Scanner recommendations for 4x5

[hsandler]

Hi Alan, I use a V750, but you can begin scanning 4x5 using your existing V600. You just need to position half the negative under the transparency unit channel, scan, then move the negative over and scan the other half. You then stitch the two together using the photomerge feature of Photoshop. It does a great job and only takes a couple of minutes. I don't use 4x5 negative holders. I tape the negative to a piece of ANR glass, then suspend the glass over the scanner glass on felt standoffs. my workflow is described and illustrated here:

https://journal.graflex.org/journal-2018-02.pdf

Honestly, I find any old scanner will do a job good enough for me on 4x5. Even 1200 pixels per inch would be enough resolution for my uses.

 

[Film Rescue]

I'm assuming you won't have a budget for a drum scanner or something like a Creo. I think you're on the right track with the Epson V850 but I'd definitely plan to be fluid mounting your negatives and scanning at the glass surface using the "film area guide" and not the "with film holder" setting. The Epson scanners can do a pretty decent job when they're used carefully and if you're shooting 4x5, you don't want to diminish that quality difference by trying to save some time in your scanning. The difference in quality between a fluid scan and a dry scan is as much difference as between an okay scanner and a great scanner so you might as well take advantage.

Slight side note...buy Lumina scanning fluid and not Aztec if you don't want to feel like the fluid is giving you cancer. Much lower odor.

 

[138S]

scanning at the glass surface using the "film area guide" and not the "with film holder" setting.

I'd say this is not the optimal choice, with the area guide and on bed" the scanner uses the low resolution lens, delivering less effective resolving power, a 25% less linear, this is 1/2 of the effective pixels in the area, noticeable in really big prints.

I'm assuming you won't have a budget for a drum scanner or something like a Creo.

For LF, many times a Creo or even a drum won't make much a difference over the V850, recently this serious side by side was made. https://www.largeformatphotography....Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners

Top-left is V700, bottom right is an Scanmate 11000 drum, the other two are two Creos:

The difference in quality between a fluid scan and a dry scan is as much difference as between an okay scanner and a great scanner so you might as well take advantage.

YMMV, me I don't see much a difference. New V850 holders have an ANR glass that helps conserving the ideal flim position, which is the main benefit of wet scaning. If we hane dust/scratches then fluid mount may be interesting.

 

[Film Rescue]

Apologies. You are indeed right. I just tried a test on one of our old V750 and scanning off the glass wasn't as good as with the carrier. I had a nice very flat polyester technical pan frame. Perhaps that's the difference. We don't use these scanners anymore. Compared to the Creo too. Creo is smoother with less grain but by no means a night and day difference.

 

[138S]

but by no means a night and day difference.

What makes difference is the person who opeartes the scanner and makes the digital edition !!!

Of course there are several ways to destroy a digital image... sure you agree with that. Also some people have a gift. They have a refined aesthetic criterion helping images to shine. I guess that often this is more important than the scanner itself.

 

[Film Rescue]

Yes, absolutely. Knowing how to make and edit the scan is most important. Oddly I remember doing this test about a decade ago with very different results. Memory is too flexible I think.

We have a Creo iQsmart 3, a couple of Fuji SP-3000 and also we will soon have a Phase one cultural heritage system which I have tested. The difference in quality with all of these beyond the extreme resolution and speeds of the Phase One system isn't something to die for. You need to be pixel peeping.

 

[138S]

I fully agree.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Yes, absolutely. Knowing how to make and edit the scan is most important. Oddly I remember doing this test about a decade ago with very different results. Memory is too flexible I think.

We have a Creo iQsmart 3, a couple of Fuji SP-3000 and also we will soon have a Phase one cultural heritage system which I have tested. The difference in quality with all of these beyond the extreme resolution and speeds of the Phase One system isn't something to die for. You need to be pixel peeping.

