That's exactly what you should expect from a Flextights as that is just the way they work. Digital files from 4x5" will basically have the same dimensions as the ones from 35mm film. The only advantage of shooting 4x5" and scanning with Flextight is (much) less apparent grain.
Are Imacon scans supposed to be good, or....?
-
H
- Thread starter Mammoth_research
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Negative Supply-PRO RISER MK3 Like-New Condition $700
- Started by JuanG
-
For Sale Nikkor SW 150mm f/8 including Sinar Lens Board $2300
- Started by JuanG
-
For Sale FS: Versar Portrait & View 5x7 8.75" f/6 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Hermagis No. 7 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Nicola Perscheid Objektiv 42cm f/4.5 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
That's exactly what you should expect from a Flextights as that is just the way they work. Digital files from 4x5" will basically have the same dimensions as the ones from 35mm film. The only advantage of shooting 4x5" and scanning with Flextight is (much) less apparent grain.
Is the 42MB tiff or jpeg?
Which shows they're 8-bit instead of 16, which exacerbates the highlight problem we touched upon earlier.
When I scan with my Epson V850 at 2400 bit resolution, 16-bit color, I get around 625 MB files in tiff for 4x5. Converting to jpeg gives me up to around 25mb depending on the compression setting.
That's correct, @Alan Edward Klein - and such scans will make mighty fine, big prints!
I scanned with a Imocan for years and this information seems correct,
I am assuming they are giving you tiff files and not jpeg files?
Assuming you’re paying the rates I’ve seen around for premium scans I think you could benefit from purchasing a flatbed.
I bought an epson v600 about 3 years ago to scan 4x5 and it’s paid for itself something like 30 times over at this point.
If you’re willing to put all the time and effort into operating a large format camera it’s only a small step further to get into making good scans of the resulting images.
I bought an epson v600 about 3 years ago to scan 4x5 and it’s paid for itself something like 30 times over at this point.
If you’re willing to put all the time and effort into operating a large format camera it’s only a small step further to get into making good scans of the resulting images.
Yes I agree that could be a good way to go. At the same time, I am hesitant to take that process into my own hands when I know there are so many professionals out there who can do a good job. Or maybe there really aren't that many... curious who others would recommend for reliable scanning. I feel like I am often digging myself deeper into a hole of technique (whether it be camera, negative, or print) and straying further away from time spent actually shooting photographs
Obviously I'm a bit biased, but maybe my thoughts on the matter are still somewhat useful:
for people who have enough time on their hand and enjoy the process of learning something new, scanning on your own is the better option, hands down. you get exactly what you want and it's much cheaper if you do it regularly.
this is especially true for large format, where one can buy affordable scanners that can deliver very good results.
for people who would rather spend their time on taking photographs or who find computer work a nuisance, outsourcing the postproduction seems the better option.
also, the really good scanners needed to for high quality on smaller film formats tend to be expensive.
the problem here is finding a place that fits your requirement for quality and budget. most cheap options simply can't invest the time needed for really good results.
lets's take for example your scan for a 16x20" print:
the scan itself can be done in like 15minutes on a very affordable scanner, so one would would expect that can easily be done cheaply.
but if you want to provide a really good results, you first need a 20minute phone call or three emails to find out the special needs and preferences of the photographer, then do the scan, then do the dust spotting (in this case on an Epson you could use automated ICE, but that also needs to be carefully applied), then send out a version for approval, then make adjustments, then send out the final scan, then pack up the film safely and send it back, and send an invoice and hope it gets paid.
obviously that's not possible for 20 bucks.
my experience is that not many people have the budget to pay for a truly dedicated service, which is why most labs have to go for the good enough approach to keep costs lower.
for people who have enough time on their hand and enjoy the process of learning something new, scanning on your own is the better option, hands down. you get exactly what you want and it's much cheaper if you do it regularly.
this is especially true for large format, where one can buy affordable scanners that can deliver very good results.
for people who would rather spend their time on taking photographs or who find computer work a nuisance, outsourcing the postproduction seems the better option.
also, the really good scanners needed to for high quality on smaller film formats tend to be expensive.
the problem here is finding a place that fits your requirement for quality and budget. most cheap options simply can't invest the time needed for really good results.
lets's take for example your scan for a 16x20" print:
the scan itself can be done in like 15minutes on a very affordable scanner, so one would would expect that can easily be done cheaply.
but if you want to provide a really good results, you first need a 20minute phone call or three emails to find out the special needs and preferences of the photographer, then do the scan, then do the dust spotting (in this case on an Epson you could use automated ICE, but that also needs to be carefully applied), then send out a version for approval, then make adjustments, then send out the final scan, then pack up the film safely and send it back, and send an invoice and hope it gets paid.
obviously that's not possible for 20 bucks.
my experience is that not many people have the budget to pay for a truly dedicated service, which is why most labs have to go for the good enough approach to keep costs lower.
I agree with those that suggest a reasonable scanner if you intend to do enough 4x5 work and don't mind a learning curve. It'll be cheaper in the end and you'll have more control of your work. But I hear you about too much time away from making the images and that's important too.
I see you're in the USA. If you can give us a more specific location we might be able to suggest a service that's close to you.
Ah right, classic American assuming everyone else is also American haha. I'm in the east coast USA
I was assuming your stated location was accurate.
(Also I am not assuming you are an American)
Attachments
Oh no I meant that I was being rude not saying where I was located earlier
Ha! No worries, I thought you were referring to me!
i scan 4x5 on a v600 all the time. Works great. Just gotta make sure to do it correctly. It’s a little bit of working around the limitations of the system but the end results are comparable to the v850.
It’s not for everyone but if you are budget constrained you can easily get images that are just about as good for something like a fifth of the price.
Agreed. I'm very happy with the results from my mirrorless scanning rig (A7RIV with pixel-shift, Sigma 70 ART macro, 99 CRI light source).
To the OP - to give some idea of what is possible with the above, here is a link to a reduced 51 megapixel version of one of my 4x5 sheets of Ektar: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53325410386_897c07c7a9_o.jpg
The original is 189 megapixels.
A drum scan or DT Heritage rig could no doubt eke out even more, but it's good enough for my purposes.
When it comes to color contrast, it is sometimes very disappointing to compare looking at a well made slide on a light table compared to a scan on-screen but even more so in print. I am not sure there is a paper that can match this although I have seen some cibachrome prints that I would paid good money for. Very likely the subject matter will make a difference.
However, when it comes to resolution, if you have something like a 40X magnifier, you will be able to see what a true 4000dpi scan will be able to provide. I use a super cheap Carson 40X magnifier and what I can see with this my Coolscan's 4000dpi can extract.
Carson 40X film magnifier by Les DMess, on FlickrThis may guide you to decide if a higher res scan may be able to extract more real detail captured on your slide then what you got from the Imacon scan. For that size film, most likely this will require a true drum scan.
Imacon were and are great scanners to the OP original question, the operator is the key
There's really no need to pay for expensive drum scans to get every last bit of information out of a sheet of 4x5 because there's really no use for a 560 Megapixel image file. There is no application that an everyday stills photographer would ever be able to make use of that many pixels.
The V700 series is no longer manufactured. Only the V850 is available new.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |