I was pondering a better scanner because I was not satisfied with the scans from 135 and 120. So, I was researching better models, better scan holders, wet scanning and so on.
But this weekend I "scanned" 135 and 120 with my DSLR since I got an incredible bargain on a macro lens. Conclusion: the first tests completely blew away any scan and it's way faster. I don't think I will ever use a scanner for 135 and 120.
This leaves 4x5. I know some people scan 4x5 on V600 and similar scanners (max size 120), then stich them. Theoretically, scanning at 2400dpi, then stitching, would have a better resolution than my DSLR. 5 inches at 2400 equals 12000 pixels, that's more resolution than I would get from my D850.
I have some questions:
- which holder/method are people using to scan 4x5 on a V600 or similar?
- I guess stitching is done in Photoshop
- If you did this: is it worth the time?
- any other comments/thoughts?
But this weekend I "scanned" 135 and 120 with my DSLR since I got an incredible bargain on a macro lens. Conclusion: the first tests completely blew away any scan and it's way faster. I don't think I will ever use a scanner for 135 and 120.
This leaves 4x5. I know some people scan 4x5 on V600 and similar scanners (max size 120), then stich them. Theoretically, scanning at 2400dpi, then stitching, would have a better resolution than my DSLR. 5 inches at 2400 equals 12000 pixels, that's more resolution than I would get from my D850.
I have some questions:
- which holder/method are people using to scan 4x5 on a V600 or similar?
- I guess stitching is done in Photoshop
- If you did this: is it worth the time?
- any other comments/thoughts?
Last edited by a moderator: