Scanning 4x5?

[Jimi3]

Hi all, so I just started shooting 4x5 film again after a long time away from it. I’d love to make some prints in the darkroom, but realistically I think I’ll probably be scanning more than printing. What are people using to scan these days? I figure I can either use my 42mp mirrorless or my old Epson 4990. What would be easier, and what would give better results?

 

[BCM]

This depends on the final image size. I'm using both an Epson 850 and a Scitex Creo depending on the final formats. Wet mounting and maintaining proper focus will be the key to any bed scanning. I'm not happy with any results I got from using a camera (Hasselblad, Nikon, etc) to do scans but that's me. Scanning software is always a key issue as well which is what drives some people to camera scans. By the time you get the stand, light source, etc you may be able to find a good used flatbed. For 8x10 and 11x14, either is probably ok especially if you aren't "pro". My current workflow is to use a high quality scan (since it can always be downsized and I may not have access to the negative in the future) then do touch ups in PS then print through Quadtone RIP for either a print or a digital negative which then gets contact printed. The digital negative works really well for formats like 617.

 

[Jimi3]

Thanks. Yeah, I don’t have anything necessary for shooting the negatives other than the camera - I don’t even have macro lens. Maybe I’ll start experimenting with my 4990 and consider upgrading. I never wet mounted with that back in the day though- I just always used the included negative holders. How much difference does wet mounting make?

 

[koraks]

Welcome to Photrio, @Jimi3 !

I don't want to encourage any ensuing discussion about the best/most appropriate/etc ways to digitize your negatives. I would, however, like to emphasize @BCM's first remark: the quality requirement on your digital files depends on what you want to do with them. Personally I've scanned 4x5 on a 4990 for output to 16x20-ish inkjets and found the image quality perfectly fine for this. Mural sized prints? I wouldn't know - I've no use for the prints, so I don't fuss over the question if I could make them!

There's "best", but there's also "good enough". The latter tends to be massively underrated, especially in amateur photography, it seems. Well, when it comes to technical reproduction in any case.

 

[Jimi3]

Thank you! Yeah, I do print my wholly digital shots at 20x30 occasionally, but no bigger. Since I already have the 4990, seems like it makes sense start there. Do you think, if necessary, I could squeeze out a bit more resolution with a newer scanner? The v850 is out of budget right now, but I’d be open to buying an Epson that’s not ~ 20 years old.

 

[koraks]

I could squeeze out a bit more resolution with a newer scanner?

A little, perhaps, but I doubt it would make a very meaningful difference.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

FWIW I use the 4990 and unless you are printing billboards, it delivers great scans. There’s another thread current on using the 4990 for scanning 4x5 negatives:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/where-to-find-a-good-used-scanner.198421/

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Camera scans are ok for 35mm but in larger sizes a flatbed is just way easier and delivers better results. For 4x5 it isn't even close. The reality of consumer flatbed scanners is they weren't improved much after the 4990 era. I use a Canon 9950 from the same time period and I really see no point in "upgrading". I'd only recommend getting a newer scanner if you have a million scans to make since the newer scanners are faster.

 

[MattKing]

Use the 4990.
If you have a project that calls for a 20"x30" print that might be viewed at close distance, you can consider investing in a drum scan for that.

 

[henryyjjames]

I use an Epson V800 and V600 for my scanning (V800 for large format). I acquired them both on the used market, and are in great condition.
As previously mentioned, it depends on what you want to do with your scans and the quality requirements you need.

 

[Jimi3]

Thanks, I will take a look at that .

FWIW I use the 4990 and unless you are printing billboards, it delivers great scans. There’s another thread current on using the 4990 for scanning 4x5 negatives:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/where-to-find-a-good-used-scanner.198421/

 

[Jimi3]

Camera scans are ok for 35mm but in larger sizes a flatbed is just way easier and delivers better results. For 4x5 it isn't even close. The reality of consumer flatbed scanners is they weren't improved much after the 4990 era. I use a Canon 9950 from the same time period and I really see no point in "upgrading". I'd only recommend getting a newer scanner if you have a million scans to make since the newer scanners are faster.

Good to know. It definitely sounded like way more work to get a camera setup going, and if results aren't any better it definitely doesn't make sense. I'll just have to get some film holders for the 4990.

 

[Jimi3]

Use the 4990.
If you have a project that calls for a 20"x30" print that might be viewed at close distance, you can consider investing in a drum scan for that.

Sounds good! I also have used to have a darkroom setup I could revive if necessary for analog prints - my enlarger should be able to do horizontal printing, though I never did it before....but for now it sounds like my Epson should do fine.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Good to know. It definitely sounded like way more work to get a camera setup going, and if results aren't any better it definitely doesn't make sense. I'll just have to get some film holders for the 4990.

