This is looking like my only option so...

[mark]

I MUST shoot panoramas. It is the way I see and I am getting way frustrated with the expense of trying to move up with a traditional camera. I am dead set on making negatives for traditional contact prints. What I would like from you folks is some help on figuring what I need.

I shoot 5x7 and 4x5. I have split darkslides for both so can shoot 2.5x7 and 2x5. I need a scanner that will give me a file good enough to enlarge to 5x12 maximum.

Honestly I do not know where to begin. I do not need a high end scanner just one I can scan negatives on (I can build a film holder) and make enlargements up to 5x14.

As a babe in the woods, so to speak, I will need lots of guidance.

[sanking]

I MUST shoot panoramas. It is the way I see and I am getting way frustrated with the expense of trying to move up with a traditional camera. I am dead set on making negatives for traditional contact prints. What I would like from you folks is some help on figuring what I need.

I shoot 5x7 and 4x5. I have split darkslides for both so can shoot 2.5x7 and 2x5. I need a scanner that will give me a file good enough to enlarge to 5x12 maximum.

Honestly I do not know where to begin. I do not need a high end scanner just one I can scan negatives on (I can build a film holder) and make enlargements up to 5x14.

As a babe in the woods, so to speak, I will need lots of guidance.

The Epson 4970, which is not a particulary high end scanner, will allow you to scan 2.5 X 7" and 2 X 4" sections of your negatives and print with very high quality up to 5X14" each. In fact, you should be able to print with high quality to quite a bit larger than that, easily up to about 10 X 28".

There are some other low end scanners that will likely perform about as well as the 4970, but this is the one I use and and feel qualified to comment about.

Sandy

[Jeremy]

For scanning that size panorama I would recommend an Epson 2450 or 3200. I have a 2450 and it does wonders, but I bought mine refurbished straight from Epson for $199. This is the route I was going to recommend, but they no longer off that particular model. If you want to be able to scan your 5x7 negatives then I would recommend the new Epson 4970, as the Epson 3200 will only scan up to 4x5 (but will do the 2.5"x7" panoramas--it has a 4" wide transparancy area). There are also other options from Microtek and Acer, but these can be very expensive or require a SCSI card if you don't have one. There are a number of older scanners that will scan up to 8x10 negatives, but you just need to buy a SCSI card to use them. You can pick up these scanners on ebay for ~$100-150. Any of the above mentioned will give you more than enough digital info to make 5x12" digital negatives.

Along the digital negative line, since you say you a fledgling the best thing you can do for yourself is to buy a copy of Mark Nelson's book from www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com

edit: to qualify this, I have an Epson 2450, I have used a 3200, and assume the 4970 would be a step in the right direction. I have also used an old Acer Scanwit and I use the Microtek i900 at school to scan my 5x7 negatives

[donbga]

I MUST shoot panoramas. It is the way I see and I am getting way frustrated with the expense of trying to move up with a traditional camera. I am dead set on making negatives for traditional contact prints. What I would like from you folks is some help on figuring what I need.

I shoot 5x7 and 4x5. I have split darkslides for both so can shoot 2.5x7 and 2x5. I need a scanner that will give me a file good enough to enlarge to 5x12 maximum.

Honestly I do not know where to begin. I do not need a high end scanner just one I can scan negatives on (I can build a film holder) and make enlargements up to 5x14.

As a babe in the woods, so to speak, I will need lots of guidance.

Mark,

I would like to suggest a different scanner than the Epson that should suit your purposes, the Agfa DuoScan.

I've done side by side comparisons with the DuoScan and the Epson 2450 and 3200. The DuoScan ,IMO provides optically superior results with less noise and similar dynamic range as these two Epson scanners. The DuoScan provides 12 bit scans saves in a 16 bit word and the tonal gradation appears as good as the Epsons. For the magnification ranges you are seeking the DuoScan is the better value. You may wish to consider the Agfa 1200 or 2000 as they are quite similar.

The really nice thing that I favor about this scanner is it's ability to scan the entire negative area which includes negatives sizes up to and a little larger than 8x10 inches.

