Scanning 8x10

[StoneNYC]

In the near future I may be venturing into 8x10 film.

I have an Epson V750 and I understand I will only be able to use the lesser lens to capture the film, shooting at roughly 1200dpi and MAYBE 2400 dpi instead of the normal 3200 dpi I'm able to capture normally with the better lens.

So without getting into an insane drum scanner system, is there any other option?

Thanks.

 

[hoffy]

My first word of advice

Better Scanning negative holder:

Flatbed Film Mounting Station for Fluid Mounting Wet Mounting

As for your question....I thought that the whole idea of the 750, was the ability to use the full width of the bed in transparency mode. Would this not give you optimal res? (in other words, I have no idea....)

 

[rbultman]

There are a couple of guys doing some great stuff using a DSLR and X-Y tables to scan negatives.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXy7RJwIBAo
Thread on LFPF: DSLR Scanner: Scans and Comparisons

-Rob

 

[StoneNYC]

My first word of advice

Better Scanning negative holder:

Flatbed Film Mounting Station for Fluid Mounting Wet Mounting

As for your question....I thought that the whole idea of the 750, was the ability to use the full width of the bed in transparency mode. Would this not give you optimal res? (in other words, I have no idea....)

The V750 does allow you to scan 8x10, but it is just too wide for the "film scanning lens" and so you end up having to use the film directly on the glass (instead of raising it up in a holder) [and yes I'm familiar with the betterscanning stuff] so the image quality is lower as you're using the lens meant to scan prints, not scan negatives. The largest film you can scan with the better lens is 5x7.

Don't get me wrong, the scan for an 8x10 would still be good, but it would be about as good as a 4x5 negative scanned on the same machine.

I'm preparing for the future when I actually make some prints, and I would like to be able to scan the image at a higher quality than the 4x5 even if I don't need that quality right now I may in the future, and I only want to scan once.

There are a couple of guys doing some great stuff using a DSLR and X-Y tables to scan negatives.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXy7RJwIBAo
Thread on LFPF: DSLR Scanner: Scans and Comparisons

-Rob

Thanks, however a DSLR is a much lower quality image than I'm looking for, and I don't want to be stitching my image together. Thanks for the thought, but I'm looking for options of scanners that might be older but would essentially be better for large format scans that by now are cheaper. There are many scanners that labs used to use that got replaced with newer, and you would never be able to afford them before, but now would be cheap? So the names of them aren't as well known because they weren't public scanners but smaller produced scanners that only people in the scanning business would be familiar with.

 

[rbultman]

...Thanks, however a DSLR is a much lower quality image than I'm looking for...

They are claiming better quality than flatbed. If you read the LFPF thread, you will see a comparison with a Cezanne scanner that should convince you. Yes, stitching might be painful, but a DSLR scanner will likely be cheaper than anything equivalent (my assertion with no data to back that up). Since it uses standard electronics (DSLR) and software (PS or whatever), you won't have issues with support in the future like people face with old drum scanners.

Just my two cents...

Good luck,
Rob

 

[removed account4]

The V750 does allow you to scan 8x10, but it is just too wide for the "film scanning lens" and so you end up having to use the film directly on the glass (instead of raising it up in a holder) [and yes I'm familiar with the betterscanning stuff] so the image quality is lower as you're using the lens meant to scan prints, not scan negatives. The largest film you can scan with the better lens is 5x7.

stone

usually with transparency scanners it isn't the scanning lens that is toosmall, there isn't a 2nd lens the scanner uses to
scan film / chromes it is an illuminated lid. the lid illuminates the film so the scanner's optical eye records it illuminated
not "flat art / reflective" it isn't optimal but i have a 4870 with a lighted lid big enough for 6x8. and i have scanned 8x10 film with it successfully
by making my negatives + chromes a little thinner than i would normally make them, and scanning with something bright white behind the film.
you could always make your own lighted lid that is 8x10. i am guessing there are kits available or maybe a kickstarter project to make one
that include the plug ... it is just a series of color corrected xenon tubes ( cold cathode ) / fluorescent in a lid with ground glass / milk glass to even out the light ..
like a light table because that is what a scanning lid really is, a light table the scanner scans against.
the other alternative would be not to scan your film at all, but to make some sort of proof sheet / contact print and then scan the flat art ..
knowing your current darkroom situation i have a feeling, unless you are making stabilized retina prints or cyanotypes or some sort of non darkroom image, its not going to happen.

john

ps maybe someone has already made a ready to plug in 8x10 top for your scanner in the after market, market .. ?

