Re: [Digital BW] RE:Flatbed scanner for b&w 8x10 film
2005-05-17 by guy washburn
I have not read the View Camera article so I can't comment directly. But for me -- MF 6x7 (Ilford fp4, Verichrome, or Berger BRF-200) with Doug's MF film holder I am entirely satisfied with the Epson 4870 driven with Vuescan. 13x19 is no problem resolution, sharpness and Dmax all super. (I use it for 35mm and get great results too). The Epson 4990 is reported to be even better. Certainly an inexpensive approach to try and I would be quite surprised if you do not find the results quite acceptable. Guy --- Vic/Johanna Culver <vculver@...> wrote: > > 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 > > Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html