How to scan 4x5?

[Ted Harris]

Going back to the question of your intent, a 'consumer' flatbed scanner in the price range of 500 USD to 2000 USD will give you all the output you need if you are scanning a 4x5 or larger negative for an eventual print that will be 8x10 or 11x14 or even 16x20 (depending). Once you crop the original or need a larger print then you will need to go beyond the capabilities of these scanners and send your work out to a lab to be scanned.

One mor ething, beware of the claims of consumer scanners regarding both resolution and Dmax. Figure they deliver around 2/3 the advertised resolution and around 60% of the advertised Dmax. Imacon and drum scanner claims are less inflated but still not necessarily what they claim.

[jd callow]

One more thing, beware of the claims of consumer scanners regarding both resolution and Dmax. Figure they deliver around 2/3 the advertised resolution and around 60% of the advertised Dmax. Imacon and drum scanner claims are less inflated but still not necessarily what they claim.

Also very true. I would add that sharpenss of scanners which do not scan through glass and especially those that control the flateness of the scan (such as the imacon and drums) are generally very noticiably sharper.

[chuck94022]

For personal use (not museum or commercial quality results) I've been using a Canon 9950F flatbed scanner with pretty good results. All the images in my gallery were scanned using that scanner. The latest one, Big Sur Stream, was a reflective scan of an 8x10 Cibachrome print. The others were scans of negatives or positives.

This latest Canon scanner is cheap (well, compared to an Imacon - I got mine for <$300) and does very well with large format negatives. It does shoot through glass, and I do occasionally get newton rings. Generally when that happens I scan again and the problem goes away. It was designed as a photo scanner, and includes holders for 35mm roll film, 2.25 roll film, 4x5 sheet, mounted 35mm slides, and individual 2.25 (6 x arbitrary) images.

I've also been happy with its 35mm scans. Better than I expected. My photo, Yin and Yang, was from a 35mm Velvia slide.

Generally, you won't need to scan a 4x5 above 1200 dpi, though the Canon will scan it at 4000 dpi. But that file size is not useful for anything other than billboard sized prints. For viewing on the screen, you can scan at much much lower resolutions.

The provided software with the Canon is not the greatest. I use VueScan, which is a much more functional scanning solution that you can download (there is a free trial version, which watermarks the scans. You have to pay for the full version, but it isn't very expensive).

The provided software for the Canon is very useful for quick scans for creating proof sheets, working with snapshot quality material, and for handling your non-photo related scanning (general document copying, etc.)

Sorry if this has turned into a Canon review. But for the price of just a few drum scans, you can own one and get a lot of day-to-day mileage. Once you find an image that is worth an expensive drum scan, you can always take that one slide to the professional scanner. (Or just slip it into your trusty enlarger and make a REAL print! :-)

-chuck

[steve simmons]

In the May/June issue of View Camera we willhave an article on scanning lf ngatives.


steve simmons

[chuck94022]

Oh, I should mention one more very important part of the equation if you are going to do your own scanning: color management.

This is a substantial discussion, and I won't try to cover it all here. There is plenty of info on the web about it.

But you must profile (color manage) your monitor and scanner if you want to scan photos. Ideally, you will also profile your printer, though this is not nearly as important as the monitor and scanner.

You need to purchase software to do this. Packages will include a device that is placed over the monitor to read the light coming from the screen. The software will walk you through making adjustments until the monitor is set properly. Then a software file will be created to tell image editing programs (like photoshop) how to tweak the pixels of the image so that it looks correct on your monitor.

For the scanner, you will be provided a variety of scan targets (slides on various films, like Velvia, Provia, etc.) which are scanned on your scanner and then compared by the software to the values that should have been produced. The software will then create a data file that tells your system how to tweak scan results automatically to have the correct color.

I highly recommend Profile Mechanic from Digital Light and Color (www.dl-c.com). I have no connection with them other than as a user of their product.

Of course, I also highly recommend a darkroom and an enlarger to get the most enjoyment out of photography!

-chuck

[jd callow]

Some (myself included) would not put much emphasis on profiling your scanner (calibrating and assuring focus -- yes), but monitor calibration is a must.

[kswatapug]

I'd be happy to send a pdf of some tests I've done comparing the Epson 4870, Nikon 8000 and TANGO from a tight crop on a 35mm Velvia chrome. In fact, I am printing the files at the moment for my class this weekend. Shoot me an email if you're interested.

[snaggs]

Thanks all, seems like a cheap scanner for proofing is the go, with analog prints for the keepers. Im joining a camera club which has some LF members and a darkroom. Maybe theyll do color too. For some reason I always thought color enlarging was really hard and never thought to do it myself.

One last question, Im not sure I understand the rules correctly for posting, since this post was moved to the "gray forum" ?? I didn't mean to polute apug.. is basically anything digital not to be discussed in any of the forums here?

Are there any other large format forums one can recommend?

daniel.

[L Gebhardt]

For some reason I always thought color enlarging was really hard and never thought to do it myself.

Your post today prompted me to try color printing from negatives (I have done Ilfochrome before) tonight. I had shot some Kodak 100UC last summer and never had the negs printed because I thought it would be very difficult. I used the Kodak Supra Endura at the box filtration and the prints came out perfectly color balanced. I was amazed. I will try dodging and burning and try to make a final print soon. So no, it isn't as hard as we all make it out to be before we try it.

One last question, Im not sure I understand the rules correctly for posting, since this post was moved to the "gray forum" ?? I didn't mean to polute apug.. is basically anything digital not to be discussed in any of the forums here?

Are there any other large format forums one can recommend?

daniel.

Sorry if I was a bit brisk earlier. Many people here get upset reading anything about digital, including scanning. I think there is a page that describes the rules. But, it is safe to post this sort of question to this gray area subforum. You can ask to be subscribed and you will see all the posts here in the new posts list. There is dedicated large format forum at http://www.largeformatphotography.info/ which is very good. There are lots of threads over there on scanning, inkjet printing as well as largeformat cameras.

Even though I am interested in, and use digital methods quite a bit, I fully support the digital ban for APUG. I don't think any of us want this to turn into a place like photo.net