Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk
Thread started 14 Dec 2017 (Thursday) 09:13
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Medium format scanning

 
Hokie ­ Jim
Member
Joined Jan 2016
Hillsborough, NC
Dec 14, 2017 09:13 |  #1

Is there a consensus for how good of a scanner is "good enough" to scan 6x7? I have an old Epson Perfection 4990, but I've read that I really need to step up to a newer model flatbed if I want to even approach something like a Nikon Coolscan (unfortunately, a CS is out of my budget).

What have you guys used for 6x7 for results good enough to make the larger format worth it? Thanks!


The machine does not isolate man from the great problems of nature but plunges him more deeply into them. - Antoine de Saint Exupéry
Canon 6D | 16-35 f/4L IS | Zeiss Milvus 50 f/1.4 | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | 580EXII | Gitzo 1410MK2/RRS BH-55

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Sideshot
Member
Sideshot's Avatar
79 posts
Joined Nov 2017
Post has been edited 1 month ago by Sideshot.
Dec 14, 2017 09:25 |  #2

It really depends on what you are going to do with the scans ? 4'x5' wall print or a 8.5"x11" paper print ?

Scanner technology has come a long way in the past 10years a $100. scanner is fairly nice these days and will do most things a person needs.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Hokie ­ Jim
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Joined Jan 2016
Hillsborough, NC
Post has been edited 1 month ago by Hokie Jim.
Dec 14, 2017 09:32 |  #3

Sideshot wrote in post #18517691 (external link)
It really depends on what you are going to do with the scans ? 4'x5' wall print or a 8.5"x11" paper print

Most likely, no larger than 11"x14".


The machine does not isolate man from the great problems of nature but plunges him more deeply into them. - Antoine de Saint Exupéry
Canon 6D | 16-35 f/4L IS | Zeiss Milvus 50 f/1.4 | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | 580EXII | Gitzo 1410MK2/RRS BH-55

LOG IN TO REPLY
Sideshot
Member
Sideshot's Avatar
79 posts
Joined Nov 2017
Post has been edited 1 month ago by Sideshot.
Dec 14, 2017 09:49 |  #4

Hokie Jim wrote in post #18517696 (external link)
Most likely, no larger than 11"x14".

I would say your average $100. scanner would do that fairly well. Unless you want some superX flawless pixel quality, but then again your scan will only be as good as your original image you are working with.

At 11"x14" I would just buy a decent $100. scanner and keep the receipt and see if it holds up to what you need in resolution. You can spend all day studying resolution and math but at the end of the day most of that is a lot of market hype and varies brand to brand.

About 10years ago I used to do a lot of scanning I had a $300. scanner. A $100. scanner today is so much faster, nicer and all around better.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Left Handed Brisket's Avatar
Joined Jun 2011
The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Dec 14, 2017 09:54 |  #5

Have you tried to scan anything with what you have?

If no, then why not? :D


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Formerly he's gone before apostrophe-gate | Not in gear database: Canon 70-210 3.5-4.5, Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

LOG IN TO REPLY
TooManyShots
Cream of the Crop
10,122 posts
Joined Jan 2008
NYC
Post has been last edited 1 month ago by TooManyShots. 2 edits done in total.
Dec 14, 2017 09:55 |  #6

The issue is that a long way does not apply to medium format scanning...at least on the consumer level. Other than the Epson, 4990, the V700 or V800 is your next upgrade. They are good enough for medium format. If you need better scanning quality, you need to go for the more expensive options, but very few options.. Nikon Coolscan or the Plustek model. That's about it. Next step up would be the drum scanner from Hasselblad.....

For the same reason, I switched to DSLR scan my medium format negatives...when I was still shooting in medium format. However, the process of DSLR scanning is too involved for me. I needed to construct a DIY light box mounted on a light stand. Then, I have to tape down my 6x6 strip on a piece of cardboard with the middle part cut out. Mount my DSLR with a 105 sigma macro lens on a tripod. Aligning everything. I could take one exposure for a 5000 pixel resolution "scan." Or two exposures to stitch them up for a higher resolution.

I would then open up my raw editor to correct any color shifting due to the incorrect light color temperature of my light (this involving matching all the RGB channels to match and overlapping one another for the correct black and white white balance). Afterward, I would load the tiff files to VueScan and to invert it and to apply various BW film profiles. Then, load the inverted tiff file to CC for the final edit of the scan.

I wish I had a better way to simplify the DSLR scan workflow. I may have been still shooting in medium format. Right now, is all 35mm for me.


One Imaging Photographyexternal link and my Flickrexternal link
Facebookexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Archibald's Avatar
Joined May 2008
Calgary
Dec 14, 2017 09:59 |  #7

I use the Epson V700 for scanning 120-format negatives. My originals are mostly negs from the 1970s and 1980s and have faded. The results are pretty good, though. Most of the scans have bright colors and little grain and look great. But that is not to say that my scan results are true to the originals. That's because the scanner software does stuff (like auto-setting white points for the three colors) and usually I have to do adjustment of curves, especially the red curve, to compensate for the fading. I have given up trying to do faithful archiving of negs and slides and instead just try to make the scans into nice photos.

Older negs are quite a bit more difficult to deal with than newer negs.

