I was recently given a Pentax 6*7 with two lenses plus an important stock of 120 films.The camera is a pleasure to use but I do not have a darkroom neither do I have the place in my apartment to install one. All my 24*36 work is done by scanning( film scanner) and printing through an A3 Epson. A film scanner for MF is completely out of my budget but I've seen that there are a few flatbed scanners that can scan 6*7 negs. I would be interested to know about your experiences using these machines. There's one that's called ' Epson 1640 photo' that looks quite ok. Thanks in advance.

-- William Westergren (westergren@skynet.net), February 19, 2002

Answers

a few reasons made me give up medium photography. first i didn't have access to a decent medium format darkroom, then they stole my camera. before that i tried my epson 1200 photo flatbed scanner to scan my negs. the results were near to useless. think of APS quality. of course this model is more than 3 years old, todays scanners are way better. take a look at epsons new 2450. this seems ok, but don't expect too much. there is a reason why medium format scanners are so silly expensive. the problem is not the resolution, but rather density and shadow detail.

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), February 19, 2002.

Why don't you check on the medium format digest in photo.net? They have extensive discussions there on different options for scanning. I use the Epson 2450 flatbed for large format and the results are more than satisfactory. For 35mm it is just OK. From what I have read, once you hit the 2400 dpi level or more so 4000 dpi, resolution is not a question of pixels but of the quality of the lens in the scanner, which seems to explain the difference in prices. Unless you shoot slides and then the dynamic range is an issue, but this hasen't been a real problem for me in B&W with the Epson. Check the medium format forum, there are real experts on digital photography there.

-- Miguel Jiménez (miguel.jimenez@oecd.org), February 19, 2002.

Not so fast trashing flatbeds, friends. I'm using a Linotype Saphir Ultra2 flatbed w/ a Mac G4. I originally bought the flatbed for scanning 6x6 negs off my Hasselblad about 18 mths ago. Cost was about $1250. Scans are absolutely fabulous--I usually scan a 6x6 at 2400 dpi, producing a 50MB+ file. All the info you could want is there.

Amazingly, in the last 6 mths I have begun using the same flatbed for my 35mm Leica negs. I never thought it was possible (& didn't even try) until I read a tech review from a pro saying that he commonly did so w/ no problems, using an Epson 1640. My 35 mm negs are scanned on the Linotype at 4800 dpi (versus the typical 2700 dpi film scanners) w/ the same inherent quality as the larger 6x6 scans. The scanner will go to 10,000 dpi (!), but doing so produces enormous files w/o a noticeable difference in quality...

My memory is that the Epson 1640 has the same guts as the Linotype scanner--should be 36 bit etc. With the right software, you'll be more than happy with scans using your new machine. Don't believe anyone who says the quality isn't there. Just another myth perpetuated through inexperience. My Linotype scanner coupled w/ an Epson 1280 printer & PS6 produces work every bit the equivalent of work I cranked from my wet darkroom for more than 15 years. (It's a steep learning curve, but well worth the trip--)

Good luck!

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), February 19, 2002.

I have a 1640. I used it for about three months and then went out and bought a medium format film scanner (Polaroid SS120.) The Epson got rave reviews when it first came out (much like the 2450 is now), but I think this is solely because it was better than what was around before it in the price range, which may turn out to be the case for the 2450. The 1640 turned out scans significantly inferior to what I had been using before it, a UMAX Powerlook III, which had lower specs but much better performance. The 1640 produces soft scans, apparently a focusing problem.

I would agree with the poster above that you can get good scans from a flatbed, although it is more difficult than with a film scanner, and you won't get the resolution for large prints. I'd recommend the UMAX Powerlook III or 3000 (which I believe is what has the same "guts" as the Linotype) over the Epson scanners. The prices i higher but definitely worth it.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 19, 2002.

Go to www.ctcsouth.com and you can buy a Polaroid 45i for around $1200 if I'm not mistaken. I've got one and it's a great scanner for up to 4x5.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 19, 2002.

Jeff, Were the results really that soft( with Epson 1640 ) as not to be able to get a decent print? Did you try different methods of putting the negs on the scanner? I read elsewhere that the supplied 'caches' were not of sufficient quality and someone suggested to put the neg directly on the glass to increase sharpness. I know I'm insisting on the 1640, but I found someone who could sell me one for a decent price. And then I can't even find UMAX scanners where I live ( Belgium). Thanks.

-- William Westergren (westergren@skynet.be), February 19, 2002.

I have a 1640, and it is very hard to get the negative in sharp focus as other posters have noted. However, especially in B&W, one can use a lot of unsharp mask and still make ok prints at up to about 12x12" (30x30cm). There is a lot of noise in the dark parts, as well as some banding (so there are slight streaks of color) as well as flare. The 1680, according to reviews, has a focus adjustment via the driver and is higher resolution, DMAX, etc. However, film scanners are still better, in my opinion.

-- Michael Waldron (michael@cadogan.net), February 19, 2002.

I've been able to get good-looking 9 x 12-inch inkjet prints scanning 645 negs on a (borrowed) Epson 1600 (I think the current version is the 1680--it's a much more robust scanner than the 1640). I was surprised that a flatbed had such good density range--my old PowerLook II isn't nearly as good.

Getting the film flat and in focus can be a bit tricky--I'll often tape the edges to the film holder to pull it taut. Placing the film directly on the glass can lead to Newton rings.

I know Jeff is exhibiting and selling his digitally-generated prints, so his standards may be more demanding than yours would be for less-critical applications.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), February 19, 2002.

Well it looks as I will look for something else. How about the different AGFA models. Anything that you could recommend? i recently heard that AGFA will cease to produce scanners, so maybe there's a chance to find a good deal??

-- William Westergren (westergren@skynet.be), February 19, 2002.

I had the banding problem as well, a real problem in images with large areas of solid space. Because I shoot many of my portraits against walls, I found this really problematic.

The sharpness was something I played with a lot. The film holders for the 1640 are really bad. I made my own with thin magnetic material that I bought at the hobby shop. I also used it with the UMAX flatbed. It holds the neg flatter and also a little bit closer to the glass, but nothing worked on the softness problem.

And I would agree with Mike - the 1640 is probably good enough for medium format (but not 35mm) prints that will not be expected to stand the test of time. And also for web work, which I still use it for since it is much faster than the film scanner.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 19, 2002.

Ok. I will research for a decent scanner, because I want to able to enjoy the quality of the 6*7 format.

Jeff, Very nice pictures at your site. I really like the mood.

-- William Westergren (westergren@skynet.be), February 19, 2002.

Liana [#7], Monterey, California, 2/19/02

I get decent results from my $500 HP 7400c. (See above.) But (1) I'm very skilled, and (2) I only scan b&w.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), February 19, 2002.

Peter:

I get decent results from my $500 HP 7400c. (See above.) But (1) I'm very skilled, and (2) I only scan b&w.

Me too: 1)so am I; 2) I also scan color. Although I must admit that my HP is a more costly model. Still the same idea. ;)))

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), February 19, 2002.