Inexpensive sheet film scanner for 3x4 B&W negs??

D

dsymes

Established
Local time
7:14 PM
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
58
Location
Portland, OR
View My Gallery
I would like advice from those with experience using inexpensive flatbed scanners for scanning B&W sheet film negatives. I'm assisting a local maritime museum with a collection of about 10,000 negatives, mostly 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 b&w which were shot with Graflex SLRs in the 1930s through 1950s. In a previous life (mid 1990s) I was an architectural photographer and did a fair amount of scanning of B&W sheet film with an Agfa Duo-Scan, so I am conversant, but somewhat out of date on modern scanners.

These folks are not funded by local or state government, and probably don't have the funds for an Epson 700. My question is whether or not the Epson 500 or 600 will scan this film size, and if there are suggestions for other suitable scanners in the $200-$300 range.

Many of these negatives show yellow chemical stains around the edges, probably from inadequate washing or storage effects, so the ability to scan on the equivalent of a yellow channel would be a plus, as well as relatively novice-friendly software (I won't be doing the scanning although i will probably help train whoever does wind up doing them.

Thanking you in advance,
Douglas
 
I would have thought the cost of the scanner is irrelevant. Compared to the cost of man hours to scan and process 10,000 sheet film negatives the scanner cost isn't even small change.
 
Douglas,

Consider Scanmaker i800.
Its capabilities are par with the Epson V700 but it's cheaper.
Use Vuescan to scan those old negatives.
 
I would wonder where you might find a negative holder for that size film. I've never seen one. I suppose you could make a mask for a 4x5 holder. Good luck. Scanning contact prints would work. That adds extra time/work/cost exponentially.
Good luck.

ps: RE-Stains. I wouldn't worry about the stains. Scan in 16 bit grey scale and everything should be fine.

Wayne
 
I agree that the $200 extra budget to get a V700 seems pretty small given the scope of the project. If you can find a gently used 4870 or 4990, one of those should fit your budget. There are a number of ways to accommodate that film size. It also sounds like fluid mounting might be appropriate. A slower workflow during the initial scan but it might save you quite a bit of time in terms of post processing. Unfortunately, you just have to experiment to know for sure.

Doug
 
If you've gotta have new then there's the HP Scanjet G4050 and the Canon 9000F, both around $200. I have the HP scanner, have never used or even seen the Canon scanner. I'd advise to get the Canon scanner, the HP's hardware is somewhat capable, but the software is absolutely terrible.
 
I've had excellent results using the old, and very cheap, Epson 2450 scanners. For the film size you want you'll get great scans. But 10,000 scans? At high rez, do you have any idea how long this would take?

Whichever channel you scan on is irrelevant. You want to scan at the highest resolution possible, then make your adjustments in post. So that alone will add considerable time, unless you make some "actions" in PS to automatically make several changes to each image quickly. Still, it's gonna take forever to do what you want to do. If I were you I'd look hard to find a better solution.

I once posted a thread here on how I was able to get identical results scanning w/ a 2450 compared to a good, dedicated film scanner with 35mm negs, which is not something a flatbed usually is capable of. That only resulted in admonishments that scanning depends a lot on the person behind the scanner. Yep, we all know that. I suspect people get frustrated when they see an old, obselete machine can be made to go head to head w/ the more expensive stuff if you apply the time to get it right.

These are 2 1/4 negs scanned on a 2450. The negs were taped to the glass w/ tape on the edges, as I did not have the neg carriers. I printed very large, and well, with them.

SteveMarino_a366a4477999.jpg


SteveMarino_691674478001.jpg


SteveMarino_3c3991478000.jpg
 
Thanks everyone for the suggestions.

135format: "I would have thought the cost of the scanner is irrelevant." If you would like to donate a scanner to a very small non-governmental museum with very limited resources, I'm sure it would be tax-deductable and much apppreciated.

shadowfox: "Consider Scanmaker i800." Do you have one? Has it been dependable? Do you have any experience with service/support? I saw a couple of negative reviews which seemed to focus on poor service. Also, any thoughts on the Scanmaker i480?

venchka: "...negative holder for that size film." I'll probably need to machine one out of aluminium.

cabbilnc: Does the HP make multiple passes for a B&W scan? Can you estimate how long it takes to scan a 4x5 piece of cut film at 600 ppi? 1200 ppi? Have you been fairly happy with your machine?

Steve M.: "Whichever channel you scan on is irrelevant." I would think that if one scans a yellow stain with the blue channel, it will be emphasized while with the red channel it would be minimized.