How do you like the C1 version of the heritage software? Looks like it has some interesting tricks up it's sleeve. Do those backs do multishot?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Hi Alan, I use a V750, but you can begin scanning 4x5 using your existing V600. You just need to position half the negative under the transparency unit channel, scan, then move the negative over and scan the other half. You then stitch the two together using the photomerge feature of Photoshop. It does a great job and only takes a couple of minutes. I don't use 4x5 negative holders. I tape the negative to a piece of ANR glass, then suspend the glass over the scanner glass on felt standoffs. my workflow is described and illustrated here:

https://journal.graflex.org/journal-2018-02.pdf

Honestly, I find any old scanner will do a job good enough for me on 4x5. Even 1200 pixels per inch would be enough resolution for my uses.

Thanks Howard. Some else posted a picture they stitched with the V600. But you can see where the two pictures were stitched. The exposure looks different on each side. I was thinking that he used scanner auto adjustments. That would make the scan results different for each side. So it would seem you need to scan without any adjustments at all. Then stitch and do all adjustments in post. Or set the adjustments manually to the same for each pass of the scanner. Then stitch. Not sure what works.

How do you do yours? I'll have to give mine a shot once I actually have a 4x5 negative in my hands. The other issue is where do you place the negative on the V600?

 

[138S]

I'll have to give mine a shot once I actually have a 4x5 negative in my hands.

A temporary alternative is HP G4050, from $25 at the auction site, while the V850 is way better many times you may obtain very good results with the G4050 from 4x5". See this Flickr search:

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=g4050 4x5

(Check if drivers are available for your OS.)

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

A temporary alternative is HP G4050, from $25 at the auction site, while the V850 is way better many times you may obtain very good results with the G4050 from 4x5". See this Flickr search:

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=g4050 4x5

(Check if drivers are available for your OS.)

It looks like you'd have to stitch 4x5. Here are the specs. Also, they don;t,provide the dMax.

Up to sixteen 35 mm slides, thirty 35 mm negative frames, up to two medium format film frames (120 roll film), or one large format film frame (220 roll film).

 

[jeffreyg]

Alan,
I would think the 850 would do just fine. I have been using my "ancient" Epson Perfection 4870 Photo for medium and 4x5 for a number of years and am still getting excellent results. I use SilverFast Studio Ai 8 software with it. I must say that I'm not in the nitty-gritty camp of pixel counting or chemistry in my wet dark room. I guess I am an image maker and if it looks good and seems to be an effective print that's what counts to me. I have had both 2 1./4 and 4x5 negatives commercially enlarged to 40 inches from negative scans and will soon have a scanned print (from a 2 1/4 ) enlarged to 72 inches for an up coming April exhibition. Fortunately the subject is soft so ultrasharp won't be necessary. Hopefully it will work.

I ended up opted for a 60 inch x 48 inch enlargement because of a framing requirement and the result was great. It looked exactly like the original print. They used a Canon 12 ink printer.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

 

[hsandler]

Thanks Howard. Some else posted a picture they stitched with the V600. But you can see where the two pictures were stitched. The exposure looks different on each side. I was thinking that he used scanner auto adjustments. That would make the scan results different for each side. So it would seem you need to scan without any adjustments at all. Then stitch and do all adjustments in post. Or set the adjustments manually to the same for each pass of the scanner. Then stitch. Not sure what works.

How do you do yours? I'll have to give mine a shot once I actually have a 4x5 negative in my hands. The other issue is where do you place the negative on the V600?

You can place the negative directly on the scanner plattetn, emulsion down

Thanks Howard. Some else posted a picture they stitched with the V600. But you can see where the two pictures were stitched. The exposure looks different on each side. I was thinking that he used scanner auto adjustments. That would make the scan results different for each side. So it would seem you need to scan without any adjustments at all. Then stitch and do all adjustments in post. Or set the adjustments manually to the same for each pass of the scanner. Then stitch. Not sure what works.

How do you do yours? I'll have to give mine a shot once I actually have a 4x5 negative in my hands. The other issue is where do you place the negative on the V600?