 

[StoneNYC]

stone

usually with transparency scanners it isn't the scanning lens that is toosmall, there isn't a 2nd lens the scanner uses to
scan film / chromes it is an illuminated lid. the lid illuminates the film so the scanner's optical eye records it illuminated
not "flat art / reflective" it isn't optimal but i have a 4870 with a lighted lid big enough for 6x8. and i have scanned 8x10 film with it successfully
by making my negatives + chromes a little thinner than i would normally make them, and scanning with something bright white behind the film.
you could always make your own lighted lid that is 8x10. i am guessing there are kits available or maybe a kickstarter project to make one
that include the plug ... it is just a series of color corrected xenon tubes ( cold cathode ) / fluorescent in a lid with ground glass / milk glass to even out the light ..
like a light table because that is what a scanning lid really is, a light table the scanner scans against.
the other alternative would be not to scan your film at all, but to make some sort of proof sheet / contact print and then scan the flat art ..
knowing your current darkroom situation i have a feeling, unless you are making stabilized retina prints or cyanotypes or some sort of non darkroom image, its not going to happen.

john

ps maybe someone has already made a ready to plug in 8x10 top for your scanner in the after market, market .. ?

John, you need to do research before you talk about this stuff that you don't understand.

The V-750 has two lenses...

The standard high quality lens for scanning film with a raised focal plane hight and the lower lens which focuses at the glass height, which is mostly used for scanning prints and documents.

The backlight covers a but OVER 8x10...

Anyway read up on the scanner since I can tell you aren't familiar with it.

 

[removed account4]

stone, you asked for a solution and i offered one
a suggestion that probably will work ( that DOES work ).

yes, i was wrong, forgive me.
no, i am not familiar with every scanner made
i have better things to do than read websites allday
and make it seem like i am an expert,
i never said i was an expert in anything LOL
no. im not interested in your drama here, or anywhere else.

good luck with your situation seeing your scanner is not made to scan large film
you are probably SOL unless you stitch or use your camera or make a print

 

[L Gebhardt]

I honestly wouldn't worry too much about it until you try it. My guess is there will still be an improvement over the 4x5. It's using the same CCD, so it has a maximum horizontal resolution limited by that. However from what I have seen a 4x5 doesn't get you fully sharp pixels from the CCD. Maybe it's better with 8x10 and the other lens since it doesn't need to enlarge as much. I'm not sure one lens is supposed to be better, just different magnification.

There are professional scanners other than drum scanners that can do high resolution 8x10 (and higher) scans. They won't necessarily be cheaper. The Eversmart Pro series are very good from what I have seen, but are priced like a drum. There were older Microtech and Epson scanners that would do 8x10 film, but I don't think they are better than the V750.

 

[lenny]

Drum scanners aren't insane, its just another tool. Learning how to mount is no more difficult than learning about how to load film holders, or loading a Jobo, and figuring out whether you should pre-soak or not. Right now they cost about $1500 for a Howtek 4500, just under twice what the 750's cost. And the quality is quite a bit more than double.

Lenny

 

[Pioneer]

Why scan the negative? I enjoy shooting 8x10 but I don't try to scan it.

Just contact print. When you find one you really like, send it out and have it done professionally. Or even better, send it out and have it enlarged and printed. Or have both done.

 

[StoneNYC]

I honestly wouldn't worry too much about it until you try it. My guess is there will still be an improvement over the 4x5. It's using the same CCD, so it has a maximum horizontal resolution limited by that. However from what I have seen a 4x5 doesn't get you fully sharp pixels from the CCD. Maybe it's better with 8x10 and the other lens since it doesn't need to enlarge as much. I'm not sure one lens is supposed to be better, just different magnification.

