home flatbed vs noritsu/fuji for MF?

[jano]

Hey, out of curiosity, has anyone used the digital-minilab scanning services like on the Fuji Frontieres and Noritsus to scan MF?

If so, how do the results compare to, say, scanning on a flatbed such as the less expensive Epson 4490? I have over 2 dozen MF negs (and growing) I'd like to scan. A local place does the minilab scans for about $7.50 per roll. This isn't too bad, considering the time it'll take for me to scan on my own, but if the quality is better, I'm willing to invest the time.

Thanks,
Jano

 

[phototone]

I believe you will be happier with your "own" scans from the Epson, and here is why. Scanning is an "art". Even though the Mini-labs have scanners that are thousands of dollars, they can only give an "average" scan, and in general do not have well trained skilled operators to extract the best. After all, even though their scanners, as an element of their mini-lab printing are very expensive, they are really designed to only scan at enough resolution to produce 4x6 to 8x10 prints. This is far below the inherent resolution possible in a medium format negative or transparency. Now, the Epson also will not be able to extract every last teeny bit of resolution, but if you learn to use the scanning software and you optimize each and every scan you do, by evaluating a pre-scan image on your computer screen, you can come much closer to getting the best quality. You should always scan at the highest resolution your scanner is capable of, and scan in Tiff format for no loss of data. I do not think the mini-labs can produce a tiff file, just jpg, but I could be wrong. While I have dedicated film scanners for my work, I have a friend that has some model of flatbed Epson scanner and he shoots medium-format b/w negs for some of his "art", and he gets fabulous looking prints from the scans he does.

 

[jano]

groovy, thanks!

 

[Jamie123]

I agree that the flatbed scans probably are better then the ones you get from the consumer lab. The question is how much time you have and whether or not you need every photo scanned in high quality. There's always the possibility to have the lab scan all the negs and then rescan the ones you want to print at home.

Scans done at home take a considerable amount of time . The scanning time alone takes ages especially when you use ICE. For a 48-bit color scan at 4800dpi you'll get tiff files of around 500mb. Doing some retouching work in Photoshop on a file this big will really max out the computers memory.

Don't get me wrong, I do this all the time on my Epson 4990 (pretty similar to the 4490) and it's not a big deal when you have only one or two rolls to do but for a large amoung of film it will be quite a few hours of work.

I think it's a good idea to buy a scanner just in order to be able to control the results of your scans. However, you might still want to give the lab a roll to scan just to see how it turns out. It may be enough for most of your needs (e.g. if you only want to post them online).

PS: The negative holder that came with my Epson scanner only takes film strips with two 6x6 frames. If you shoot 6x6 most of your negatives are probably cut up in 3-frame strips. This can turn out to be a real pain in the bumbum 😉

 

[jano]

I agree that the flatbed scans probably are better then the ones you get from the consumer lab. The question is how much time you have and whether or not you need every photo scanned in high quality.

That was part of my question, actually.. i.e. is the quality difference good enough to warrant my time? The largest I see myself printing would be maybe 14x14 or something like that. Perhaps I should just have a roll scanned at the lab to see for myself. I've already ordered the 4490 -- it'll be $123, after rebate (buying refurb), and scanning the two dozen rolls at the lab would be over $200.

Scans done at home take a considerable amount of time . The scanning time alone takes ages especially when you use ICE. For a 48-bit color scan at 4800dpi you'll get tiff files of around 500mb. Doing some retouching work in Photoshop on a file this big will really max out the computers memory.

I have an old computer, and I'm already beginning to shudder here. WIll have to find a way to maximize the workflow, or just berak down and get a new computer. However, I plan on not using ICE. I've gotten pretty quick at spotting dust and removing scratches since I mostly scan b&w. The Spot-healing brush in PS is a savior 😀

PS: The negative holder that came with my Epson scanner only takes film strips with two 6x6 frames. If you shoot 6x6 most of your negatives are probably cut up in 3-frame strips. This can turn out to be a real pain in the bumbum 😉

Well that's not good! Silly engineers *grumble grumble* don't take into account its users *grumble grumble*. I wonder whether doug fischer's holders do. Time to go read up.

Thanks for your time,
Jano

 

[kaiyen]

Jano,
Let's see..

1 - get Doug Fisher's holder. period.

2 - even at 2400 and 16 bit, scanning still takes a while. but I have no problem walking away and coming back later. no big deal. I get the frames done. you do learn to edit on the lightbox, though.

3 - as you see, I scan at 2400 on the 4490. I haven't done hardcore tests, but even my best MF slides don't show a difference between 2400 and 4800. I don't think the actual resolution is much past 2400.

4 - don't worry about the new computer yet. see how it goes. consider an iMac if you need a new computer - they are good values right now. and I'm a PC guy...

allan

 

[Jamie123]

Yes, Doug Fisher's holders do take into account its users. They are an excellent add on for the Epson scanners and a good investment, IMO. I bought one a few weeks ago and I'm happy that I did. His holders take 3-frame filmstrips and also keep the negs flat (which the epson holder doesn't).

Allan is right about the resolution. You don't really need to scan all your negs at the highest resolution. I only do this when I want to do a good print and even then it's probalby overkill. For general purposes 2400bpi at 16bit will definitely suffice and with b&w negs your files will not be that big (I usually get around 100mb at 3200bpi 16bit b&w). Just don't go much lower than 2400 and your scans will look very good.

With two dozen rolls of 120film I assume you have about 300 frames to scan. If you want to scan every one of them at high res that's quite timeconsuming but if you only have a few "keepers" a roll it's not that big a deal. A lot of the photos I take don't make it past the scanner preview. I only scan the ones I like. If you really want to scan every one of the 300 frames either take a week off from work/school or plan on being very busy for the next couple of weekends.

 

[Monz]

Hi,
I use an Epson F3200, which although is not a flatbed scanner, is excellent for medium format. A friend of mine who does a lot of 6x7 work compared scans from this machine (3200dpi) to those he got back from 2 pro labs. The EPSON was slightly better or similar in terms of resolution. The only weakness with the EPSON was inferior shadow details with some negatives.

--
Monz

 

[jano]

Cool, thanks all.

Jamie, yah, I know which ones I want to scan on the B&W, but I cannot read color negatives. I plan to use the same strategy I use with 35mm.. quick preview scan to determine whether I'll even like the photo, and if good, I'll mark it for full scan later.

*shrug*

THanks again! 🙂
Jano