As I recall, I put the negative directly on the platen, emulsion down to avoid newton's rings (so you will have to flip the image file to get back to the correct orientation later). Orient the long side vertically at the edge of the scanning area for 120 film. Scan. Then move the negative laterally to position the other half over the same area. Scan again, with same settings. The two scans should have a small area of overlap since the negative is 4 inches wide, and the scanning area is 2.25 inches wide. The overlap is what photoshop needs to do the stitching. Open the two images in photoshop and make them layers of the same file. Then run the photomerge feature. They key, as I recall, to avoid the seam showing is to select "auto" in the photomerge options. This takes care of any vignetting or minor alignment issues, but my memory may be failing. You may have to experiment with the photomerge settings. What I do remember is the results were absolutely seamless. Here's one:

Viviane by Howard Sandler, on Flickr

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I currently have an Epson V600 using it for medium format. However, I'm moving into 4x5 large format. Can anyone give a brief analysis on scanners available. I guess I'm looking at the Epson 850 pro and 850 photo. Others?

For large format film scanning, Epson is pretty much the only game in town, at least for flatbed scanning, and reasonable cost. I have the v850 Pro. It comes with multiple sets of negative carriers so you can have one scan going and be prepping another one at the same time.

 

[aky13]

Alan, I realize that I am several years late in responding but I just saw this post while searching film scanners. MANY years ago, I had a very expensive (around $1,200 back then) Epson scanner with transparency adapter (LID with moving light that synced with the scan "eye" in the base).

When purchased, I was still active in my darkroom: everything from 35mm to 4x5. The scanner was PERFECT for me because it would scan up to FOUR 4x5 negatives at a single time. High res, etc. BUT, Working and with a young child, I did not have much time to use it.

Fast forward a decade, I had time and starting using the scanner. A small, triangular, piece of plastic in the transparency lid SNAPPED OFF. Unfortunately, it was the pulley anchor for the movable light. By then, it was a DISCONTINUED model

Back then, I contacted Epson and they told me "it is out of warranty. We will gladly sell you a new transparency adapter lid AT FULL LIST PRICE." I told Epson that I had hardly used it, but yes it was out of warranty. I also requested a DISCOUNT for a part for a DISCONTINUED model that is sitting in their parts storage facility. NOPE. As I vaguely remember, they wanted around $500 for the part.

I HATE being treated like that by any company! I will NEVER again buy anything Epson!

I've been using an HP Scanjet G4050. Although the original software will not work under Windows 11; I did buy Vuescan (that I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT recommend - see my review on Trustpilot) that works sometimes. BUT, I can only scan ONE 4x5 negative at a time. PAINFULLY slow with this scanner. The G4050 does a superb job and has been working well over many uses!

Arthur

 

[Film Rescue]

Alan, I realize that I am several years late in responding but I just saw this post while searching film scanners. MANY years ago, I had a very expensive (around $1,200 back then) Epson scanner with transparency adapter (LID with moving light that synced with the scan "eye" in the base).

When purchased, I was still active in my darkroom: everything from 35mm to 4x5. The scanner was PERFECT for me because it would scan up to FOUR 4x5 negatives at a single time. High res, etc. BUT, Working and with a young child, I did not have much time to use it.

Fast forward a decade, I had time and starting using the scanner. A small, triangular, piece of plastic in the transparency lid SNAPPED OFF. Unfortunately, it was the pulley anchor for the movable light. By then, it was a DISCONTINUED model

Back then, I contacted Epson and they told me "it is out of warranty. We will gladly sell you a new transparency adapter lid AT FULL LIST PRICE." I told Epson that I had hardly used it, but yes it was out of warranty. I also requested a DISCOUNT for a part for a DISCONTINUED model that is sitting in their parts storage facility. NOPE. As I vaguely remember, they wanted around $500 for the part.

I HATE being treated like that by any company! I will NEVER again buy anything Epson!

I've been using an HP Scanjet G4050. Although the original software will not work under Windows 11; I did buy Vuescan (that I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT recommend - see my review on Trustpilot) that works sometimes. BUT, I can only scan ONE 4x5 negative at a time. PAINFULLY slow with this scanner. The G4050 does a superb job and has been working well over many uses!

Arthur

I hear you brother!

IMO, Epson's business model should be considered criminal and regulated our of use. All of their gear is designed to basically expire and not be fixed.

In your case they make parts price exorbitant so you might as well buy a new scanner.

