Digital BW, The Print

I am considering a move to large format.  Up to this point I've been 
shooting medium format and scanning with Nikon 8000.  I would much 
appreciate advice on what are my options in terms of flatbed scanners 
for b&w 8x10 sheet film.
Many thanks in advance to all forum members who share their time and 
expertise in responding to my question.
Peter.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "peterzakos"
<peterzakos@y...> wrote:
> I am considering a move to large format.  Up to this point I've been 
> shooting medium format and scanning with Nikon 8000.  I would much 
> appreciate advice on what are my options in terms of flatbed scanners 
> for b&w 8x10 sheet film.

> Peter.

I don't think the 4990 Epson quite handles 8X10, but it does handle 5X7.
 
You can wet mount, reportedly gaining sharpness (from better focus)
and Dmax as well as vanishing dust and scratches. You probably know
how Aztek (browse) does this for your Nikon. 

I'm about to start wet mounting 6X9, just for grins.

The Yahoo forums are  

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCANMAX/?yguid=96117688

for wet mounting (Luis Fernandez is an expert, makes 4X5 wet mounting
kits and may make 5X7 on special order)

and 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/epson4870/?yguid=96117688

(for 4870/4990)

Hi Peter-

If you are going to go to all the trouble of making beautiful 8x10 negs, I
hope you will consider the advantages of drum scanning them before locking
into a flatbed. While it¹s true that wet mounting kits are available, they
will not get you the focus precision that you will get from a drum, and they
will have all the noise problems that every CCD scanner has in smooth 3/4
tones.

From my point of view, I would look at the
film/lens/camera/scanner/software/printer as a system, and make sure that
one of them doesn¹t negate the strengths of the others.

FWIW, IMHO, YMMV, yadda, yadda.

Regards,

Bill Morse
Digital Eye Editions
450 Harrison Ave. Studio 227
Boston, MA 02118
(617) 429-3298

http://digitaleyeeditions.com
on 5/14/05 11:57 AM, peterzakos wrote:

> I am considering a move to large format.  Up to this point I've been
> shooting medium format and scanning with Nikon 8000.  I would much
> appreciate advice on what are my options in terms of flatbed scanners
> for b&w 8x10 sheet film.
> Many thanks in advance to all forum members who share their time and
> expertise in responding to my question.
> Peter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND
> “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> *  
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> * DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsub
> scribe> 
> *  
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> 




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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> peterzakos
> Sent: 14 May 2005 16:57
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Flatbed scanner for b&w 8x10 film
> 
> I am considering a move to large format.  Up to this point I've been
> shooting medium format and scanning with Nikon 8000.  I would much
> appreciate advice on what are my options in terms of flatbed scanners
> for b&w 8x10 sheet film.

Epson 4990 Photo will do the job nicely.

Richard


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

Hi,

I've not got a 4990 - still wondering how to fit it on my desk - but I 
have read Vincent Oliver's review on http://www.photo-i.co.uk/ which 
says it does scan 8x10 film:
"The actual readable area is 144 x 231mm with the film holders or 203 x 
254mm with the film area guide."

Somewhere on his site I think there are examples of an 8x10 film scan 
with the 4990.

The "interactive reviews" on his site are always worth reading, as they 
do show you what an ordinary user makes of the gear, rather than most 
print reviews which appear to be based on the press releases.


Peter Marshall
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......

Djon wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "peterzakos"
> <peterzakos@y...> wrote:
> 
>>I am considering a move to large format.  Up to this point I've been 
>>shooting medium format and scanning with Nikon 8000.  I would much 
>>appreciate advice on what are my options in terms of flatbed scanners 
>>for b&w 8x10 sheet film.
> 
> 
>>Peter.
> 
> 
> I don't think the 4990 Epson quite handles 8X10, but it does handle 5X7.
>  
> You can wet mount, reportedly gaining sharpness (from better focus)
> and Dmax as well as vanishing dust and scratches. You probably know
> how Aztek (browse) does this for your Nikon. 
> 
> I'm about to start wet mounting 6X9, just for grins.
> 
> The Yahoo forums are  
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCANMAX/?yguid=96117688
> 
> for wet mounting (Luis Fernandez is an expert, makes 4X5 wet mounting
> kits and may make 5X7 on special order)
> 
> and 
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/epson4870/?yguid=96117688
> 
> (for 4870/4990)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

I own an Epson 4990 and can say for sure that it handles 8x10 film.  That is the reason I 
bought it.

