Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Digital scanner for MF slides / negs  (Read 6445 times)
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #20 on: February 26, 2010, 12:15:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I have a relationship with Duggal, not a great one, but for editorial or client work, they give me and the mags a great deal on film scanning or printing 11x14's that the magazines drum scan.

Home scanning is for when I'm shooting film for myself, which I'm finding harder and harder to justify.  I'm about to go back to the Canons, maybe still shoot 35mm film in the Leicas.  

One more reason to shoot Canon over the non AA filtered cams:  saw a printed piece of mine shot with the M8.  Moire in the model's pants.  Never saw it in the file at 100%.  I wonder if they did anything to it in prepress that changed the screening.


Quote from: bcooter
Call Nancy Scans, cut a deal with John, let them do the color and duting and wa-la, Ready to go.

In other words, let the pros handle it.

IMO

BC
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #21 on: February 26, 2010, 04:39:26 AM »
ReplyReply

     
It seems that I'll also have to reconsider my idea of the Epson V750 pro.
As Liam explained why it is not suitable for traditional b&w.

This is a real mess.

So I would like to ask the LF users 3 questions.
- What is THE flatbed scanner for 5x4 8x10 if 90% of the work is going to be B&W ?
- What kind of enlargement can we expect without going to Drumscan (the limits of this flatbed scanner for printing size)?
- It seems that it is far from seeing a consensus in appropriate sofware, in that jungle, is there a sofware(s) that everybody would agree is a must?

Thank you.

Fred.
Logged
ced
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #22 on: February 26, 2010, 05:24:07 AM »
ReplyReply

One more reason to shoot Canon over the non AA filtered cams:  saw a printed piece of mine shot with the M8.  Moire in the model's pants.  Never saw it in the file at 100%.  I wonder if they did anything to it in prepress that changed the screening.
[/quote]

The Moire had nothing to do with the sensor...
The screening process for printing clashed with the pattern in the image and what many forget is that the moire has always been a problem somewhere along the way to print.
Even the best drum scanners had to deal with this problem.
Logged
LiamStrain
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116



WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 26, 2010, 08:11:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
   
It seems that I'll also have to reconsider my idea of the Epson V750 pro.
As Liam explained why it is not suitable for traditional b&w.

This is a real mess.

So I would like to ask the LF users 3 questions.
- What is THE flatbed scanner for 5x4 8x10 if 90% of the work is going to be B&W ?
- What kind of enlargement can we expect without going to Drumscan (the limits of this flatbed scanner for printing size)?
- It seems that it is far from seeing a consensus in appropriate sofware, in that jungle, is there a sofware(s) that everybody would agree is a must?

Note - NO SCANNER can use digital ICE for BW film - not the Nikon 9000 either. You don't have to use the ICE option, just turn it off, and it scans BW film just fine. ICE is just handy for automated dust removal, and IMO has no bearing on the scan overall.

The V750 is a good solution for LF work at home. The Imacon's can only do up to 4x5. If you are going to shoot 8x10 your options are V750, Saphir (or similar), Drum scanner.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2010, 08:12:20 AM by LiamStrain » Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #24 on: February 26, 2010, 08:18:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: LiamStrain
Note - NO SCANNER can use digital ICE for BW film - not the Nikon 9000 either. You don't have to use the ICE option, just turn it off, and it scans BW film just fine. ICE is just handy for automated dust removal, and IMO has no bearing on the scan overall.

The V750 is a good solution for LF work at home. The Imacon's can only do up to 4x5. If you are going to shoot 8x10 your options are V750, Saphir (or similar), Drum scanner.
Thank you very much Liam for this aclaration.
Fred.
Logged
patrickfransdesmet
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


« Reply #25 on: February 26, 2010, 08:43:02 AM »
ReplyReply

hello everybody,
just to share my experiences in 30 years of photography

For BW, there is NO substitute for Film and Fiberbase prints handmade in a decent darkroom, point final !

For color I replaced with great pleasure all Film by digital.
DSLR when I need high ISO ad much frames per second (D3s)
MFDB for the large detailed fine art prints (first P20, now Aptus II 7 )
And yes Leaf has that FILM look in digital files, and that 3D appearance that others do NOT have !

However, I still occasionally shoot slides (Fuji RDP III) and I still am amazed when I see them on a lighttable,
but then, o my, when you have to scan them ...
loosing a lot of time, and loosing a lot of quality

So for this reason only, NEVER compare MF Film that is scanned, with digital or even traditional prints in a wet-room!

cheers !
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #26 on: February 26, 2010, 09:27:42 AM »
ReplyReply

I almost agree but then I've seen so many really wonderful, large, images in museaums and galleries that were shot on film, scanned and printed very large on big HP printers.  The Annie Leibowitz show at the Brooklyn Museum was all film, mainly the RZ, drum scanned and printed by Lamount in NYC.  Alec Soth's Niagra, scanned 8x10 printed on a light jet.

Real fiber prints from chemicals do beat just about everything.  
Quote from: patrickfransdesmet
hello everybody,
just to share my experiences in 30 years of photography

For BW, there is NO substitute for Film and Fiberbase prints handmade in a decent darkroom, point final !

For color I replaced with great pleasure all Film by digital.
DSLR when I need high ISO ad much frames per second (D3s)
MFDB for the large detailed fine art prints (first P20, now Aptus II 7 )
And yes Leaf has that FILM look in digital files, and that 3D appearance that others do NOT have !

However, I still occasionally shoot slides (Fuji RDP III) and I still am amazed when I see them on a lighttable,
but then, o my, when you have to scan them ...
loosing a lot of time, and loosing a lot of quality

So for this reason only, NEVER compare MF Film that is scanned, with digital or even traditional prints in a wet-room!

cheers !
Logged
gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #27 on: February 26, 2010, 09:36:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Very hard for me to gauge the level of commitment from the original person that posted. Having said that, I have owned and used both the Epson V750 and the Imacon.

The V750 might be fine for 8x10, but for medium format, it's a dog. Does not hold a candle to an Imacon. The Imacons are now tough to work with unless you find a 343 with firewire; otherwise you have to jiggie around with that SCSI adaptor.

Judging by the tone of the original person, I'd suggest he avoid film altogether and buy a simple digital camera. But he does not make it clear, as to his priority list of what he's looking for. But it sounds like he's not looking to get married to this project, heavy duty.

In these days, shooting film involves a lot of sacrifices, and a lot of jumping thru hoops. But if that's the way you see the world, then the battle is worth it.

But my advice, avoid any and all flatbeds, unless you're shooting 8x10.

As far as sending film out for someone else to scan it, I cannot imagine doing that. To me, a vital part of the process is sitting there with the software, determining how the file is going to feel, when you're about to scan it. I cannot imagine leaving that decision to someone else. In the end, it's my picture. I'm sure these shops are fine for grind-it-out work, but there's something about ownership of your own image, to me. Same with making prints -- I can't imagine letting someone else make a print for me.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2010, 09:46:56 AM by gwhitf » Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #28 on: February 26, 2010, 09:39:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: patrickfransdesmet
hello everybody,
just to share my experiences in 30 years of photography

For BW, there is NO substitute for Film and Fiberbase prints handmade in a decent darkroom, point final !
Yes, but the problem is that there are less and less pro darkrooms for big enlargements.
When I was younger in France, every average city had at least several what we called "photo clubs" with a decent structure where you could go and
work in the darkroom and be able to enlarge quite big. All you had to do was buying your papers and products.
An all generation of pro photographers and amateurs (in a noble way) came out from these clubs.
But now, it is pro lab, very expensive and there is not one photo club with traditional darkroom that I know.
Also, in europeans cities where the m2 is counted and 80% are living in flats, the problem of the darkroom space is really difficult to deal with.
So scanning is an obligation.
If I could find a decent darkroom with decent prices I would not hesitate.
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #29 on: February 26, 2010, 10:29:19 AM »
ReplyReply

If its important I wait around, look at the scan preview, tell them to make the adjustments.  Same with prints.  The work prints come out and I don't leave until its done how I want it.  They are very good about this.  BUT, and here is the BUT, its EXPENSIVE, if you are paying for it.

For B&W I use Lamont.  They process the film using whatever chemestry I specify, drum scan, and print it on big HP or Epsons using customs RIPs.  I can be right there the entire time, directing everything.  But in truth, once they understand what you want, they can get it.

I agree about the v750.  Its good for 4x5 also, better than anything in its price range,  but MF and 35mm is a harsh, cruel joke.

Quote from: gwhitf
Very hard for me to gauge the level of commitment from the original person that posted. Having said that, I have owned and used both the Epson V750 and the Imacon.

The V750 might be fine for 8x10, but for medium format, it's a dog. Does not hold a candle to an Imacon. The Imacons are now tough to work with unless you find a 343 with firewire; otherwise you have to jiggie around with that SCSI adaptor.

Judging by the tone of the original person, I'd suggest he avoid film altogether and buy a simple digital camera. But he does not make it clear, as to his priority list of what he's looking for. But it sounds like he's not looking to get married to this project, heavy duty.

In these days, shooting film involves a lot of sacrifices, and a lot of jumping thru hoops. But if that's the way you see the world, then the battle is worth it.

But my advice, avoid any and all flatbeds, unless you're shooting 8x10.

As far as sending film out for someone else to scan it, I cannot imagine doing that. To me, a vital part of the process is sitting there with the software, determining how the file is going to feel, when you're about to scan it. I cannot imagine leaving that decision to someone else. In the end, it's my picture. I'm sure these shops are fine for grind-it-out work, but there's something about ownership of your own image, to me. Same with making prints -- I can't imagine letting someone else make a print for me.
Logged
DanielStone
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


« Reply #30 on: February 26, 2010, 10:34:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
Yes, but the problem is that there are less and less pro darkrooms for big enlargements.
When I was younger in France, every average city had at least several what we called "photo clubs" with a decent structure where you could go and
work in the darkroom and be able to enlarge quite big. All you had to do was buying your papers and products.
An all generation of pro photographers and amateurs (in a noble way) came out from these clubs.
But now, it is pro lab, very expensive and there is not one photo club with traditional darkroom that I know.
Also, in europeans cities where the m2 is counted and 80% are living in flats, the problem of the darkroom space is really difficult to deal with.
So scanning is an obligation.
If I could find a decent darkroom with decent prices I would not hesitate.


see if that "pro lab" will rent out darkroom space to you. I believe some labs here in LA do that if you get to know them enough, and the enlarger/trays aren't being used all that much.
I wish I could afford a drum scanner, yes, I said drum scanner. I have had some OK results from flatbed scanners, but to me, if you're going to go to the trouble of shooting LF(4X5 or 8X10), why scan the film with a POS scanner? Yes, for 95% of people price is a factor, but if you need to go the flatbed route, the Kodak IqSmart series of scanners are great. They're REALLY big, especially compared to the V750, but the results are worth it, and they have the option of being wet mounted. But for the price of one of these, even on the used market, you might as well purchase a used drum scanner or Imacon.

drum scanning is an art, well, scanning is an art in itself. Thankfully, film kind of forces you to get color balance right, especially with chromes, but even with negs, shooting in shade won't hurt all that bad in post production, especially if you shoot a gray card on the 1st frame of the roll, so you can do a rough color/density adjustment.

-Dan
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1679



WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 26, 2010, 12:34:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DanielStone
drum scanning is an art, well, scanning is an art in itself.

Amen.

The best scans I ever had were drum scans produced by a master, the worst were drum scans produced by a monkey.
Logged

Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571


WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 26, 2010, 12:42:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gwhitf
Very hard for me to gauge the level of commitment from the original person that posted ... Judging by the tone of the original person, I'd suggest he avoid film altogether and buy a simple digital camera. But he does not make it clear, as to his priority list of what he's looking for. But it sounds like he's not looking to get married to this project, heavy duty ...

Not sure what you mean by level of commitment. I still occasionally shoot film on my Nikon FM, but more usually digital on a D700. B&W is digi only because I really do not have any room for, or other access to a darkroom. I used to, but not anymore. My commitment to MF is simply a matter of being able to afford to replace the kit that got smashed, remembering the quality (and reviewing old slides & negs helps there!), and wondering about how it would compare against the sort of quality I get from FF digital once scanned. I can't afford or justify a MF digital back, hence my question about scanning.

I get the sense that LF is well worth scanning (no surprise there really), but scanned MF might not give me any better results than I get currently from my DLSR. I still hanker after some big Tri-X negs though  
« Last Edit: February 26, 2010, 12:43:24 PM by Chairman Bill » Logged

cyberean
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161


WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 26, 2010, 02:30:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: KLaban
The best scans I ever had were drum scans produced by a master, the worst were drum scans produced by a monkey.
i'm satisfied with results i achieve whenever i monkey around with the scanning process ...