In my case they make chipped printer cartridges so prints are counted so even if you have enough ink, won't print. Printers with counters that once the internal ink waste pad is full, will no longer work and then make that service to replace the waste ink pad so high or so unavailable if you're not in a major urban center that you toss the thing and buy a new one. They make print ink cost so much that if you have even a minor repair issue with your printer, you're better off buying a new printer in order to get the new inkset.

A person could get around some of this if you were able to use aftermarket inks and a continuous ink system but now they've made their most recent printers unhackable to do this. It's like buying a car and being told you can only fill your car with gasoline supplied by the manufacture.

In the end, these practices mean more and more trash in our landfill and more and more resources being wasted to forever be making new gear. The business model should instead be, make the gear more expensive and the ink and repairs much cheaper and in the case of repairs, with right to repair legislation, there would be an industry of independent entrepreneurs to fix these things instead of throwing them out. Unfortunately this would cut into the big companies profits so we won't see this happening without regulation. Unfortunately that word has been made to be extremely unpopular in the name of "Freedom" when the reality is, the rich need to get richer.

Sorry to be on the soapbox with this one but Epson makes me extremely angry and if I switch to another manufacture, I will only be angry with them too because it will be the same bs.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan, I realize that I am several years late in responding but I just saw this post while searching film scanners. MANY years ago, I had a very expensive (around $1,200 back then) Epson scanner with transparency adapter (LID with moving light that synced with the scan "eye" in the base).

When purchased, I was still active in my darkroom: everything from 35mm to 4x5. The scanner was PERFECT for me because it would scan up to FOUR 4x5 negatives at a single time. High res, etc. BUT, Working and with a young child, I did not have much time to use it.

Fast forward a decade, I had time and starting using the scanner. A small, triangular, piece of plastic in the transparency lid SNAPPED OFF. Unfortunately, it was the pulley anchor for the movable light. By then, it was a DISCONTINUED model

Back then, I contacted Epson and they told me "it is out of warranty. We will gladly sell you a new transparency adapter lid AT FULL LIST PRICE." I told Epson that I had hardly used it, but yes it was out of warranty. I also requested a DISCOUNT for a part for a DISCONTINUED model that is sitting in their parts storage facility. NOPE. As I vaguely remember, they wanted around $500 for the part.

I HATE being treated like that by any company! I will NEVER again buy anything Epson!

I've been using an HP Scanjet G4050. Although the original software will not work under Windows 11; I did buy Vuescan (that I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT recommend - see my review on Trustpilot) that works sometimes. BUT, I can only scan ONE 4x5 negative at a time. PAINFULLY slow with this scanner. The G4050 does a superb job and has been working well over many uses!

Arthur

Thanks for you post Arthur. I'm sorry you had problems with Epson. I did buy their V850 for 4x5 large format I'm now shooting. It's OK but the holders are not the best. Good luck with your Scanjet.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I hear you brother!

IMO, Epson's business model should be considered criminal and regulated our of use. All of their gear is designed to basically expire and not be fixed.

In your case they make parts price exorbitant so you might as well buy a new scanner.

In my case they make chipped printer cartridges so prints are counted so even if you have enough ink, won't print. Printers with counters that once the internal ink waste pad is full, will no longer work and then make that service to replace the waste ink pad so high or so unavailable if you're not in a major urban center that you toss the thing and buy a new one. They make print ink cost so much that if you have even a minor repair issue with your printer, you're better off buying a new printer in order to get the new inkset.

A person could get around some of this if you were able to use aftermarket inks and a continuous ink system but now they've made their most recent printers unhackable to do this. It's like buying a car and being told you can only fill your car with gasoline supplied by the manufacture.

In the end, these practices mean more and more trash in our landfill and more and more resources being wasted to forever be making new gear. The business model should instead be, make the gear more expensive and the ink and repairs much cheaper and in the case of repairs, with right to repair legislation, there would be an industry of independent entrepreneurs to fix these things instead of throwing them out. Unfortunately this would cut into the big companies profits so we won't see this happening without regulation. Unfortunately that word has been made to be extremely unpopular in the name of "Freedom" when the reality is, the rich need to get richer.

Sorry to be on the soapbox with this one but Epson makes me extremely angry and if I switch to another manufacture, I will only be angry with them too because it will be the same bs.

