How to scan 5x4 negs?

RobMac

Member
Registered User
Thanks, Martin. I'll be viewing that a few times. The quality of your images is very high.
 

David M

Well-Known Member
Registered User
Martin,
The AN glass that comes with the Betterscannig frame might be ideal. Their glass for 120 film is an exact fit for the 120 holders of the Nikon 8000 scanner and presumably the 9000 too. Something to try when I've finished repairing the bathroom door.
 

martin henson

Admin
Staff member
Registered User
David, I use their AN glass on the Epson fluid mount, hinged with tape as in the video, and on the Nikon 9000 120 holder. Works extremely well on the Epson holder, however, on the Nikon 120 holder it keeps the negs flat but I found I got what I can only describe as edge burn between the frames spaces, I managed to pick up a Nikon glass holder with film masks that cured that.
 

Ian-Barber

Admin
Staff member
Registered User
Just remember to set the correct lens in the software, the Epson V7x and 8x has two different lenses each one giving a different angle of view
 

KenS

Well-Known Member
Registered User
I'm not adverse to placing the film directly onto the 'glass' (ie no film holder when scanning my 'occasional' 8x10 negaatives. I had to do it that way when I first started scanning my 4x5 negatives when a 4x5 film holder that came with the scanner was a 'tad' too tight and the film would not 'fit in properly. I contacted Epson about a 'how to fix the problem. A few days later later I received a 'replacement' by 'Special delivery' and an 'instructions' to seturn the 'bad' holder ASAP.. and to send "collect.

That is but one of my reasons for recommending the Epson.

And then... just the other day I had an invitation to 'hook up my scanner' for their newest software "update". When I have the time
(after spending some time sclearing the latest deposition of 'extremely cold white 'stuff' fell from 'up there.... about 8 inches ( I 'think its more of the 'well into the "minus degree temperatures freezing the atmospheric humidity' rather than from 'snow from the clouds'.
These 'snow-'flakes are only 'about 2 to 3 millimeters 'across.... but just as 'cold'

Ken
 

Doug

New Member
Registered User
Somewhere on the forum, I think, I saw the plug-in for color perfect part for a less price than the total package offered by the developer. Can anyone point me to the source?
 

Alan Klein

Member
Registered User
David, I use their AN glass on the Epson fluid mount, hinged with tape as in the video, and on the Nikon 9000 120 holder. Works extremely well on the Epson holder, however, on the Nikon 120 holder it keeps the negs flat but I found I got what I can only describe as edge burn between the frames spaces, I managed to pick up a Nikon glass holder with film masks that cured that.
Martin. You do very nice work. I started shooting 4x5's a year ago and upgraded from a V600 which I used for 35mm and 6x7s, to a V850. Here are some samples of 4x5s but they are all done dry with the V850 holders. How would you compare your wet mount scans to dry? Thanks. By the way. I'm from The Bronx in New York City, and my wife is from Brooklyn. So, your accent sounds more like English than either of ours.
 

martin henson

Admin
Staff member
Registered User
To be totally honest Alan, I have found very little difference between the way I mount the negs on the Epson, resting glass on top, which in turn keeps the 4x5 negs totally flat.

Using the wet method can be beneficial if the negative have scratches and it will in some cases help in minimising grain, also if you are doing big prints you might see better detail, other than that , I use the dry method 95% of the time mounting the neg as in my video

Martin
 

Alan Klein

Member
Registered User
Martin That's good to know. I'm pretty happy with my dry scans looking at the results in a monitor. But I haven't printed any large so that's why I asked. Thanks.
 

martin henson

Admin
Staff member
Registered User
its not a magic bullet I thought it would be , the difference is very small, however , at big print sizes you will proberbly see better smoother tonal transition scanning wet
 

thronobulax

Member
Registered User
Martin. You do very nice work. I started shooting 4x5's a year ago and upgraded from a V600 which I used for 35mm and 6x7s, to a V850. Here are some samples of 4x5s but they are all done dry with the V850 holders. How would you compare your wet mount scans to dry? Thanks. By the way. I'm from The Bronx in New York City, and my wife is from Brooklyn. So, your accent sounds more like English than either of ours.
Really nice work, Alan!
 

Ian Grant

Well-Known Member
Registered User
To be totally honest Alan, I have found very little difference between the way I mount the negs on the Epson, resting glass on top, which in turn keeps the 4x5 negs totally flat.

Using the wet method can be beneficial if the negative have scratches and it will in some cases help in minimising grain, also if you are doing big prints you might see better detail, other than that , I use the dry method 95% of the time mounting the neg as in my video

Martin

Wet mounting negative goes back to at least the 1920s. I have a short extract from a longer article in the 1927 British Journal Photographic Almanac.

Surface artefacts affecting the gelatin super coat can increase apparent garininess, this was more of an issue with older softer emilsions but can still affect some films Fuji Acros being one of the worst. Poor temperature control greatly increases these issues, at it's worst it's oftencalled micro or incipient reticulation. Kodak preferred the term "Surface Artefacts"

Ironically scanning rather than conventional optical enlarging can increase the apparent graininess from surface artefacts and this caused issue with early digital minilabs and Kodak colour films. This lead to changes in Kodak's emulsion hardeners in films and also colour papers. You can see references in currentKodak data-sheets to improvements for scanning.

Ctein used to wet mount his negatives for optical enlarging.

Ian
 

Alan Klein

Member
Registered User
Wet mounting negative goes back to at least the 1920s. I have a short extract from a longer article in the 1927 British Journal Photographic Almanac.

Surface artefacts affecting the gelatin super coat can increase apparent garininess, this was more of an issue with older softer emilsions but can still affect some films Fuji Acros being one of the worst. Poor temperature control greatly increases these issues, at it's worst it's oftencalled micro or incipient reticulation. Kodak preferred the term "Surface Artefacts"

Ironically scanning rather than conventional optical enlarging can increase the apparent graininess from surface artefacts and this caused issue with early digital minilabs and Kodak colour films. This lead to changes in Kodak's emulsion hardeners in films and also colour papers. You can see references in currentKodak data-sheets to improvements for scanning.

Ctein used to wet mount his negatives for optical enlarging.

Ian
Kodak says that their Ektar and Portra films are made for scanning. I don't know what they have done to make it easier or what shows up better.
 

David M

Well-Known Member
Registered User
I can imagine two things they could do.
They might make small adjustments to the dyes used, to bring them more into line with the sensitivities of scanners, rather than of paper. Clever stuff if they can do it without us noticing.
Or they may pay attention to the micro-texture of the surfaces, to reduce Newton’s Rings. Beyond that, my brain fails.
 

Ian Grant

Well-Known Member
Registered User
Kodak says that their Ektar and Portra films are made for scanning. I don't know what they have done to make it easier or what shows up better.
I can imagine two things they could do.
They might make small adjustments to the dyes used, to bring them more into line with the sensitivities of scanners, rather than of paper. Clever stuff if they can do it without us noticing.
Or they may pay attention to the micro-texture of the surfaces, to reduce Newton’s Rings. Beyond that, my brain fails.
The major issue has been the gelatin super-coat and the effects of temperature variations creating the surface artefacts. If you compare modern films with older it's harder to see which is the emulsion side.

The same surface artefacts can occur with papers as well, Kodak processors used to use a cold water wash after the Bleach fix and that was sometimes causing a dull surface on glossy paper. I've seen it happen with B&W RC papers.

Kodak have a series of Patents covering the improved emulsion hardeners used in Colour papers as well as Colour and B&W films. It's worth noting that Kodak state similar improvements for scanning Tmax films.

Ian
 
Top