I am very pleased with its quality, Dmax, resolution, etc.

Repeat, it DOES scan 8x10 film.

Best regards,
Randy Becker

>  Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 19:40:48 -0000
>From: "elitephotolv" <elitephotolv@...>
>Subject: Re: Flatbed scanner for b&w 8x10 film

>I own an Epson 4990 and can say for sure that it handles 8x10 film.  That
is the reason I bought it.

>I am very pleased with its quality, Dmax, resolution, etc.

>Repeat, it DOES scan 8x10 film.

>Best regards,
>Randy Becker

Randy, and others who have commented on this thread:

Someone pointed me toward the current issue of View Camera for a discussion
of scanners for film.  The much too brief 'review' seemed biased toward the
professional scanners in the 5K to 10K range -- and possibly for a good
reason, if you really do get what you pay for.  The article was mostly
opinion not supported by data.  That notwithstanding, there seem to be a lot
of really good images made by good photographers using medium format and 4 x
5 film using the under 1K (street price hovering around $500 or so)
scanners.  I assume the Epson 4990 falls into this category, as do several
others which have earned recommendations from different list users.

So what's the problem?  I have a lot of negatives, 6 x 7 and 4 x 5 Tri-X
film, that I would like to be able to scan and consider for printing to no
larger than what would fit comfortably on 13 x 19 inch paper.  I'd also like
to preserve the option of scanning up to 8 x 10 prints.  The aforementioned
article implied that for 8 x 10 prints (and thereabouts) there was probably
little difference among the generally accepted (flatbed) scanners when
competently used for film scanning.  Can I assume that those involved in
scanning etc. who are on this list (one tough crowd to please, to be sure...
Deo gratias) would agree with the View Camera article point of view in that
regard?  I was more-or-less left with the idea that I probably shouldn't
bother if I wasn't going to spend the 10K for a professional machine, or
send the work out for wet mount drum scans (I prefer to do my own work)!

The printing would be done, of course, on my Epson 2200, UC inks (I've still
got to try Eboni in refillable carts), Matte Black on matte paper (EEM for
'proofing', HPR for keeps), and perhaps I can get Roy's (with Steve's GUI
contributions) RIP set up when the dust settles.  Until then, Clayton's BO
process is fine for many images.   There, I hope that keeps it legal.
Thanks (in advance) for comments.    Vic
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.11 - Release Date: 5/16/2005

Vic, I feel your pain.   Nobody has lined up the prospects, put each through 
its paces, and written intelligibly about the results.   And the 
manufacturers' statistics are worthless.

I shoot entirely in black and white.   I shoot Bergger 200 in 5x7 sheets, and 
Tri-X 320 in 4x5 sheets.   I halve the EI for both, and develop both in 
Rodinal 1:25 solutions using JOBO tanks, and am happy with the results.   Before 
moving entirely into LF, I shot a zillion rolls of TX in 120 size, also 
processed in Rodinal.

I used to scan everything with an Epson 3200 flatbed.   When I moved up to 
5x7 a couple of months ago, I upgraded to a 4990.   I drive both with the Epson 
software, which is actually quite good once you figure out where everything 
is.   Frankly, I see no visible difference in performance between the 3200 and 
the 4990.   The 4990 has a much larger transparency scan size, which is why I 
upgraded; but I have seen no improvement to image quality with the newer 
machine.   Alas.

My more controversial observation is that, if you are printing with an inkjet 
at sizes below 13x19, I doubt that you will see any difference between prints 
from scans of roll film and 4x5 sheets.   Disheartening, but true in my 
experience.   Indeed, I am returning to the darkroom and contact-printing my 4x5 
and 5x7 negatives, because contact prints reveal the negative in a way that the 
scanner and inkjet do not.

If you would like to see scans of 4x5 and 120 roll film images in Bergger and 
Tri-X from the 3200 and 4990, and nudity does not offend, visit my site at 
www.mcnew.net.   I scan the entire negative, so the size and type of each film 
used is obvious from the image. 

Good luck to you.

