Epson4990 - b/w films

[Peter_S]

Hi!

I found various discussions on what films are good/not so good for scanning, but that seems to depend on the scanner and software used, too. So my specific question:
I have a Epson 4990 with Silverfast SE. I am not sure whether to continue to mainly shoot Ilford XP2 for its easy of scanning (it is a great film overall, though), or branch out a bit and try more conventional b/w films (for their advantages in the occassional prints)

I scanned a few TMax 100 and Delta 3200 negatives, and was pleased with the results - but too few to draw conclusions. Any further experience with scanning TMax,Tri-X, Acros and APX on a Epson 4990?
Would you generally expect a significant loss in quality of the scan results opposed to an Ilford XP2 400?

I have rolls of these mentioned films here, but I am slighly reluctant to use them because of expected scanning disadvantages with the Epson 4990.

Any information is appreciated.

Cheers,
Peter S

 

[TareqPhoto]

Hi!

I found various discussions on what films are good/not so good for scanning, but that seems to depend on the scanner and software used, too. So my specific question:
I have a Epson 4990 with Silverfast SE. I am not sure whether to continue to mainly shoot Ilford XP2 for its easy of scanning (it is a great film overall, though), or branch out a bit and try more conventional b/w films (for their advantages in the occassional prints)

I scanned a few TMax 100 and Delta 3200 negatives, and was pleased with the results - but too few to draw conclusions. Any further experience with scanning TMax,Tri-X, Acros and APX on a Epson 4990?
Would you generally expect a significant loss in quality of the scan results opposed to an Ilford XP2 400?

I have rolls of these mentioned films here, but I am slighly reluctant to use them because of expected scanning disadvantages with the Epson 4990.

Any information is appreciated.

Cheers,
Peter S

Keep practice and scan scan scan

I feel disappointed on most of my scans done by Epson V750, if this scanner didn't do a good job then i must buy a dedicated film scanner or better with drum scanner, but i am sure there are many things or tips i have to follow to get better results, so i will keep reading and scanning more to see what i will get in the future.

 

[sanking]

Hi!

I found various discussions on what films are good/not so good for scanning, but that seems to depend on the scanner and software used, too. So my specific question:
I have a Epson 4990 with Silverfast SE. I am not sure whether to continue to mainly shoot Ilford XP2 for its easy of scanning (it is a great film overall, though), or branch out a bit and try more conventional b/w films (for their advantages in the occassional prints)

I scanned a few TMax 100 and Delta 3200 negatives, and was pleased with the results - but too few to draw conclusions. Any further experience with scanning TMax,Tri-X, Acros and APX on a Epson 4990?
Would you generally expect a significant loss in quality of the scan results opposed to an Ilford XP2 400?

I have rolls of these mentioned films here, but I am slighly reluctant to use them because of expected scanning disadvantages with the Epson 4990.

Any information is appreciated.

Cheers,
Peter S

My opinion is that you are unlikely to get better results with the Epson 4990 scanning traditional B&W films than by scanning the C41 Ilford XP2. The reason is quite simple. All of these films, including XP2, have higher resolution than can be captured by the scanner so the limit to sharpness in every case is the scanner, not the film.

The bottom line is that if you using medium format film the Epson 4990 is not capable of capturing all of the detail in the film. Nor is the Epson V700/V750. To capture all of the detail in roll film you need a dedicated scanner for medium format, or a high end professional flatbed or drum scanner.

On the other hand, if you limit print size to about 4X-6X you may be happen with the results scanning with the 4990.

Sandy King

 

[TareqPhoto]

Is there any drum scanner less than $5000 or even less than $10,000 new? I know about Nikon scanner, is there any other film scanner for medium format [new]?

 

[pschwart]

Is there any drum scanner less than $5000 or even less than $10,000 new? I know about Nikon scanner, is there any other film scanner for medium format [new]?

Sandy is right: if you can limit yourself to smaller magnifications, a more modest scanner may suit you. I'd suggest honing your skills on something like an Epson 4990 or V700. I made many fine 3-4x medium format scans using an Epson 2450, and the investment was minimal.

 

[Peter_S]

Hello!

Thanks for all the useful replies. I use the 4990 only for web-use of photos, so no prints. Any prints are from negative or via Imacon X1 (scan service).

I was more worried about trouble caused by silver blocking/reflecting light when using traditional b/w film, with visible effects even when using a low-res scanner as the Epson. Nikons seem to be quite problematic in that respect. Now the question is, to what extend has Epson these problems, keeping web-use and the limited information a monitor can display in mind.

Thanks!!!
Peter

 

[TareqPhoto]

When i will develop my first B&W by myself or more with lab then i will scan some and show here, without that i can't tell how it will perform or what issues i can see, also i don't have any film scanners to compare, only i can ask the lab to scan for me either by their Imacon or Nuritso scanner machine which is still better from what i can see.

 

[pschwart]

Hello!

Thanks for all the useful replies. I use the 4990 only for web-use of photos, so no prints. Any prints are from negative or via Imacon X1 (scan service).

I was more worried about trouble caused by silver blocking/reflecting light when using traditional b/w film, with visible effects even when using a low-res scanner as the Epson. Nikons seem to be quite problematic in that respect. Now the question is, to what extend has Epson these problems, keeping web-use and the limited information a monitor can display in mind.

Thanks!!!
Peter

I think you need to look at images; discussing specs won't provide an answer. My guess is that for web use (low res, small size) any decent consumer-grade scanner should suffice, especially if you are scanning film larger than 35mm. I have not experienced problems scanning any film/developer combination with an Epson 2450, Epson V700, or a Nikon 9000.
Software is critical, too. Vuescan works well for me, and Nikon Scan is fine if you can figure out the wacky interface.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

I didn't see what film your using (35mm or 120) but I think you're unlikely to see any difference in terms of details between that and regular black and white. I use B&W to enable me to process myself, as its easier than C-41.

You will see tonality differences between the two, which may work out better for you (use a second camera and do some side by side and see). If you're using 35mm then I reckon that a used coolscan 4000 (or better model, not an LS-IV) will actually see you improve more in image quality. Specifically because the coolscans have good functional ICE and that works with those films (but not with regular black and white).

Unless you're using 120 I think that you'd be much better off with a Nikon and 35mm C-41 film ... unless you want to develop yourself / and or prefer the tonality range of the Black and white.

It is different and so I recommend you try it before you can make an informed decision.

 

[Hikingman]

Sandy or others:

"if you limit print size to about 4X-6X..."

Have you got a multiplier or other formula for 4x, 6x? I'm going to apply this to scanning both 6x6 and 35mm.
Thanks for any suggestions!

John
(First Post on HP)

 

[pellicle]

Welcome John

Sandy or others:

"if you limit print size to about 4X-6X..."

Have you got a multiplier or other formula for 4x, 6x? I'm going to apply this to

not really, as its all rubbery numbers in reality. It depends on so many things. There is of course also likely to be machine variation too ... do not expect that these things are all 100% identical, they are not hand assembled and carefully calibrated tools. Not even for $1000 (which they are less than).

Then there is each persons subjective viewpoint ... don't dismiss that either as I've had prints which I think are "ok" and others "can't fault"

I've scanned 6x9 which I thought was soft and found that it was lens aberrations not scanner.

way many variables