are typically 200MB or larger. I took a
look at their prints and will never sell the 4500.

The 4500 is SCSI interface. Scans take about 20 minutes but I can do
other things while it is scanning. The 4X5 carrier is glass. Plain or
AN.

Bob AZ

On 2 Mar 2005 21:06:23 -0800, "Ace" wrote:

I have a Nikon LS4500AF film scanner that does very well. Lots of
choices for the scanning. I do some scans for a studio here. They like
the most detail so the scans are typically 200MB or larger. I took a
look at their prints and will never sell the 4500.

The 4500 is SCSI interface. Scans take about 20 minutes but I can do
other things while it is scanning. The 4X5 carrier is glass. Plain or
AN.

Bob AZ


Hello, Bob...

I'm interested in that scanner.. (not buying yours,
but maybe if one shows up on eBay.)

200MB isn't that large for a scan of 4x5.

Wondering if it, too is ultimately a Microtek design.
Do you know the optical resolution? Any way you could
post or email me a small "sample" of a scan (partial
image but at full scan resolution?). Thanks.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com