Not sure any of this is relevant to what you are doing. But depending on your originals, you might end up with scans where the colors have been altered and there might be no way to tell if they look like they did originally. Also I'm pretty sure the results will depend a lot on the skills of the photographer.

In short, I don't think the choice of scanner is as important as the scanning software and post-processing software, and of course your eyes and abilities.


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
Cream of the Crop
kf095's Avatar
Joined Dec 2009
Canada, Ontario, Milton
Post has been edited 1 month ago by kf095.
Dec 14, 2017 10:09 |  #8

IMO, the only beauty of clunky and bulky 120 film format is in how good scans from it comes from 100$ flatbed scanner. :)
I have Epson V500 and it does its job very well by its native software. 11x14 prints in not a problem. Nor 8.5x11 prints from 135 format scans. :)


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

LOG IN TO REPLY
TooManyShots
Cream of the Crop
10,122 posts
Joined Jan 2008
NYC
Dec 14, 2017 10:14 |  #9

kf095 wrote in post #18517717 (external link)
IMO, the only beauty of clunky and bulky 120 film format is in how good scans from it comes from 100$ flatbed scanner. :)
I have Epson V500 and it does its job very well by its native software. 11x14 prints in not a problem. Nor 8.5x11 prints from 135 format scans. :)

Yeah..the larger the negatives, the lesser the enlarger. And more details can be retained even on a cheap flatbed scanner.


One Imaging Photographyexternal link and my Flickrexternal link
Facebookexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Hokie ­ Jim
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Joined Jan 2016
Hillsborough, NC
Dec 14, 2017 11:57 |  #10

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18517708 (external link)
Have you tried to scan anything with what you have?

If no, then why not? :D

Well, I don't have any MF gear yet  :p I'm just wondering before I spend the money on something, if the results would be acceptable enough to even try.


The machine does not isolate man from the great problems of nature but plunges him more deeply into them. - Antoine de Saint Exupéry
Canon 6D | 16-35 f/4L IS | Zeiss Milvus 50 f/1.4 | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | 580EXII | Gitzo 1410MK2/RRS BH-55

LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
They have pills for that now you know.
gjl711's Avatar
53,514 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Deep in the heart of Texas
Dec 14, 2017 12:14 |  #11

Light table and your 6D will do a fantastic job. I gave up on flatbed scanners. They are slow and though the quality was decent, my 5DII did just as well or better and was quick.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

LOG IN TO REPLY
AZGeorge
Goldmember
AZGeorge's Avatar
Joined Dec 2010
Southen Arizona
Dec 14, 2017 17:06 |  #12

kf095 wrote in post #18517717 (external link)
IMO, the only beauty of clunky and bulky 120 film format is in how good scans from it comes from 100$ flatbed scanner. :)
I have Epson V500 and it does its job very well by its native software. 11x14 prints in not a problem. Nor 8.5x11 prints from 135 format scans. :)

Aside from the cruel cruel words that made this former Rolleiflex lover almost tear up and cry on the keyboard, I quite agree. Just as 120 made getting life easier for getting good prints in the darkroom, all that extra room really helps with scanning. I'd be inclined to give the 4990 a try before replacing it.


George
Democracy Dies in Darkness

LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Left Handed Brisket's Avatar
Joined Jun 2011
The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Dec 14, 2017 21:30 |  #13

Hokie Jim wrote in post #18517804 (external link)
Well, I don't have any MF gear yet  :p I'm just wondering before I spend the money on something, if the results would be acceptable enough to even try.

Sweet. Shoot chrome film. You'll be happy as a pig in coleslaw.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Formerly he's gone before apostrophe-gate | Not in gear database: Canon 70-210 3.5-4.5, Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

LOG IN TO REPLY
Angmo
looks like I picked a bad week to give up halucinagens
Angmo's Avatar
Joined Dec 2015
AZ-USA
Post has been edited 1 month ago by Angmo.
Dec 15, 2017 12:07 |  #14

I’ve shot Rolleiflex for years. Still have them and a bunch of lenses. At the time I got the Coolscan 9000ed. Love it.

I do feel much less expensive scanners are rapidly doing a better job than when I bought the Coolscan monster.

...got a driver hack that lets the coolscan run on Sys 7 since Nikon no longer supports it.


Nikons, Rolleiflexes, Elinchroms

LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,045 posts
Joined Mar 2012
PEI, Canada
Dec 15, 2017 14:37 |  #15

I have a V600 which I am mostly happy with for my film scanning needs. It was purchased as a compromise as at the time I figured it would be 'years' before I got around to upgrading to wanting to scan large format negatives... (I was wrong.) It also works very well for scanning documents and prints.

One thing I would strongly suggest for a flatbed scanner like the V600 with negatives: Buy the spare film holder. It won't be a huge time saver, but it will still be a time saver as you can prep the next strip of film to scan while waiting for the current scan to finish. When the current scan finishes, you can then just pop out one frame, give everything a go over with an air blower, and drop the next holder in for preview/alignment before swapping the first film out of its holder.


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Lucklessexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

2,500 views & 4 likes for this thread
Medium format scanning
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00091 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is piggitou
939 guests, 473 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017