Digital BW, The Print

Don,

The dedicated film medium format film scanners will give you some impressive
results. It really comes down to $$$ vs. quality as usual.

If money is tight, people have been reporting very good things on this list
and elsewhere about the Epson 2450 which will scan negatives up to 4"x9".
This seems to be equaling or bettering flatbeds in the  $1,000 to $1,500
range.

If you are going beyond the $1,500 prince point then I would suggest one of
the MF film scanners from Nikon, Polaroid or Minolta. I have the Polaroid
Sprintscan 120 and I have compared its scans to the Minolta with the same
negative. The results appear to be equivalent. I have no experience with the
Nikon. These units are currently in the $2,500 range. I would go for one of
these if you can.

The Leaf 45 Austin mentioned is a good machine also but, I believe, is no
longer in production. You will need to look for a used one on e-bay.

Beyond that there are used drum scanners which you can get into for about
$5,000 to $6,000 but this in not for the faint of heart. Then the high end
CCD Imacons that range from $5,000 to $18,000. Finally new high end drum
scanners for even higher prices.

You could always start with the Epson 2450, which is modest investment and a
great all round little scanner, and move on to a film scanner later if find
you are enjoying digital B&W scanning and printing.

Martin Wesley
http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



----- Original Message -----
From: <donpreisler@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 8:42 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Medium Format--Rangefinders


> My ears (eyes) really perked up when I saw this topic
>
> I'm a former newspaper photographer (18 years) who always had a passion
for
> both medium format and b&w which were both hard to come by in the latter
> half of my career.
>
> I have both a Rollei (very old) twin lens and a Hasselblad.
>
> Sorry for such a basic question but what is the scanner of choice among th
is
> group for 2 1/4 negatives and slides?
>
> I'm afraid the closest I can get to anything like that in my current job
(at
> the Univ. CA) is a flatbed with a transparency adapter. They're pretty
> high-end flatbeds but is that still kind of laughable compared to a
negative

> scanner?
>
> Thanks in advance for a reply
>
> Don
>
> Don Preisler
> donpreisler@...

This is very good advice. I have the Epson 2450 and a Nikon 8000. I got the
Epson for scanning 4"x5" and larger but I have also tried it out on my 6x7cm
negs and the results are quite good. The Nikon is definitely better but it
is hard to say that it is $2500 better. I happy with the Nikon but only
after I invested an extra 350.00 in a rotated glass carrier. For medium
format the glass carrier is an absolute necessity. I wish I had know that
before wasting time on scans with the non-glass carrier.

Wendel

On 5/31/02 5:44 PM, "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...> wrote:

> Don,
> 
> The dedicated film medium format film scanners will give you some impressive
> results. It really comes down to $$$ vs. quality as usual.
> 
> If money is tight, people have been reporting very good things on this list
> and elsewhere about the Epson 2450 which will scan negatives up to 4"x9".
> This seems to be equaling or bettering flatbeds in the  $1,000 to $1,500
> range.
------------snipped-------------

Hi Wendel,

I assume your improvement comes in better focusing by holding 
the MF film flat in the glass carrier, is that right?  I also have a 
Nikon 8000 and find that getting the film relatively flat in the 
standard carrier is really fussy and not always successful.  I have 
even selected softer focus parts of the scan and applied extra 
USM to match the rest of the image in a few cases or rescanned.
Does the glass carrier have any problems such as slight 
degradation of sharpness, newton rings or other artifacts? 
Would there be any difference between B&W negs and color 
transparencies in this regard?   And do you know what the 
difference is between the regular glass-covered holder versus 
the glass-covered rotating holder?   I would be interested to 
know what experience others have had with glass carriers and 
other methods to get good scanner focusing.  Many thanks!

Tom Andrews
www.wildlandart.com 


> This is very good advice. I have the Epson 2450 and a Nikon 
8000. I got the
> Epson for scanning 4"x5" and larger but I have also tried it out 
on my 6x7cm
> negs and the results are quite good. The Nikon is definitely 
better but it
> is hard to say that it is $2500 better. I happy with the Nikon but 
only
> after I invested an extra 350.00 in a rotated glass carrier. For 
medium
> format the glass carrier is an absolute necessity. I wish I had 
know that
> before wasting time on scans with the non-glass carrier.
> 
> Wendel
> 
> On 5/31/02 5:44 PM, "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@e...> 
wrote:
> 
> > Don,
> > 
> > The dedicated film medium format film scanners will give 
you some impressive
> > results. It really comes down to $$$ vs. quality as usual.
> > 
> > If money is tight, people have been reporting very good things 
on this list
> > and elsewhere about the Epson 2450 which will scan 
negatives up to 4"x9".
> > This seems to be equaling or bettering flatbeds in the  
$1,000 to $1,500
> > range.
> ------------snipped-------------

Hi Tom;

Have to say that after I got my 8000, I was a bit disappointed in the
results on certain negatives but I had read on-line reviews that made it
seem as though the 'stretching' feature of the glassless carrier worked
pretty well. In my experience it was very hit or miss due to the inherent
flatness of the particular film that was loaded. I started to hate the fact
that some films could not be focused sharply across the image.