I scan 4x5 right on the glass which isn't quite as good as if it was in a holder at the correct hight but good enough is often good enough. If you want to just do that, scan with the emulsion facing the glass and flip it in Photoshop. Holders are better at preventing flare though. I can do 4 4x5s at a time which just makes it go faster.

Only thing to look out for if you've had your scanner a long time is fog on the underside of the glass. Should be pretty easy to clean. I clean the glass on mine every year or two. Makes a big difference. There are probably instructions online on how to do it for the 4990.

 

[ntenny]

If you scan directly on the glass, my understanding is that the “Transparency 8x10” setting focusses there, as opposed to the regular “Transparency” setting which focusses at holder height. You do lose resolution—maximum of 2400 dpi instead of 4800.

-NT

 

[jeffreyg]

I have a v850 and routinely scan 120 and 4x5 with very good results. Enlargements to 5ft for an exhibition. I think you should get very good scans from a 4990 as long as the original is very sharp.

 

[Steven Lee]

Would be great to see full-sized scans in such threads too.

Comments like "works great" or "no problem" are meaningless because they're subjective. Flatbeds are discussed as if they're all the same but surely there's difference between 4990 vs V600 vs V700 vs V850. Same thing with cameras. A 16MP APSC with adapted manual focus macro lens from the 80s is not the same as a 100MP BSI sensor with a 16-element modern glass in front of it. The scanning software plays a huge role too, especially for color.

 

[BCM]

Thanks. Yeah, I don’t have anything necessary for shooting the negatives other than the camera - I don’t even have macro lens. Maybe I’ll start experimenting with my 4990 and consider upgrading. I never wet mounted with that back in the day though- I just always used the included negative holders. How much difference does wet mounting make?

Focus on the bed is MOST important and is really different at least on my V850. I have a wet mount kit for it as well and it is (subjectively) a 20% improvement. I'm not an "just ok" kind of guy (Engineer) so I strive to get the very best possible result out of anything. For me, proper focus height and oil mounting on the V850 got that with nothing left on the table. The Scitex is designed to fluid mount on the bed but it is a completely different level of scanner.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Would be great to see full-sized scans in such threads too.

Comments like "works great" or "no problem" are meaningless because they're subjective. Flatbeds are discussed as if they're all the same but surely there's difference between 4990 vs V600 vs V700 vs V850.

No, not really. Consumer flatbed scanner technology has barely budged since Epson sold the 3200 back in the Pleistocene era. Many many reviews over the years have done what you ask, and all show extremely small differences from model to model. For most photographers, the differences are meaningless. What point is served by repeating the comparisons yet again here?

 

[Jimi3]

Ok, so I’ll get a holder for my 4990 - I have no idea what happened to the originals. Good sources for these?

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Ok, so I’ll get a holder for my 4990 - I have no idea what happened to the originals. Good sources for these?

You really don’t need one. If you select “8x10 transparency” in the scan options, the focal point is set at the scanner glass. Also, the DOF is quite tolerant on these machines. Just lay your negative emulsion-side down on the scanner glass (to avoid Newton rings), scan, then flip the image in post. A few old thin-emulsion films, like Tech Pan, caused serious Newton ring problems on the scanner glass but they were the exception, in my experience.

 

[Jimi3]

Ok, I thought I read elsewhere that when scanning directly on the glass, the scanner defaults to lower resolution. Or perhaps that was referring to one of the newer Epsons?

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Ok, I thought I read elsewhere that when scanning directly on the glass, the scanner defaults to lower resolution. Or perhaps that was referring to one of the newer Epsons?

If you scan a 4x5 negative at 2400dpi, the resulting file will be ginormous. (9600x12000 pixels.) At 2400dpi, you are scanning down to the film grain. How much more resolution do you need?

 

[Jimi3]

If you scan a 4x5 negative at 2400dpi, the resulting file will be ginormous. (9600x12000 pixels.) At 2400dpi, you are scanning down to the film grain. How much more resolution do you need?

Makes sense.


And...what I just wrote/asked about the resolution with each method came from earlier in this thread. Information overload, I guess.

 

[brbo]

4990 only has one lens. It uses the same focus point whether you scan you film in "8x10 transparency" mode directly on the glass or in holder. The lens focus point is optimized for holders, that is why you can observe a bit lower resolution when you scan film directly on glass - it's a bit out of focus.

Resolution target directly on glass bed:



At optimal height:



You can get something like1800-2000dpi of real resolution from 4990 if you use custom "holder" at the optimum height (you need to establish that by trial). I've seen V850 go as high as 2800dpi. 40% increase in linear resolution isn't exactly meaningless, imho. But, considering that OP already has 4990, it will do just fine for 4x5".