There are professional scanners other than drum scanners that can do high resolution 8x10 (and higher) scans. They won't necessarily be cheaper. The Eversmart Pro series are very good from what I have seen, but are priced like a drum. There were older Microtech and Epson scanners that would do 8x10 film, but I don't think they are better than the V750.

Thanks, good advice. My point in this whole thread was sort of to educate myself ahead of time so if and when it comes down to the time I'm going to be scanning these using my Epson scanner and I'm unhappy with the results, I will already have the knowledge to go out and search for the proper scanner as an upgrade or whatever you want to call it, but in fact if I'm happy enough with the Epson I suppose that's something to hope for.

Drum scanners aren't insane, its just another tool. Learning how to mount is no more difficult than learning about how to load film holders, or loading a Jobo, and figuring out whether you should pre-soak or not. Right now they cost about $1500 for a Howtek 4500, just under twice what the 750's cost. And the quality is quite a bit more than double.

Lenny

That's true, I suppose what I was thinking was that I didn't want to have to deal with the idea of learning a whole new scanning system and also the soaking issue as far as I understand it you have to always use some kind of wetting agent on a drum scan so you have to go through the process of wetting the film scanning it and then going and washing and hanging the film to dry all over again, is this incorrect?

Why scan the negative? I enjoy shooting 8x10 but I don't try to scan it.

Just contact print. When you find one you really like, send it out and have it done professionally. Or even better, send it out and have it enlarged and printed. Or have both done.

The reason that I'm scanning is because currently I don't do wet optical printing, I will in the future however, I do plan for this and at that time I'll be able to use the negatives in the manner in which they were originally designed, however much of the work that I'm going to be doing is with transparency film which cannot be optically printed the old-fashioned way anymore because cibichrome does not exist (or is unrealistic as a medium to choose for printing by the time that I'm able to actually print 8 x 10 sheet film). Yes I am aware that color negative film exists but until Fuji stops producing Velvia50/100 in sheet film, I will be shooting it, I'm going to ride this horse until it's dead... So scanning is realistically my only option, and I would like the best scanned images I can get.

 

[lenny]

That's true, I suppose what I was thinking was that I didn't want to have to deal with the idea of learning a whole new scanning system and also the soaking issue as far as I understand it you have to always use some kind of wetting agent on a drum scan so you have to go through the process of wetting the film scanning it and then going and washing and hanging the film to dry all over again, is this incorrect?

I understand not wanting to learn a whole new system. However, using a consumer flatbed you are already most of the way there, it wouldn't be hard for you at all. If you were not in NYC I would invite you over to show you what it looks like...

You are, in fact, incorrect about the "wetting" business. The film is mounted on a drum using "mounting fluid". Most of what is in this stuff is Naptha, or dry cleaning fluid. It is incredibly volatile. One puts acetate on the drum. Then you add the negative, and squirt it all over with the fluid. You fold the acetate over and tape it down securely and do the scan. When done, you take off the tape and acetate, wave the neg back and forth in the air twice and the fluid is gone.

I suppose you could call it "wetting" but it is nothing like using water, soaking it, etc. I did a youtube video of the process a couple of years ago - you can take a look... Drum Mounting Demonstration - YouTube

Lenny

 

[StoneNYC]

I understand not wanting to learn a whole new system. However, using a consumer flatbed you are already most of the way there, it wouldn't be hard for you at all. If you were not in NYC I would invite you over to show you what it looks like...

You are, in fact, incorrect about the "wetting" business. The film is mounted on a drum using "mounting fluid". Most of what is in this stuff is Naptha, or dry cleaning fluid. It is incredibly volatile. One puts acetate on the drum. Then you add the negative, and squirt it all over with the fluid. You fold the acetate over and tape it down securely and do the scan. When done, you take off the tape and acetate, wave the neg back and forth in the air twice and the fluid is gone.