So far I am very happy with the glass carrier. I started out thinking I
would buy the 869G and save $100 because I did not think I would use the
rotated feature. I called Nikon and a tech rep indicated that besides
rotation some people find the 869GR easier to use. I have often made the
mistake of trying to 'save money' and it almost never works out -- so I
bought the rotated carrier. Well I am using the rotated feature (because in
a comparison I could see the difference between a file rotated in PS and
rotated in the carrier, even at max resolution and 16 bit the carrier
rotation produced a visibly sharper image.)

The glass looks to be anti-newton on the top (slight appearance of texture
when viewed at an angle and I have not had any Newton Rings.

The rotated carrier only handles film to 6x9, if you have 6x12 you would
have to get the 869G.

Wendel

On 6/1/02 2:17 PM, "pleistocenehome" <tandrews@...> wrote:

> Hi Wendel,
> 
> I assume your improvement comes in better focusing by holding
> the MF film flat in the glass carrier, is that right?  I also have a
> Nikon 8000 and find that getting the film relatively flat in the
> standard carrier is really fussy and not always successful.  I have
> even selected softer focus parts of the scan and applied extra
> USM to match the rest of the image in a few cases or rescanned.
> Does the glass carrier have any problems such as slight
> degradation of sharpness, newton rings or other artifacts?
> Would there be any difference between B&W negs and color
> transparencies in this regard?   And do you know what the
> difference is between the regular glass-covered holder versus
> the glass-covered rotating holder?   I would be interested to
> know what experience others have had with glass carriers and
> other methods to get good scanner focusing.  Many thanks!
> 
> Tom Andrews
> www.wildlandart.com
> 
> 
>> This is very good advice. I have the Epson 2450 and a Nikon
> 8000. I got the
>> Epson for scanning 4"x5" and larger but I have also tried it out
> on my 6x7cm
>> negs and the results are quite good. The Nikon is definitely
> better but it
>> is hard to say that it is $2500 better. I happy with the Nikon but
> only
>> after I invested an extra 350.00 in a rotated glass carrier. For
> medium
>> format the glass carrier is an absolute necessity. I wish I had
> know that
>> before wasting time on scans with the non-glass carrier.
>> 
>> Wendel
>> 
>> On 5/31/02 5:44 PM, "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@e...>
> wrote:
>> 
>>> Don,
>>> 
>>> The dedicated film medium format film scanners will give
> you some impressive
>>> results. It really comes down to $$$ vs. quality as usual.
>>> 
>>> If money is tight, people have been reporting very good things
> on this list
>>> and elsewhere about the Epson 2450 which will scan
> negatives up to 4"x9".
>>> This seems to be equaling or bettering flatbeds in the
> $1,000 to $1,500
>>> range.
>> ------------snipped-------------
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
>

There is a Leaf 45 on Ebay now for $1000- going, going, gone...

Bill Morse
PhotoProspect
Cambridge, MA  02139

on 5/31/02 5:44 PM, Martin Wesley wrote:

> Don,
> 
> The dedicated film medium format film scanners will give you some impressive
> results. It really comes down to $$$ vs. quality as usual.
> 
> The Leaf 45 Austin mentioned is a good machine also but, I believe, is no
> longer in production. You will need to look for a used one on e-bay.
> 
> Martin Wesley
> http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
> 
> 
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It's pick-up only, but appears to be a great price.  I'd drive to NY to save
$1000 on the unit (as they sell for $2k typically), and $300 on shipping!

Austin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Morse [mailto:willym@...]
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 1:08 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: MF Scanners was Re: [Digital BW] Re:
> MediumFormat--Rangefinders
>
>
> There is a Leaf 45 on Ebay now for $1000- going, going, gone...
>
> Bill Morse
> PhotoProspect
> Cambridge, MA  02139
>
> on 5/31/02 5:44 PM, Martin Wesley wrote:
>
> > Don,
> >
> > The dedicated film medium format film scanners will give you
> some impressive
> > results. It really comes down to $$$ vs. quality as usual.
> >
> > The Leaf 45 Austin mentioned is a good machine also but, I
> believe, is no
> > longer in production. You will need to look for a used one on e-bay.
> >
> > Martin Wesley
> > http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
> >
> >
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> It's pick-up only, but appears to be a great price.  I'd drive to NY 
to save
> $1000 on the unit (as they sell for $2k typically), and $300 on 
shipping!
> 
> Austin
> 

Hi Austin,

Quick question:  what dpi does the scanner do for each
film size?    35mm, 2 1/4, 4x5 ?    Isn't there a max pixels
wide?

Roy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: royvharrington [mailto:roy@...]
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 4:59 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: MF Scanners was Re: [Digital BW] Re: MediumFormat--Rangefinders
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
> <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > It's pick-up only, but appears to be a great price.  I'd drive to NY 
> to save
> > $1000 on the unit (as they sell for $2k typically), and $300 on 
> shipping!
> > 
> > Austin
> > 
> 
> Hi Austin,
> 
> Quick question:  what dpi does the scanner do for each
> film size?    35mm, 2 1/4, 4x5 ?    Isn't there a max pixels
> wide?
> 
> Roy

Hi Roy,

35mm - 5080
6cm - 2540
4 x 5 - 1200

The length can be up to 12.4cm.

Regards,

Austin