What scanner? Advise please

[Dave Dawson]

Hi All, I have been meaning to get a scanner but as always there are many to choose from and which one to go for and which to avoid is beweildering (that don't look like it's spelt right but it sounds good )

I'm looking for a middle of the range scanner to scan 5x4, 5x7 and possibly 10x8 b+w negs, colour negs and trannies. I would prefer second hand so if one appears on fleabay (or anyone on here has an unwanted one) please point me in the right direction.

Thanks in advance and Happy Christmas.

Cheers Dave

[timparkin]

Hi All, I have been meaning to get a scanner but as always there are many to choose from and which one to go for and which to avoid is beweildering (that don't look like it's spelt right but it sounds good )

I'm looking for a middle of the range scanner to scan 5x4, 5x7 and possibly 10x8 b+w negs, colour negs and trannies. I would prefer second hand so if one appears on fleabay (or anyone on here has an unwanted one) please point me in the right direction.

Thanks in advance and Happy Christmas.

Cheers Dave

There really is only one choice - the Epson v700/750 (the latter is supposed to have better flare resistant lens) - very good and the next step up is very expensive.

Tim

[dave_whatever]

Second hand there's also the Epson 4990.

[PAUL O]

Dave I'm happily scanning 5x7, 6x17cms and 5x4 on an Epson V700 - I use the Betterscanning Mounting Station instead of the Epson film holders.

[Dave Dawson]

Thanks Guys for the suggestions....My two options are to spend a lot of money on a V700/750 or £50 on an Epson Expression 1680 offered by a member.

I'm leaning towards the 1680 to get started and then possibly upgrade in the future...What do you reckon?

Cheers Dave

[PAUL O]

I'd bite the bullet and spend the extra on a V700! No need to upgrade (for a while) as the Epson will see you right for the majority of LF work.

[Joanna Carter]

I'm leaning towards the 1680 to get started and then possibly upgrade in the future...What do you reckon?

As Paul says, don't waste money on anything less; you'll only end up getting the V700 with the BetterScanning holder eventually.

The 1680 only scans at up to 1600ppi; although this will give you a decent 20x26 print, I always have this thing that, if you are using anything at or near its limits, its usually not as good as using it at its "sweetspot". The V700 can scan at up to 6400ppi but, as most users have found out, there really isn't too much to be gained above 2400ppi. I would wonder, with a maximum of 1600ppi, whether the 1680 would be anywhere near as good at 1200ppi, which is what you would need to get a good 20x16 print.

[jrpac]

Hello,

I have performed some tests with my V700 scanner and the conclusion is I don't get more details above 1200 dpi. You can see the result in an article on my blog, it's in French but it's understandable howerver : http://www.jrpac.com/blog/2009/limitati ... pson-v700/

Enjoy

JR.

[gary mulder]

When I scaled up from 6 X 7 cm to 4" X 5" I acquired a V700 to replace my nikon 8000. To find that the smaller format outperformed the scan form the V700. Disillusioning......
I pulled back to my trusted darkroom and optical enlarger.

[uraniumnitrate]

I pulled back to my trusted darkroom and optical enlarger.

I'm not supprised as scannig the negs with flatbed is just a joke. If you want the best result than you should use a drum scanner which is still top of the line. You got absolutely the best results out of it specially when scanning 8x10.

i figured as an artist I do contenue to paint with the light from my enlarger giving/putting my soul and everything else i've got into the print and if i wanna publish something on the net than scan directly from the print. i think it's perfectly allright as you cant see the difference on the monitor anyway. Magazines using 300dpi for publishing. cant even see the difference between 8x10 and the better mobile or cell phone. And of course i do better print that you ever able to do with manipulation in photoshop and your printer. Also prints i produce are never the same even if I print from the same negs. i dont feel the same year after year when printing the same image. In that way every single print is a work of art and not a poster. just think about it.

[gari]

helpful as ever there uraniumnitrate. It's bad enough having to listen to the same old tosh on other sites, I come here for an open and inclusive attitude to photography etc. If you are going to post a few times a year could it be a little more....positive?
That you don't like/do it this way is fine, that some folks don't do it your way is also fine, no?

Gari

[Joanna Carter]

I'm not supprised as scannig the negs with flatbed is just a joke.

The results you get from scanning depends, not on the equipment, but also on the competence of the operator. You may think that flatbed scanning is a joke; I have several prints (30" x 24") in exhibitions, made through an Epson V700, and have had nothing but praise from experienced, traditional, darkroom workers - coments like 'I wish I could get that level of detail and sharpness from wet prints".

And of course i do better print that you ever able to do with manipulation in photoshop and your printer. Also prints i produce are never the same even if I print from the same negs. i dont feel the same year after year when printing the same image. In that way every single print is a work of art and not a poster. just think about it.

You may think that your prints are better than a print produced through Photoshop but, I can assure you, even Ansel Adams galleries are now producing digital prints, which, even those who were closest to Ansel can't even distinguish from a silver print.

You obviously have never come across digital prints, such as I produce by sending them to Ilford for printing on a Lightjet 5000 at sizes up to 50" square. Not boasting but, everyone that sees those prints are totally blown away by their quality.

