More confused than ever...

[risk]

Hi all,

Over the last several weeks I think I've read every post on this site and I'm still stumped.

After a few years of shooting with my Nikon DSLR, I decided to pull out some of my old film gear and realized how much I missed it. Now, the problem is, of course, scanning. I'm still stumped about what to get. I simply can't afford the best options...so, I'm deciding between some sort of cheaper flatbed alternative...or scrapping film all together and going back to digital.

On film, I shoot 90 percent black and white on a medium format Yashica TLR...and, of course, some 35mm. I rarely print above 8x10 (the biggest I've ever printed is 11x14)....

So, my question to you all is, is there a flatbed that could do the job well enough, or, is it more advisable to just stick with digital? (I realize the term "well enough" is subjective so I guess I mean well enough to take advantage of the great properties of film, especially in black and white...) I miss film, but I love photoshop...it's hard to decide whether it's wiser to spend money on a scanner or save for better DSLR... It really sucks to be a photographer on a budget.

Any advice?
risk

 

[pschwart]

Hi all,

Over the last several weeks I think I've read every post on this site and I'm still stumped.

After a few years of shooting with my Nikon DSLR, I decided to pull out some of my old film gear and realized how much I missed it. Now, the problem is, of course, scanning. I'm still stumped about what to get. I simply can't afford the best options...so, I'm deciding between some sort of cheaper flatbed alternative...or scrapping film all together and going back to digital.

On film, I shoot 90 percent black and white on a medium format Yashica TLR...and, of course, some 35mm. I rarely print above 8x10 (the biggest I've ever printed is 11x14)....

So, my question to you all is, is there a flatbed that could do the job well enough, or, is it more advisable to just stick with digital? (I realize the term "well enough" is subjective so I guess I mean well enough to take advantage of the great properties of film, especially in black and white...) I miss film, but I love photoshop...it's hard to decide whether it's wiser to spend money on a scanner or save for better DSLR... It really sucks to be a photographer on a budget.

Any advice?
risk

I scan lots of Rollei TLR negs on Epson flatbeds. I generally print with an image area not larger than 8x8" Even using an old Epson 2450, the results
were terrific, just what you would expect from a sharp 2-1/4 negative enlarged only 3x. The only caveat is that the standard carriers are junk -- I significantly improved my scans with one of Doug Fisher's carriers with anti-Newton ring glass, and I use Vuescan. This is actually a no-brainer: a decent scanner is a Good Thing to have for general reflective scanning (documents and OCR), so even if you decide later to upgrade to a dedicated film scanner, the flatbed will remain useful. Last time I looked, Epson had V700 refurbs available from their web site.

 

[sanking]

Hi all,

Over the last several weeks I think I've read every post on this site and I'm still stumped.

After a few years of shooting with my Nikon DSLR, I decided to pull out some of my old film gear and realized how much I missed it. Now, the problem is, of course, scanning. I'm still stumped about what to get. I simply can't afford the best options...so, I'm deciding between some sort of cheaper flatbed alternative...or scrapping film all together and going back to digital.

On film, I shoot 90 percent black and white on a medium format Yashica TLR...and, of course, some 35mm. I rarely print above 8x10 (the biggest I've ever printed is 11x14)....

So, my question to you all is, is there a flatbed that could do the job well enough, or, is it more advisable to just stick with digital? (I realize the term "well enough" is subjective so I guess I mean well enough to take advantage of the great properties of film, especially in black and white...) I miss film, but I love photoshop...it's hard to decide whether it's wiser to spend money on a scanner or save for better DSLR... It really sucks to be a photographer on a budget.

Any advice?
risk

You should get very good results scanning Rollei MF negatives with an Epson V700 flatbed. You should be able to print easily up to 11X14 prints from this combination, perhaps even larger if detail is not all that important in the scene.

Sandy King

 

[keithwms]

It really sucks to be a photographer on a budget.

It most certainly does not suck to be a [hybrid] photographer on a budget!

For b&w medium format you can pick up an epson and be very happy. For 35mm you can also get good results. Consider the epson 4490 and 4990 which are as good for these b&w tasks as the new epsons.

The biggest difference between the flatbeds and the higher end scans is for slide film. I still, after a fair amount of effort, cnanto get close to the quality form my 4990 on slide film that I can get form drum scans. N.b. I bought both the 4490 and the 4990 refurbed from epson for peanuts.

Now, here are a few more reasons why it definitely does not suck to be a [hybrid] photographer on a budget!

(1) So what if you can't get superduper scans right now. Go ahead and shoot film and be happy, and do basic scans now for smallish prints. Then when you come into money you can upgrade your scanner or send out for better scans. Get your masterpieces drummed in a year. Whatever.

(2) Don't wanna shoot film? Don't havta! You can do traditional prints from digital files, no worries. I think you can quite credibly do ~8" contact prints to silver from ~10mp digital files, but of course it all depends on the content and your processing skills. Digital negs give you many capabilities. I'll just say that one of my favourite prints from recent months is a little silver print made from a nikon d40x jpeg file. And that was not with pictorico, that was without a digital neg substrate. Look, economy forces us to be creative and that is good.

(3) so you do wanna shoot film? Why not shoot sheet flm and spend some time on contacts or traditional enlargements. Medium and large format gear is an incredible bargain right now. The advantage of sheet film is that you can get very nice flatbed scans from (b&w) sheet film, considerably better than from roll film in my opinion. I used to have an epson 4490 and it was great for b&w, it just didn't go large enough for my LF and wasn't so good with chromes because of the Dmax so I got the 4990.

Frankly, times have never been better for photographers on a budget, in terms of output options. The biggest pill is the cost of the film, but even that isn't disastrous if you take the time to find out about edu films and such. Now, my taste for LF velvia and astia has caused me to have to skip a few double moccha lattes, but that's probably good for me anyway...