"At high rez...any idea how long this would take?" Well, I don't think they will be doing this at high rez - the goal will be for the images to be searchable through the database at screen resolution and for quality to be sufficient to make 8x10 prints at moderate quality, so scanning at 600ppi will probably be adequate. They will probably want to scan 2% or 3% of the most interesting images at high rez as well. Simply looking at each image critically and entering appropriate fields in the database so it can be searched will take more time than the scanning, and can probably be done concurrently.

Again, thank you all for giving me your thoughts on this.

Douglas
 
Does the HP make multiple passes for a B&W scan?
Click to expand...
No. At least mine using Vuescan doesn't. The first and second passes don't line up.
Can you estimate how long it takes to scan a 4x5 piece of cut film at 600 ppi? 1200 ppi?
Click to expand...
600 dpi - 47 seconds
1200 dpi - 2 minutes 27 seconds
Both single pass, no IR dust removal. Time is from clicking Scan to end of scanning pass. Computer processing of the image will also add to that time.
Have you been fairly happy with your machine?
Click to expand...
I've never used an Epson scanner, but you may look into getting a used one. Overall the HP scanner is mediocre, but the software is by far not up to your task. I use Vuescan though and that makes the scanner tolerable. The basic license is $40 and that should be enough for your your needs, but you'd want to keep that in mind for your budget.

Here's something from it from a TLR that's exposed properly

scan0003 by cabbiinc, on Flickr
Take a look at the full sized image at http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3388/5745928518_c754107f2f_o.jpg

Keep in mind I used Vuescan ($80 for the pro license to get RAW scans) to scan with and Photoshop with a plugin called ColorPerfect ($60) to get somewhat accurate scans. The purple and red should be deeper, but the yellow should be more pale and the clouds should be more white.
This is 120 film scanned at 2400 dpi. I wouldn't scan anything at less than that. 600 dpi might work for webpage views, but not much else. Keep in mind that one dpi on one model of scanner wont be the same as the same settings on another model of scanner. A 600 dpi scan on an Epson would likely look better than a 600 dpi scan on an HP G4050.

There is a guy on the LFF forums that uses a G4050 with the supplied software and likes the results. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?61902-Want-to-Scan-but-on-a-budget!&p=585408&viewfull=1#post585408 You may drop him a line and see what he says. He does state that he's scanning 4x5 slide film and that at 4800 dpi nothing is going to be fast on any flatbed. If you do go for the G4050 check HP's website. Sometimes you can find it on sale.

Sorry about the long post.
 
Here's another idea.

I recently found a box of 1910-era 4X5 negatives that have been buried away in storage for years. I don't have a scanner that can handle a negative that size so ended up putting the negatives on a light table and then taking a picture with my Olympus E-P1 while in macro mode. I then downloaded the picture to my computer, opened the pic in Photoshop, inverted the negative to make it a positive image, adjust contrast and brightness, and ended up with this.

Mode+T_.jpg


Jim B.
 
Mackinaw,

Thanks for the idea. I had considered that approach partly because it would be by far the fastest way to get images that would probably be sufficient for database searches. However, since these negatives will continue to deteriorate even though they are on safety film base, the museum wants to archive them at a level of quality that would allow moderate quality 8x10 reproductions. I suspect that using a dslr with a high quality macro lens might come close to this level of quality, but would also be more expensive than any scanner we are contemplating. Since the museum wants to be able to scan a small subset to a higher quality, some kind of flatbed seems the best approach.

Douglas
 
Cabbiinc -

That's exactly what I need to know. I suspect that any scanner that sells for under $200 will be less than wonderful. I wish I could get similar info on scanning speeds for the other scanners I'm looking at, namely the microtek i800 and i480 and the epson 700.

Thanks,
Douglas
 
Just curious but does anyone actually beleive that an epson 700 or any other consumer grade flatbed scanner is good for 10,000 scans before it breaks
 
I'd be lying if I told you that I knew the Epson scanner could handle 10,000 scans before breaking. But I'd think it could handle much more than that. Likely the thing that would wear out first is the bulb. If the software supports it having the bulb automatically turn off when not in use or turning off when not in use for a set amount of time is likely the best thing. Turning off the unit to keep the bulb from being on while not in use is probably the next best thing, but I like that to be automatic. I'm getting old and my bulb isn't as bright as it used to be.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Epson 4490 Upgrade For Scanning Photos.
Replies
0
Views
634
rl1856
R
Rogier
Does software make the difference?
Replies
6
Views
371
Jan makowski
J
M
Metallic Sheen on B&W Negs
Replies
13
Views
988
titrisol
titrisol
C
Finally, A Decent Scanner
Replies
10
Views
2K
chuckroast
C
V
Current Inkjet Options for B/W
2 3
Replies
58
Views
3K
robert blu
robert blu
Back
Top Bottom