If I were to want to, I too can produce individual prints digitally. It's simple: scan the negative, spot it and save the file with absolutely no adjustments. Then when a print is required, make all necessary adjustments to contrast, exposure, etc before making a print and ditching the edited version of the file. I can assure you, there is no difference between the skill level required to make a good digital print and that required to make a wet print; the difference is that a high level of different skills is required for each medium.

[PAUL O]

I considered myself a competent darkroom worker
I sold a great many black and white prints through two galleries - all produced using traditional wet techniques on both fibre and RC paper and even came second in a national competition (run by KJP Professional and Nova Darkroom) with a black and white print on the theme of winter
My darkroom was "state of the art" (as far as darkrooms can be!) with a wall-mounted LPL 5x4 enlarger, top quality Schneider enlarging lenses, etc etc.
Despite not being a member of a camera club (ever!) I was invited (as a result of my gallery sales) to become a judge and lecturer with the Welsh Photographic Federation and toured a number of clubs giving talks on black and white printing .... so whats' the point in my trumpet blowing??
Digital rocks!!!!!!!!
I am a fairly recent convert to the digital "darkroom" (thanks to Joanna!) and I am scanning 5x7, 5x4 and 6x17cms negs on a V700 with Betterscanning Station. I am printing using an Epson 3800 with K3 inkset.
There is simply NO comparison (IMHO) between the work I'm churning out now and prints produced the "old" way!
Take it from me, back in the late 1990's early noughties I saw some horrendous examples of digital work through judging competitions! I even had an article published by the WPF entitled "The Digital Dinosaur" because I was so adamant and vocal in decrying the quality/virtues or need for a digital workflow ... I have subsequently "eaten my hat".
The "power" of Photoshop (I use CS2) is phenomenal and allows me to fine tune prints to an incredible degree - all the while using the "skills" I developed in the "dark".
The quality and ease of producing prints is (again) more favourable - I hate to think what all of those chemicals did to both my health and the environment. I still develop my film but the amounts/types/quantities of chemicals I use is massively reduced.
I have also seen (the quality of) Joanna's work first hand .... enough said!

[uraniumnitrate]

to gari

Thanks but I'm just to much of the traditionalists but I'm open minded untill some points and until we living in the free world I think i have my freedom to express myself anyway I want to. Remember you do your things the way you want to and i do mine. We dont have to fight on this and we dont even have to be friends either. Just to discuss it.

to Joanna

No I never have seen such a print from Ilford but again I wouldn't alloud anyone get involved with my work. And I do have seen differences pritnted from negs scanned from flatbad and drum. I do beleive printing is a happening and not the changing the print in photoshop to make it different. The Ansel Adams galery is not Ansel Adams! I would love to see how he would have done it today.

to paul

Read your words but, still i'm not gonna jump. Well its cleaner and healtier if you don't have a right ventilation in your darkroom yes. About the chemicals: we all know them for a long time and do know how to recyckle those because we learned but we dont know how to take care of the new ones. PCB in plastics and of course asbestos and DDT were nice too its just many years lather they find out that it wasn't that good at all. Some led in your monitor and who knows what they have in those digital gadgets. Its makes me wonder sometimes.

[Joanna Carter]

... I think i have my freedom to express myself anyway I want to. Remember you do your things the way you want to and i do mine. We dont have to fight on this and we dont even have to be friends either. Just to discuss it.

It may well be because English is not your native language but, how you phrase your remarks can appear extremely rude and derogatory to a native English speaker.

We only hear from you occasionally and it would be nice that we don't have to enter into a confrontation every time we do see you; please consider, not just what you write but, also, how you phrase it.

Of course, if your phraseology isn't down to misunderstanding English, then I may just have to wield my big censorial stick

No I never have seen such a print from Ilford but again I wouldn't alloud anyone get involved with my work.

It is obvious your lack of experience of the digital printing process (or is it that the only results you have seen don't come up to your exacting standards?) have blinded you to the shear artistry and beauty of a finely crafted digital print.

When sending a file to Ilford, I have to have spent many hours, or sometimes days, preparing the image to the standards that I know Ilford need to simply take the file and output it to their printer. But the skill doesn't end there; because the finished print will be on photographic paper, the master printers at Ilford have to use all their skills to ensure that the resulting print matches the photographer's exacting requirements - something that they do with consumate ease.

I do beleive printing is a happening and not the changing the print in photoshop to make it different.

Those of us who choose to print digitally only "change" the print in Photoshop in the same manner that a darkroom worker would - dodging, burning, split contrast, etc. Many photographers on this forum have far too much integrity to "fake" an image in Photoshop; but even if they did, they would only be in the same company as darkroom workers who manipulated images in the enlarger.

The Ansel Adams galery is not Ansel Adams! I would love to see how he would have done it today.

Ansel Adams considered himself to be more of an artist than a photographer; he simply used whatever tools it took to create the image he had in his soul. He used the best tools of his day; I don't see why he would not have used today's best tools were he alive today.