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net


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

> 
> I used to scan everything with an Epson 3200 flatbed.   When I moved
up to 
> 5x7 a couple of months ago, I upgraded to a 4990.   I drive both
with the Epson 
> software, which is actually quite good once you figure out where
everything 
> is.   Frankly, I see no visible difference in performance between
the 3200 and 
> the 4990.   

There are reports that at "3200" the 3200 is closer to that number
than are 4870 and 4990...meaning only that the  higher-resolution
newer models require a higher setting to get to or beyond that "3200." 

In other words, to get comparable real resolution you may have to
select a higher nominal scanning resolution with the 4990...which will
probably waste file size.

What nominal resolution do you use when you scan y 

> 
> if you are printing with an inkjet 
> at sizes below 13x19, I doubt that you will see any difference
between prints 
> from scans of roll film and 4x5 sheets.

This seems true of traditional enlargements as well, assuming equally
good enlarging lenses and superb original MF optics...especially if
one is sacrificing sharpness to a diffusion or cold light enlarger...

Djon

> Sanders McNew
> www.mcnew.net
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Djon, I scan the 4x5 negs at 2405 dpi, and the 5x7 negs at 1605 dpi.  There was a 
suggestion on the list recently that scanning at an odd size would ensure that the 
scanner worked at its optical resolution, and then would downsample to the specified 
size, thereby in theory leading to a sharper scan.  I don't know if that's true, and I 
can't say I've seen an appreciable difference, but hey, it couldn't hurt.

And I am scanning in 8-bit greyscale, not 16-bit or RGB.  I work hard to get the 
image corrected in the scanning software before I scan, and make minimal tone 
corrections afterward, so I haven't any need to resort to 16-bit scanning.  At my 
scanning resolutions, the resulting file sizes are about 100 mb for a .psd file.

You are right about lack of difference between formats in small enlargements made in 
the darkroom.  That is why I am trying to contact-print my 4x5s and 5x7s.

Another poster mentioned that he finds images from  the Epson flatbeds softer than 
those from a drum scanner.  He is right.  For my work (portraiture) I like the slight 
diffusion in the scan.  (The sharpest lens is not always the best choice.)  If sharpness 
were my goal, I might look for another solution.  Resolving shadow detail and fidelity 
to tones is much more important to me than sharpness -- yet these are the most 
elusive and least-discussed qualities about scanners and the images they produce.  
Alas.

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Djon" 
<westsidemaurice@y...> wrote:

>  
> > 
> > I used to scan everything with an Epson 3200 flatbed.   When I moved
> up to 
> > 5x7 a couple of months ago, I upgraded to a 4990.   I drive both
> with the Epson 
> > software, which is actually quite good once you figure out where
> everything 
> > is.   Frankly, I see no visible difference in performance between
> the 3200 and 
> > the 4990.   
> 
> There are reports that at "3200" the 3200 is closer to that number
> than are 4870 and 4990...meaning only that the  higher-resolution
> newer models require a higher setting to get to or beyond that "3200." 
> 
> In other words, to get comparable real resolution you may have to
> select a higher nominal scanning resolution with the 4990...which will
> probably waste file size.
> 
> What nominal resolution do you use when you scan y 
> 
> > 
> > if you are printing with an inkjet 
> > at sizes below 13x19, I doubt that you will see any difference
> between prints 
> > from scans of roll film and 4x5 sheets.
> 
> This seems true of traditional enlargements as well, assuming equally
> good enlarging lenses and superb original MF optics...especially if
> one is sacrificing sharpness to a diffusion or cold light enlarger...
> 
> Djon
> 
>  
> > Sanders McNew
> > www.mcnew.net
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Peter,
Although my Epson Expression 1680 Pro is now a bit long in the tooth, it
still produces good results with Kodak Tri-x and T-Max 8x10 films.
Barry

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "peterzakos" <peterzakos@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 11:57 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Flatbed scanner for b&w 8x10 film


> I am considering a move to large format.  Up to this point I've been
> shooting medium format and scanning with Nikon 8000.  I would much
> appreciate advice on what are my options in terms of flatbed scanners
> for b&w 8x10 sheet film.
> Many thanks in advance to all forum members who share their time and
> expertise in responding to my question.
> Peter.
>