 

[donbga]

Hi all,

Over the last several weeks I think I've read every post on this site and I'm still stumped.

After a few years of shooting with my Nikon DSLR, I decided to pull out some of my old film gear and realized how much I missed it. Now, the problem is, of course, scanning. I'm still stumped about what to get. I simply can't afford the best options...so, I'm deciding between some sort of cheaper flatbed alternative...or scrapping film all together and going back to digital.

On film, I shoot 90 percent black and white on a medium format Yashica TLR...and, of course, some 35mm. I rarely print above 8x10 (the biggest I've ever printed is 11x14)....

So, my question to you all is, is there a flatbed that could do the job well enough, or, is it more advisable to just stick with digital? (I realize the term "well enough" is subjective so I guess I mean well enough to take advantage of the great properties of film, especially in black and white...) I miss film, but I love photoshop...it's hard to decide whether it's wiser to spend money on a scanner or save for better DSLR... It really sucks to be a photographer on a budget.

Any advice?
risk

If you want to scan MF look for an Epson refurbed V700 or 4990. Don't waste your money on a 4490. Unfortunately right now there isn't any refurbed v700 or 4990s listed on Epson.com/USA.

What is your budget?

Don Bryant

 

[pschwart]

If you want to scan MF look for an Epson refurbed V700 or 4990. Don't waste your money on a 4490. Unfortunately right now there isn't any refurbed v700 or 4990s listed on Epson.com/USA.

What is your budget?

Don Bryant

I bought an Epson V700 refurb a couple of weeks ago for around $400 with free shipping. I use Vuescan, but Epson Scan is surprisingly capable. I *hate* the fiddly height adjustment and the cheesy film holders -- if the Microtek M1 was supported by Vuescan I would have bought it just for the autofocus feature -- but this is a cheap way to get good scans.

 

[risk]

Thanks!

Thanks to everyone for your replies...just a couple of questions.

So, do you all think the whole dmax thing isn't so much of an issue? I read on some forums that unless you are using a scanner with a dmax above 4.0, then it's not worth scanning B&W negs (better to stick with digital and convert)... But from what you all are saying, it sounds like these flatbeds can scan well enough to retain the film look. Correct?

Keith, what is edu film?

Is the v700 that much of an improvement over the V500?

Thanks for all your help!
risk

 

[pschwart]

Thanks to everyone for your replies...just a couple of questions.

So, do you all think the whole dmax thing isn't so much of an issue? I read on some forums that unless you are using a scanner with a dmax above 4.0, then it's not worth scanning B&W negs (better to stick with digital and convert)... But from what you all are saying, it sounds like these flatbeds can scan well enough to retain the film look. Correct?

Keith, what is edu film?

Is the v700 that much of an improvement over the V500?

Thanks for all your help!
risk

Negatives have a lower density range than transparencies; you certainly don't need 4.0 sensitivity to scan negatives, and most scanners you are going to encounter can't do 4.0 anyway. I believe Epson actually claims 4.0 for the V series, but don't believe it. Maybe someone on the list has done some tests to determine the actual sensitivity. Anyway, you should find it sufficient for b&w negatives, and OK for transparencies, too, though really contrasty images can be challenging.

 

[risk]

realization....

Ha! I just realized that all of this equipment talk assumes that I can take a good enough picture where the difference would even matter. After all this time, I'm still a hack. But sometimes I get lucky. So, it looks like I'll give one of the V series flatbeds a whirl.

Where do you all buy your film? Any cheap online sites in the U.S.? I usually go to Samy's in Los Angeles, but it's not cheap.

side question:
Any recommendations on a sheet film camera per Keith's suggestion?

risk

 

[pschwart]

Ha! I just realized that all of this equipment talk assumes that I can take a good enough picture where the difference would even matter. After all this time, I'm still a hack. But sometimes I get lucky. So, it looks like I'll give one of the V series flatbeds a whirl.

Where do you all buy your film? Any cheap online sites in the U.S.? I usually go to Samy's in Los Angeles, but it's not cheap.

side question:
Any recommendations on a sheet film camera per Keith's suggestion?

risk

My 2 cents: Film cost is minimal until you step up to large format. There are plenty of other logistical issues with LF, so my advice would be to shoot medium format and step up to LF later if you think you really do need big negs. If you are making small prints you are going to be astonished at the quality you can achieve with medium format. An added benefit is that there are more films available for 35mm and 120, and fewer and fewer as you go beyond 4x5.

 

[Tomf2468]

Cheap large format is quite easy in today's world. Low budget stuff would be the Burke and James press cameras or the early Calumet (very similar to Graphic View or Orbit) monorail. Most of the press lenses are great buys (Angulons or Raptars or Ektars). Of course, nothing beats the low cost of a pinhole box!

The real question is your shooting style. Large format is great at slow contemplative shooting of controlable subjects. It is a really hard format for sports or wildlife!!

If your only interest is getting good quality scans with reasonable price scanners, the current flatbeds do a very good job at negative films. You only need the really high density range specs for chromes or for B&W film developed for Platinum or Kalli. Develop (or have the lab develop) your B&W film for "normal" silver gelatin printing and it won't need the higher density range specs

Tom

 

[Pinholemaster]

From all our limitations comes freedom.

None of this gear will help you if it doesn't work with you creative vision.

Think about what you need to express with photography, and then get the correct tools to do it.

Remember, the camera is simply a box to keep light out until you open the shutter. You don't even need a lens. A simple pinhole box will do. They're cheap.

You could simply make cyanotype contact prints, so no need for a scanner or a darkroom, too.

A limited budget should inspire imagination.