Scanning mf

Nikon 9000 is about as cost effective as it gets. Everyone will tell you you need a glass carrier to keep the film flat. The price is ridiculous! Focal Point sells pre cut anti-newton glass for the scanner - cheap! One piece of glass on top of the film in the original holder - works very well and considerably cheaper than Nikon's glass carrier.
 
If you're on a budget, the Epson 4490 does a surprisingly good job at scanning my 120 B&W negs. The included software works pretty well too.

Jim B.
 
I bought a cheapo secondhand perfection 2540 onn the bay.

I don't print from my scans - just post then on the net.
It does an admirable job.
 
I just got an Epson V500 and it does a pretty good job of scanning 645 negs and slides. I'm pretty happy with it so far. I even put a couple of mounted slides directly on the glass and the scanner recognized and scanned them. The higher dpi scans are very slow, but I mostly intend to use the scans on the web.
 
Another vote for the Epson 4990. I even like the way it does 35mm, and I only print from scans. Prints look great up to 13x19 on my Epson R1800 (the largest print it does).

/T
 
Thanks for that folks. I'm thinking of venturing into mf and exploring different issues like scanning, printing and of course cameras
 
craygc said:
Nikon 9000 is about as cost effective as it gets. Everyone will tell you you need a glass carrier to keep the film flat. The price is ridiculous! Focal Point sells pre cut anti-newton glass for the scanner - cheap! One piece of glass on top of the film in the original holder - works very well and considerably cheaper than Nikon's glass carrier.
Click to expand...

I found fairly detailed directions on how to modify the stock carrier with 2 sheet of AN glass. I'd rather not bother, though, so I'll try a single sheet on top of my film.
 
Why shoot MF if you will scan with a scanner that won't pull out all of the detail? I own the Epson 4990, and my vote goes to the Nikon Coolscan 9000. It digs out a lot more detail. And the Epson is really slow with ICE enabled.
 
RObert Budding said:
Why shoot MF if you will scan with a scanner that won't pull out all of the detail? I own the Epson 4990, and my vote goes to the Nikon Coolscan 9000. It digs out a lot more detail. And the Epson is really slow with ICE enabled.
Click to expand...

In my case, because I only use the scans for posting on the web.

Shooting MF and producing prints from anything but the negs is crazy IMHO.
 
I am a novice when it comes to printing and am not likely to have a darkroom at least for some while. The scanner would be for me to evaluate my pictures and produce electronic versions for the web, etc. Some pictures could be printed commercially. That said, my neighbour who is a serious art photographer has invested in a scanner and printer for her colour and black and white mf work alongside a new DSLR.
 
Last edited:
I have a Coolscan 8000ED. Does a good job but you need to know how to set it up. There are also dedicated options from Polaroid and Minolta that are pretty good.
Main issue with the Coolscans is that for best results you need to scan B&W as a positive and then it doesn't do a good job of frame edge detection. Excellent detail though, and it will double as a 35mm scanner (12 frames of 35mm at a time)
 
I just got an Epson V700 and am amazed at how far technology has come in the last few years since buying a Nikon 8000 neg scanner. If I set the Epson holder up correctly with my 67 positives, I can't tell the different between which system would have scanned which on prints upto 12x18". I've ordered the Doug Fisher neg mask and hope it will give me even better performance.
 
Another happy V700 user here.

If you don't want to purchase third party holders, get yourself a piece (or two) of anti-reflective glass from a framing shop cut to fit in the standard Epson holders.
 
Bobfrance said:
In my case, because I only use the scans for posting on the web.

Shooting MF and producing prints from anything but the negs is crazy IMHO.
Click to expand...
Its not crazy at all - I can easily scan 6x7 on a 9000 and print a fine 24x28 from the 500+ meg file. Would a wet print be better ? :confused: I don't know - I never needed better (maybe larger!)
 
TJV said:
I just got an Epson V700 and am amazed at how far technology has come in the last few years since buying a Nikon 8000 neg scanner. If I set the Epson holder up correctly with my 67 positives, I can't tell the different between which system would have scanned which on prints upto 12x18". I've ordered the Doug Fisher neg mask and hope it will give me even better performance.
Click to expand...

You will find an in depth review of the V700 here:

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_1.htm

Chris B
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom