I think the 4990 is overkill in the mind of the OP
and myself. I've a scanner to buy as well. A  B&W negative
and print scanning unit is needed. What of those integrated
units; scanner-copier-printer? Any of those that do a good
job of all three? The prices on those units seems
ridiculously low. Dan

February 28, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

This is a huge consideration.

I agree the 4990 is overkill for
surrogate-contact sheets and general negative
catalog work, but that is my use for it.

However, 'contacting' goes much faster if a
whole roll of negs can be done at once while
still in the filing sleeve. There should be
no necessity of separating negatives and
handling them in bare naked unprotected
strips. The length of time per 'contact
sheet' would go through the roof that way.

I use the 4990 to only a small fraction of
its capabilities, I'm sure. But the ability
to scan a full sheet of negs in their sleeve,
and then to view my work on-screen
immediately, is just terrific. In a few cases
I can select a negative for more careful
scanning, out of its sleeve, if desired.

My darkroom work has been completely changed
by the scanner; I'm far more productive now.
When I go into the darkroom I know which
frame I'm going to concentrate on, and I've
been able to do all sorts of cropping
experiments. The monitor image is far more
versatile than contact sheets on paper. I can
enlarge a face and examine the expression
much more effectively than on a paper contact
with a magnifying glass.

When I started looking for a scanner (needed
to replace my old HP 4C, which I loved...) I
immediately realized a flatbed that could
accept a full sheet of negs in transparency
mode was rare. The 4990 seemed to be almost
the only option. A very nice side benefit has
been the ability to select a tiny detail in a
negative and scan it at very high resolution
like 4800 ppi so it can be enlarged onscreen
for a clear view. For my purposes this has
been only for examination purposes, not
print-making, but it helps understand my negs
in certain cases.

I'm far from an expert in the computer world,
but I've had no trouble getting used to
working the 4990. In short order I was able
to start getting good enough scans for my
purposes. I've started filling my hard drive
up with all sorts of weird and wonderful
material from my past. The document turning
down my father when he tried to enlist in the
Canadian military in 1942 is a real peach.
There is a space for the authorities to write
the 'reason for medical unfitness'. The
reason entered is 'medically unfit'. I love
the form fillers of our world. This
particular one probably kept my father alive
— and me, too.

I rarely make contract sheets on paper any
more. I copy specific frames from my
whole-roll scans, and assemble directories of
the selected images. Then I can live with the
better frames for a while, until I have
edited them down to the  ones I will work on
in the darkroom. Sometimes I used to make a
computer print of a frame I like, which helps
visualize it, but lately I've had no printer
and really haven't missed it.

After editing a portrait session onscreen, I
usually make a CD of the selected frames and
send it to the client. A printer is very nice
to have because I can choose a nice frame
from a portrait session and make up a cover
image for the CD. It's easy to do and makes a
very good impression.

Although the 4990 is fairly expensive, it is
justified because a slower or less competent
scanner would not be suitable. The 4990 is
slow enough! Scanning ten to twenty rolls
from a session takes long enough even though
the thing cost plenty!

Going slower is out of the question. A 4990
that goes even faster would be nice!

regards,
--le

I won't hold it against you, Craig.   But others might.

<grin>

rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

What I've found is that a scanner (or my Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 as
driven by VueScan, anyhow) is very good at extracting the full scale of
densities from a negative, compared to printing. This is most commonly
noticeable in scenes with cloudy skies; a scan produces noticeable, and
even dramatic, detail in the clouds along with a good range of tones
outside of the sky. A print of the same negative produces little or no
detail in the clouds and/or lost detail in the shadows. The only way I've
found to recover detail in both areas in the darkroom is to burn the sky
in. (I've less than a year's experience in the wet darkroom, though;
perhaps there's a technique I don't know about that'd do the job.)

That said, scans of B&W negatives just don't cut it when it comes to
recording subtle tonal changes, particularly in dark areas (of the final
images; light areas of the negative); they tend to break up into harsh
pixel patterns, and printing on an injet printer just makes it worse.
Thus, with a little burning, I find it's usually possible to get superior
results in a conventional darkroom. I've a couple of negatives I have yet
to print satisfactorily in the darkroom but for which I have good scans,
though. Still, I do expect to eventually learn enough to get them done.

Dick spake thus:

The problem with this method is that you end up "seeing" twice the
density in the negative. Think about it: the light has to travel through
the film twice, once towards the cover, the next time reflected towards
the scanner. So you effectively double (quadruple?) the contrast.

  I wondered about that. That idea popped into my mind; a white
back-up sheet might do the job. I'm going to do some shopping
for a better quality 3 in 1 machine. Any suggestions?  Dan

Tried this on a 4990 and results were awful.

Here are two strips of BW 35 mm scanned as reflective material:
<http://www.terrapinphoto.com/bw/trix_flatb.jpg>

Here are the same two strips scanned as transparencies:
<http://www.terrapinphoto.com/bw/trix_transp.jpg>

These are both straight off the scanner with
no manipulations in Photoshop other than
scaling and conversion to JPG.

Bottom line: not enough light reflecting off
the white background.

rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com