I am looking to scan some of my 8x10 negatives, any ideas?

-- Kevin Johnson (KDjjdk@hotmail.com), October 26, 2001

Answers

What size? If you are only looking for 2x enlargement you can use a good flat bed if the film is pretty good to start with, otherwise, you may hvae to move to a drum scanner. A wet mount drum scan of 8x10 film is as good as it gets!

-- Bill Glickman (bglick@pclv.com), October 27, 2001.

You're almost in the same boat as I am, I'm looking for a scanner for 5x7 - since 5x7 is almost an orphan format I AM in the same boat as you. Epson has one - #1680 that has an 8x10 illuminator and 1600dpi. AFAIK except for that one scanner you're talking many thousands of dollars for a professional flatbed or a drum scanner. I'm still searching - good luck.

-- Wayne DeWitt (wdewitt@snip.net), October 27, 2001.

Try the UMAX PowerLook III

-- Ted Harris (slberfuchs@aol.com), October 27, 2001.

I'd read the reviews on the Powerlook and eliminated it from consideration. It's almost 2 years old now and only a 1200dpi unit. Mentioned in some reviews was an inability to obtain precise focus on film. The Epson has adjustable focus and will allow scanning with the film against the glass using mounting fluid.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0067Nv

-- Wayne DeWitt (wdewitt@snip.net), October 27, 2001.

Wayne, this is the first I've heard about mounting fluid. Can you ellaborate? I suppose this must be for eliminating the newton rings. Thanks, jj

-- Joe Johnson (joseph.johnson_85@gsbalum.uchicago.edu), October 28, 2001.

Joe - it is for eliminating Newton's Rings. Drum scanners use a mounting fluid, and with a flatbed the same technique can be employed. Other techniques to reduce the appearance of the rings is to use a fine powder on the surface of the negatice or replace the scanner's glass with a piece of coated glass. Since you are scanning the emulsion side of the film the liklihood of Newton's rings will vary according to the film being scanned - from what I understand TMAX and Technical Pan are probably the worst offenders.

-- Wayne DeWitt (wdewitt@snip.net), October 28, 2001.

Interesting thread.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piezography3000/message/9643

-- Wayne DeWitt (wdewitt@snip.net), October 28, 2001.

I'm a bit out of my depth but have started looking and I have seen that Microtek offers 7X10 (yes, 7) transparency scanning and are highly respected in some reviews. It's pricier than many but seems to justify the expense.

-- Rob Tucher (rtphotodoc@hotmail.com), October 29, 2001.