The Agfa scanners can usually be purchased used for less than $200. It does require a SCSI card but in my mind that is no big deal. And BTW the Epson 2450 is a really slow scanner.

My 2 cents,

Don Bryant

[mark]

I forgot to mention that I have a Mac G3 running OS 10 something. I am pretty much limited to USB or firewire capable scanners

I am way new at this. I scan and print my color stuff on a 3200 that I borrow time on, but this is easy-feels like I am cheating. I assume digital negs are a bit harder than scanning and printing from color transparencies right?.

[donbga]

I assume digital negs are a bit harder than scanning and printing from color transparencies right?.

IMO, yes the process is more involved than making inkjet prints, although making high quality B&W or color inkjet prints is a lot more work than people seem to think.

Don Bryant

[mark]

although making high quality color inkjet prints is a lot more work than people seem to think.

Don Bryant

I have a hard time agreeing with this as it is not my experience at all. But color work seems to come very natural to me. I have yet to see a "quality BW inkjet print though" I have seen a few attempts. That last statement is truely my opinion and is meaningless to the conversation, so I'll move on.

I want to look at equipment purches before I invest 60 dollars in a book that I may never use depending on the cost of required purchases. If this starts to add up to near the cost of a 5x12 then I will go with the camera. I really do not like the computers.

[donbga]

I have a hard time agreeing with this as it is not my experience at all. But color work seems to come very natural to me.

I have very good color accuity and worked in professional photofinishing for many years in the 70's with all of the major commercial color processes that were available at the time.

The process of making a high quality color inkjet print requires a whole different skill set beyond just using a PIM plugin. The process and end product is different from traditional color printing.

I have yet to see a "quality BW inkjet print though" I have seen a few attempts. That last statement is truely my opinion and is meaningless to the conversation, so I'll move on.

Then you've not been exposed to one then. A well done B&W inkjet print can be indistinguishable from a traditional B&W under certain viewing conditions.

Additionally digital tweaks can provide controls simply not available with traditional printing methods. Having said that I still prefer prints on gelatin silver fiber papers thus my strong interest in hybrid digital methods.

I really do not like the computers.

If that is really your feeling then don't bother getting involved in digital workflow and hybrid processes. A fair amount computer time will be required and the learning curve may be steeper for you if you have a resistive attitude to the technology.

I don't intend to sound blunt or provocative, rather I would like to give you a realistic appraisal of the process.

Good luck whatever your decision may be, and BTW, I lust after a 5x12 too!

Don Bryant

[WarEaglemtn]

Why fart around with the digital stuff at all? Get an older 7x17, 8x20 or 12x20 camera & shoot film. Or get a circuit camera.

In the long run it will be less expensive than the pixelography path.

[sanking]

Why fart around with the digital stuff at all? Get an older 7x17, 8x20 or 12x20 camera & shoot film. Or get a circuit camera.

In the long run it will be less expensive than the pixelography path.

I work with both medium format, 5X7 and ULF. In most situations my preference would be to make a negative with the largest camera possible. However, the practical reality is that there are some scenes you can easily photography with a medium format, 4X5 or 5X7 that would be difficult or impossible to photograh with a ULF. Travel by air is also very difficult with ULF equipment.

As for image quality, a print from a 7X17 or 12X20 camera is unique, but the quality of prints from well done scans of a 4X5 or 5X7 negative, limiting reproduction to 2X - 4X, can compare very favorably to ULF. In fact, if you are printing in a medium such as Pt./Pd. where the limiting factor to sharpness and image quality is usually paper texture rather than negative sharpness I would go so far as to suggest that you might actually be able to make in some cases a better print from a digital scan of a 4X5 or 5X7 negative than from an original ULF in-camera negative, if you limit reproduction to the 2X - 4X range mentioned above.

Further, I don't agree with you about long range costs. Have you looked carefully at the current cost of ULF cameras and equipment? A 11X14 Seneca just sold on ebay for around $2000, and nothing new in 11X14 or larger can be had for less than about $3500.

I make and sell film holders for ULF cameras so my preference would be for everyone to get involved in this type of photography. But don't do so because you think you are going to save some money by avoiding the digital route of scanning and pixelating beause it ain't gonna happen.

Sandy