The ink problem is a problem with all manufacturers. I finally gave up on refiling my tanks every few months. It seemed that if I didn't print for a while, half the ink would evaporate. The you had to run an ink test to get it flowing again. That process used up whatever remained in the tank. It's a good thing our body's circulatory system doesn't work like their design. I finally went back to an HP Laser printer for data printing in black only. No ink. If I need a quick print, I email it to Walgreens and for a few cents I get a decent ink print from them. Let them stock the inks.

 

[Film Rescue]

The ink problem is a problem with all manufacturers. I finally gave up on refiling my tanks every few months. It seemed that if I didn't print for a while, half the ink would evaporate. The you had to run an ink test to get it flowing again. That process used up whatever remained in the tank. It's a good thing our body's circulatory system doesn't work like their design. I finally went back to an HP Laser printer for data printing in black only. No ink. If I need a quick print, I email it to Walgreens and for a few cents I get a decent ink print from them. Let them stock the inks.

yeah...I would have done the same if I was printing my own pictures just on occasion. We're using hacked p800s and p600s with Cave Paint archival pigment ink so we can offer snapshot sized k3 B&W archival prints. While Cave Paint isn't optimal, it's decent if compared to dye prints...so far as our research has gone. There is no other way to offer such a thing practically speaking - at least that we've been able to figure out. We do a lot of B&W film scanning so it's nice to have this option for people. B&W on a color printer, still doesn't look great.

We have several brand new back up p600s so we should be able to sustain this for awhile yet.

 

[aky13]

Thanks for responding! I switched from Epson printers to a Canon Pixma iX6820. It has served me well for many years and is still going strong. I buy generic ink and have for years with VERY FEW issues from one vendor.

 

[MarkJW]

Alan, I realize that I am several years late in responding but I just saw this post while searching film scanners. MANY years ago, I had a very expensive (around $1,200 back then) Epson scanner with transparency adapter (LID with moving light that synced with the scan "eye" in the base).

When purchased, I was still active in my darkroom: everything from 35mm to 4x5. The scanner was PERFECT for me because it would scan up to FOUR 4x5 negatives at a single time. High res, etc. BUT, Working and with a young child, I did not have much time to use it.

Fast forward a decade, I had time and starting using the scanner. A small, triangular, piece of plastic in the transparency lid SNAPPED OFF. Unfortunately, it was the pulley anchor for the movable light. By then, it was a DISCONTINUED model

Back then, I contacted Epson and they told me "it is out of warranty. We will gladly sell you a new transparency adapter lid AT FULL LIST PRICE." I told Epson that I had hardly used it, but yes it was out of warranty. I also requested a DISCOUNT for a part for a DISCONTINUED model that is sitting in their parts storage facility. NOPE. As I vaguely remember, they wanted around $500 for the part.

I HATE being treated like that by any company! I will NEVER again buy anything Epson!

I've been using an HP Scanjet G4050. Although the original software will not work under Windows 11; I did buy Vuescan (that I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT recommend - see my review on Trustpilot) that works sometimes. BUT, I can only scan ONE 4x5 negative at a time. PAINFULLY slow with this scanner. The G4050 does a superb job and has been working well over many uses!

Arthur

Arthur, have you disposed of that Epson scanner with the broken pulley anchor? With a basic 3d printer, making replacement parts for discontinued and unsupported equipment is quite feasible. I'd be happy to do the CAD work necessary and even print a few prototypes, should you still have that lid in your possession.

 

[SodaAnt]

The ink problem is a problem with all manufacturers. I finally gave up on refiling my tanks every few months. It seemed that if I didn't print for a while, half the ink would evaporate. The you had to run an ink test to get it flowing again. That process used up whatever remained in the tank. It's a good thing our body's circulatory system doesn't work like their design. I finally went back to an HP Laser printer for data printing in black only. No ink. If I need a quick print, I email it to Walgreens and for a few cents I get a decent ink print from them. Let them stock the inks.

One option is an Epson "ink tank" printer, such as the EcoTank Photo ET‑8550. These printers have ink wells that refill via a bottle and a set of bottles is equivalent to about 100 ink cartridges.