They completely fall apart at 200% on photoshop and it looks almost worse than some 35mm I've seen scanned.
those are 3024 × 2421 TIF files, two at 22MB each.
the top end Imacon/Hasselblad scanners have a 8000pixel line scan sensor, which means they can scan 4x5" up to 2000ppi. this will result in a bit over 300MB in 16bit RGB or a bit over 150MB in 8bit.
so if your 42MB scan is 8bit, that would equal to around 1000ppi scan resolution.
for a good 16x20" print I would aim for at least 1500ppi, which shouldn't be too hard on a good scanner (once you need over 4000ppi it gets tricky).
however, the scan resolution is only part of the scan quality. there's also dynamic range, noise, and color accuracy.
if you have a dropbox or google drive you could upload the original and share a link. or if you want I can send you an upload link in a direct message and host it for a couple of weeks.
I just had my local lab process some of my first 4x5 E6 film I've ever shot. A couple of the positives came out great, so I asked for them to be scanned on their imacon scanner (not sure on model specifics). The files are something like 42 megabytes for just two scans (seems really small). They honestly look really disappointing in terms of resolution. They completely fall apart at 200% on photoshop and it looks almost worse than some 35mm I've seen scanned.
What am I missing here? I've heard nothing but good things about imacon/hasselblad quality, although I know real drums scans are far superior...
Should I just pay for pricey drum scans? I want to print at least 16x20
Thanks
I am assuming they are giving you tiff files and not jpeg files?
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 photographsAssuming 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 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.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
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.
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 was assuming your stated location was accurate.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)
Oh no I meant that I was being rude not saying where I was located earlier
The V600 does not scan 4x5 without scanning two parts and stitching, not a very good way of scanning. You need a V850 to scan large format film.
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.
I just had my local lab process some of my first 4x5 E6 film I've ever shot. A couple of the positives came out great, so I asked for them to be scanned on their imacon scanner (not sure on model specifics). The files are something like 42 megabytes for just two scans (seems really small). They honestly look really disappointing in terms of resolution. They completely fall apart at 200% on photoshop and it looks almost worse than some 35mm I've seen scanned.
What am I missing here? I've heard nothing but good things about imacon/hasselblad quality, although I know real drums scans are far superior...
Should I just pay for pricey drum scans? I want to print at least 16x20
Thanks
This 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.
Theres also the V700, V750.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?