I suppose you could call it "wetting" but it is nothing like using water, soaking it, etc. I did a youtube video of the process a couple of years ago - you can take a look... Drum Mounting Demonstration - YouTube

Lenny

Thank you, watched the whole thing! What a process!!

But I suppose it could be worth it. Thank you, much to consider.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Stone!!!

So it really IS child's play to jump over here from APUG for a scanning question or response. Now I really don't see what it is that all those guys are constantly whining and crying about. Sheesh.

Just to be able to later claim that I tried to contribute something useful here, I'm an Epson V-750 Pro owner and my biggest problem with it when scanning 8x10 b&w negatives are unexpected faint Newton rings generated on the emulsion side. (Not the base side.)

In other words, I lay the negative down emulsion-to-glass. I use no cover glass, although sometimes I will masking tape the corners down just to hold the thing steady if I later might need to lift the lid. Using past flatbed scanners for smaller formats, the natural unevenness of the gelatin side was always sufficient to break up those interference patterns. Then I just inverted the scan before saving and working with it.

But with the 750 and both HP5+ and FP4+ I'm still getting noticeable interference. This is very irritating. When contact printing traditionally under a heavy glass sheet I always coat the glass with a very, very fine layer of plain hairspray droplets. These work wonderfully well to create sufficient clearance to break the interference. Plus they show no image degradation, leave no residue on the negative, are reusable with no mess, and are easily cleaned off with isopropyl alcohol.

I'm just not sure I'm ready to start spraying an expensive new scanner, even if I carefully mask it off first...



Ken

P.S. Welcome to DPUG Ken...

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone!!!

So it really IS child's play to jump over here from APUG for a scanning question or response. Now I really don't see what it is that all those guys are constantly whining and crying about. Sheesh.

Just to be able to later claim that I tried to contribute something useful here, I'm an Epson V-750 Pro owner and my biggest problem with it when scanning 8x10 b&w negatives are unexpected faint Newton rings generated on the emulsion side. (Not the base side.)

In other words, I lay the negative down emulsion-to-glass. I use no cover glass, although sometimes I will masking tape the corners down just to hold the thing steady if I later might need to lift the lid. Using past flatbed scanners for smaller formats, the natural unevenness of the gelatin side was always sufficient to break up those interference patterns. Then I just inverted the scan before saving and working with it.

But with the 750 and both HP5+ and FP4+ I'm still getting noticeable interference. This is very irritating. When contact printing traditionally under a heavy glass sheet I always coat the glass with a very, very fine layer of plain hairspray droplets. These work wonderfully well to create sufficient clearance to break the interference. Plus they show no image degradation, leave no residue on the negative, are reusable with no mess, and are easily cleaned off with isopropyl alcohol.

I'm just not sure I'm ready to start spraying an expensive new scanner, even if I carefully mask it off first...



Ken

P.S. Welcome to DPUG Ken...

Ken!!!!

Welcome to the dark side! (Or is it light side??).

Hmm I have scanned 4x5 pieces of film directly on the glass just to see what I would get, and had newton ring issues, I also have scanned many 70mm images where I had to put anti-Newton ring glass on the base side to stop curl and of course press both sides to glass, and the only time I've ever had an issue with Newton rings was when I had an image that was severely under or over exposed.

May I suggest that you give the sheet film a little curl, maybe bending it a little beforehand and then placing four quarters at each corner and pushing them a little bit together so that it creates a slight air pocket? I know it sounds like the reverse of what most people want, adding curl to your film, but it could give just enough distance between the glass and the emulsion to prevent any ring issues?

Since I don't really scan any kind of image on the glass directly ever, I was thinking that maybe it would be a good idea to just take some super glue and add a frame built up of super glue around the edges so that you could add some kind of liquid onto the glass without worrying about it going into the cracks at the edge? Essentially creating a pool area in the center of the glass and then just using that wetting stuff that you're supposed to use when you do a drum scan? (For some reason I can never remember the right name for that wetting agent type stuff).