Logged

check out the size of my sensor ...
patrickfransdesmet
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


« Reply #34 on: February 27, 2010, 12:04:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
Yes, but the problem is that there are less and less pro darkrooms for big enlargements.
When I was younger in France, every average city had at least several what we called "photo clubs" with a decent structure where you could go and
work in the darkroom and be able to enlarge quite big. All you had to do was buying your papers and products.
An all generation of pro photographers and amateurs (in a noble way) came out from these clubs.
But now, it is pro lab, very expensive and there is not one photo club with traditional darkroom that I know.
Also, in europeans cities where the m2 is counted and 80% are living in flats, the problem of the darkroom space is really difficult to deal with.
So scanning is an obligation.
If I could find a decent darkroom with decent prices I would not hesitate.


You give me an Idea ...
Maybe I start renting my darkroom ...


Logged
revaaron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


« Reply #35 on: March 07, 2010, 08:02:51 AM »
ReplyReply

I have 45+ rolls of 645 that I want to just scan base-line into NEFs.  Good enough for printing 36x48 without going back to scan.  How do people deal with newton rings?  I'm thinking about making some shims for the glass insert. anyone?
Logged

ced
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #36 on: March 07, 2010, 08:19:49 AM »
ReplyReply

revaron you can tape them emulsion down on the glass facing the sensor and put 2-3 drops with an eye dropper of petroleum ether or liquid lighter fuel both of which evaporate away and do not harm the slide or neg.
The slide may need to be taped on on four edges using magic tape like scotch or 3m etc.  There are a few other variants of this method but above is the simplest for home use.
good scanning.
Logged
Gigi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #37 on: March 07, 2010, 08:36:21 AM »
ReplyReply

At the risk of opening a can of worms, I have both the Imacon 343 and the Epson V700. Comparisons have been made, but only casually:

1) The scans off the Imacon are superior, to be sure. When used on some micro-fiche, with artwork and detailed linework (tech'l drawings shot on 35 mm film), the Imacon makes a file that is just lovely to look at (Flexcolor). Details to one's hearts content, and no doubt at all about quality.

2) The V700 (using only plastic holders and 120 BW film) gave a decent and workable result, even with standard software.

I was looking for the 343 to blow the 700 out of the water - and was pleasantly surprised by the V700. THey aren't quite in the same category, and for fine work, the 343 would get the nod all the time. That said, the 700 was workable up to a reasonable size (11" sq?) without shame at all.

IMHO, for 35 mm, the 700 for me isn't terribly effective - OK to record the image, but from slides its really only usable for projection, not fine printing. And the 343 requires taking the film out of the mount - not much fun either.

Hope this helps.  Sorry the comparison isn' t more precise.  

Geoff
Logged

Geoff
artobest
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 265


WWW
« Reply #38 on: March 08, 2010, 08:26:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Why are we film users not allowed to enjoy the special qualities - grain, colour, tactility - of our chosen medium without swarms of digital heads rising up from the swamp with their incessant, spittle-flecked insistence that we are bad, unconscionable and wrong? I don't recall the OP asking for advice on whether film is a viable or sensible option in this day and age. He clearly has a long-standing and sentimental attachment to the film medium that means a lot more than irrelevant arguments over which medium produces the most precise pixels, or whatever.

Don't you people have batteries you need to go away and charge or something?

For what it's worth, the Epson V700/750 is perfectly adequate for making decent scans from all types of film, as long as you are prepared to put in the work on each scan - it's a steep learning curve, but you will enjoy it. It's great value, too. The guy with the V500 is wasting your and my bandwidth - the scanners have very different technologies and capabilities.

Now that's useful advice. IMHO.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2010, 09:53:33 AM by artobest » Logged

Michael H. Cothran
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 136



« Reply #39 on: March 08, 2010, 11:20:37 AM »
ReplyReply

While the Epson V700/V750 are good scanners, they are no match for a dedicated film scanner. The Imacons are the top choice, but will most likely be out of price range, unless your funds are limitless.
Other than the Imacon, my suggestion would be the Nikon LS 9000 ED film scanner. I own one, and am very happy with it. One word of caution if/when you buy it - You MUST, and I cannot over-emphasize this - you MUST buy the optional glass carrier for your 120 film. B&H has them for around $250 US. Model # FH-869G. The standard 120 glassless carrier that comes with the scanner is horrible - your film will bow in the middle, yielding a less than acceptable scan. BUY the glass carrier - problem solved.
 The scanner scans @ 4000 ppi, and yields resolution about 9000x11000 pixels for a 6x7 neg, with a file size around 500-550 mb's @ 16 bit. (Just about enough to produce a 24x30" print @ 360 ppi, native resolution.)
Michael H. Cothran
Nashville, Tennessee
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad