3 Gb drum scan samples from 8x10" Portra 160 neg

I wish to share this link that shows some crops of a 3 Gb drum scan from a very good Kodak Portra 160 8x10" negative.

It shows how much quality and resolution are achievable from a large format color negative. As you can see, it's possible to extract up to 3 Gb of true and crisp detail from a 8x10" shot (crops published at 100% of magnification).

Dead Link Removed

All sizes | (CROP,100%), Ph. Roger Wagner©, 3 Gb Drum Scan by CastorScan | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

All sizes | (CROP,100%), Ph. Roger Wagner©, 3 Gb Drum Scan by CastorScan | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Excellent scans on all accounts. I don't think many people who have experienced well made drum scans from large pieces of film would argue that they are not a superior product. But that is largely preaching to the converted. A miniscule number of workers today use 8x10 film or even 4x5. What the rank and file wistfully desire is that sort of quality from 120 and even 35mm and it can't be done irrespective of scanning technique simply because the information does not exist in the smaller formats, especially 35mm. Much the same really as expecting to enlarge a small negative to the image quality of a print from an 8x10 neg using purely analog methods. OzJohn

Very nice scans. There is no doubt that 8x10 will produce some very, very nice images, no matter what the film used.

I shoot 8x10 myself but I have never had one of my negatives drum scanned. Just out of curiosity, how much does one of these scans cost?

yes, nice, but the "proof is in the printing" lol. I get about 500M files scanning 810 on a flat bed @1600dpi with great results. there is such a thing as too much information. considering the limits of printing technology, viewing distance of very large Prints, and hopefully, no need for cropping I wonder if there is real value in such large files.

Of course there is the dynamic range to consider, I work with transparency where it can be more of an issue, easy fix is mulit scans and HDR

"there is such a thing as too much information."

I disagree. There is no such thing as too much information. Everyone talks about resolution, but I find this number fairly meaningless. I am interested in the smoothness of transition from tone to tone. Especially in black and white, where you can actually see it. A flatbed would not do it for me, the CCD is not sensitive enough. I also don't like starting with scans that are blurry and having to sharpen it. With a drum scan you start out sharp.

That said, there are some "purpose-based" caveats. If you print very contrasty or very small, it doesn't matter what you use. A digital camera would suffice. You can't say that a consumer-level flatbed will do what a $40,000 drum scanner with PMT's will do. It just isn't correct.

Lenny

Pioneer said:

Very nice scans. There is no doubt that 8x10 will produce some very, very nice images, no matter what the film used.

I shoot 8x10 myself but I have never had one of my negatives drum scanned. Just out of curiosity, how much does one of these scans cost?

Click to expand...

Scan costs vary, as you would imagine. I charge $150 for a scan of an 8x10, for 3GB of data, in 16 bit RGB. I can do more, if requested... I saw the same scan costing over $1200 at a place in NYC. There are a lot of places that charge by the megabyte. I find this a questionable practice. I like to give my clients everything, so they can scan it once, and archive it, if they want. They don't have to get another scan if they want a larger print, do all the work over again, etc. My fees are based on the size of the original.... and the best scan I can make for you.

The places that charge by the megabyte can look cheaper, they often give you very little for a less amount, and then if you want the full scan, its $200-$250.

For best results you want to choose a scanner operator vs bringing your film to a lab. There are a lot of choices to make in the scanning process and labs generally put the thing on the scanner and just run it, without regard to what the image is, how it will be printed, etc. There is nothing automatic about the process...

Lenny

Everything that Lenny and Doyle Thomas says is true but we should remember that scans, like most aspects of photography and the graphic arts in general, are about fitness for purpose.

Another example that comes to mind is enlarging lenses. There has always been a lot of hype about apo lenses since they first became available but unless you are making prints larger than 11x14 and printing from a first class negative IMO there is no practical gain with an apo lens. Same with scans.

I'll bet that the majority of folk who stress over scan resolution rarely print anything bigger than 8x10 from originals that in many cases have been less than perfectly exposed and/or processed (some of the colour film processing deviations discussed periodically on APUG would induce nightmares in anyone who has maintained a processing line within the manufacturer's specs). OzJohn

John, you may be right that many people don't print large enough to warrant the stress they put into scanning resolution. But I'm guessing that there are also plenty who start stressing because they perceive the limitations in their current prints. I've also seen plenty of very poorly scanned pictures where the limitations are even visible on the screen. At some point people realize things could look much better and set out to make it happen. So having examples to show what the state of the art is provides a valuable service.

I know I bought my first drum scanner when I wanted to scan 4x5 transparencies and the Epson 2450 I had at the time couldn't handle the density range. Resolution was a secondary concern. Of course I moved to 4x5 when I encountered the limitations of 35mm in making a 16x20 print in the darkroom. The funny thing is I'm now finding that 35mm digital (D800E) can get me a 16x20 print that is the visual equal to the 4x5 film at very close viewing distances (but certainly not with a loupe). The DSLR can also give me much cleaner shadows than I can get from scanning film even on a drum scanner.

I do know that getting a good modern 6 element enlarging lens can make a discernible difference in even small prints over the cheaper enlarging lenses. That's where I decided the sweet spot was as far as price vs performance (but I can't afford a true Nikon APO lens).

L Gebhardt said:

John, you may be right that many people don't print large enough to warrant the stress they put into scanning resolution. But I'm guessing that there are also plenty who start stressing because they perceive the limitations in their current prints. I've also seen plenty of very poorly scanned pictures where the limitations are even visible on the screen. At some point people realize things could look much better and set out to make it happen. So having examples to show what the state of the art is provides a valuable service.

I know I bought my first drum scanner when I wanted to scan 4x5 transparencies and the Epson 2450 I had at the time couldn't handle the density range. Resolution was a secondary concern. Of course I moved to 4x5 when I encountered the limitations of 35mm in making a 16x20 print in the darkroom. The funny thing is I'm now finding that 35mm digital (D800E) can get me a 16x20 print that is the visual equal to the 4x5 film at very close viewing distances (but certainly not with a loupe). The DSLR can also give me much cleaner shadows than I can get from scanning film even on a drum scanner.

I do know that getting a good modern 6 element enlarging lens can make a discernible difference in even small prints over the cheaper enlarging lenses. That's where I decided the sweet spot was as far as price vs performance (but I can't afford a true Nikon APO lens).

Click to expand...

Larry, I don't disagree with what you say at all and in fact I think your contributions on scanning are some of the best and most informative here. It's just that I think many people who do not have, shall we say, the optimum negatives or trannies to start with either through lack of technique or perhaps ideal equipment, can get swept up in the relentless search that others have for prefection and we do see this in other aspects of the craft as well as scanning.

I don't like to see folk who obviously love photography (or presumably they wouldn't be here) but have modest needs when it's all boiled down wasting time and mental energy chasing rainbows when they could be taking more photos, learning more about the craft and just enjoying themselves. Equally I have no issue with those enthusiasts who do seek perfection - they are the guys who advance knowledge - but I think sometimes it is easy to become a bit evangelical about things. Cheers. OzJohn

lenny said:

There are a lot of places that charge by the megabyte. I find this a questionable practice. I like to give my clients everything, so they can scan it once, and archive it, if they want. They don't have to get another scan if they want a larger print, do all the work over again, etc. My fees are based on the size of the original.... and the best scan I can make for you.

Lenny

Click to expand...

Offering scans by the megabyte gives a client a choice…an opportunity to consider and decide what they want, what they need and what they feel will work best for their images, present and future. Whether large scan, small scan or somewhere in the middle, scanning is a service and that starts with listening to the client before offering a personal opinion.

james beck said:

Offering scans by the megabyte gives a client a choice…an opportunity to consider and decide what they want, what they need and what they feel will work best for their images, present and future. Whether large scan, small scan or somewhere in the middle, scanning is a service and that starts with listening to the client before offering a personal opinion.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Giving the client a full scan gives them a choice. They can do whatever they want with it, make all the necessary adjustments safely and print it at any size. People that know me know that I do a lot of listening, I spend a lot of time with them on the phone and make sure they get the kind of scan they are looking for.

Lenny

OzJohn said:

Equally I have no issue with those enthusiasts who do seek perfection - they are the guys who advance knowledge - but I think sometimes it is easy to become a bit evangelical about things. Cheers. OzJohn

Click to expand...

John, I agree with you that purpose-based thinking makes more sense that anything else. However, there are a lot of people here looking for information about different things. What I am interested in is accuracy.

I have a scanner that costs about $40K. I've put years of time into understanding how it works, what makes a scan good for printing, etc. However, I have no interest in charging someone my rates when what they really need is a $6 scan. I am all for it if someone wants to purchase their own scanner, I have helped many people make the right choice for them. There are people that use the 750, for example, with great skill and make great results for themselves.

Everyone, especially in today's economy, needs to make the right choices for themselves. Where I get evangelical is when someone tries to tell me that a consumer-level scanner produces the same results as the top rated drum scanner. It doesn't. It's not even close.

If someone says, "I'm getting results I really like" I'm happy for them. That's great, with whatever tool they are using. But that's different from saying that its the same.

The is so much misinformation out there, in every field. I like to see what I can do to set the record straight, when its a question within my sphere of knowledge.

Lenny

lenny said:

Scan costs vary, as you would imagine. I charge $150 for a scan of an 8x10, for 3GB of data, in 16 bit RGB. I can do more, if requested... I saw the same scan costing over $1200 at a place in NYC. There are a lot of places that charge by the megabyte. I find this a questionable practice. I like to give my clients everything, so they can scan it once, and archive it, if they want. They don't have to get another scan if they want a larger print, do all the work over again, etc. My fees are based on the size of the original.... and the best scan I can make for you.

The places that charge by the megabyte can look cheaper, they often give you very little for a less amount, and then if you want the full scan, its $200-$250.

For best results you want to choose a scanner operator vs bringing your film to a lab. There are a lot of choices to make in the scanning process and labs generally put the thing on the scanner and just run it, without regard to what the image is, how it will be printed, etc. There is nothing automatic about the process...

Lenny

Click to expand...

That is great information Lenny, thanks.

All my 8x10 negatives are contact printed, but if I need to get really big it is nice to have a sense of what a good drum scan costs.

Dan

CastorScan's prices :


For less than 5 scans:

3 Gb scan (balanced, optimized etc but unspotted): 180 Euro + VAT

1,4 Gb scan (" " " " ....unspotted): 110 Euro + VAT


3 Gb scan (spotted): 270 Euro + VAT

1,4 Gb scan (spotted): 180 Euro + VAT


I apply discounts depending on the number of negs to scan (5 or more).

For further infos you can write to:

info@castorscan.com
castorscan@gmail.com

Lenny Eiger:
"There is no such thing as too much information. Everyone talks about resolution, but I find this number fairly meaningless. I am interested in the smoothness of transition from tone to tone. Especially in black and white, where you can actually see it. A flatbed would not do it for me, the CCD is not sensitive enough. I also don't like starting with scans that are blurry and having to sharpen it. With a drum scan you start out sharp."

I AGREE ON EVERYTHING


"That said, there are some "purpose-based" caveats. If you print very contrasty or very small, it doesn't matter what you use. A digital camera would suffice. You can't say that a consumer-level flatbed will do what a $40,000 drum scanner with PMT's will do. It just isn't correct. "

I DON'T AGREE: IF YOU PRINT SMALL OR VERY CONTRASTY YOU CAN STILL RECOGNIZE THE WIDER GAMUT AND INCREASED REALISM PROVIDED BY AN EXCELLENT DRUM SCAN. OF COURSE I MEAN A CONTRASTED BUT TECHNICALLY FLAWLESS PICTURE (NOT CLIPPED, OR NOT VERY CLIPPED)

How big of files would you guys recommend for 6x7 medium format?

I usually scan 6x7 at 5000ppi on the Scanmate, but I rarely feel there's much need to go above 4000ppi to pull all the information off most films. This comes out to about 900MB at 5080ppi.

Alan Klein said:

How big of files would you guys recommend for 6x7 medium format?

Click to expand...

I scan my 6x7's at 8000 ppi. They're incredibly sharp, from my Mamiya 7 II. I recently had a client make an 8 foot print from one of his. It was incredible... maintained sharpness all the way...

They are 22,000 pixels along the 7 cm edge and run about 2.2 gigs of 16bit RGB. Everyone loves 'em...

Lenny

Pioneer said:

That is great information Lenny, thanks.

All my 8x10 negatives are contact printed, but if I need to get really big it is nice to have a sense of what a good drum scan costs.

Dan

Click to expand...

I (Professional Drum Scanning - drumscanning.co.uk) do 8x10 scans at 2000dpi for £50 (or $70). These end up as approx 1.8Gb files. There is some more detail beyond this level but you'd better be shooting wider than f/22 on a very good lens and probably be taken in a studio (and be printing at over 48" wide as otherwise those extra pixels will be wasted).

We did extensive tests for a comparison survey a few years back (google 'big camera comparison onlandscape') and 8x10 break point was approximately 620Mp equivalent. This works out as 2200dpi and is a 75" by 93" print at 300dpi (this is for Delta 100 - things will be slightly less for transparency and slightly less still for colour neg)

For 5x4 the break point was 380Mp equivalent which is approximately 4000dpi and gives a 59" by 73" print at 300dpi. Again this is for Delta 100

For medium format we tested on a Mamiya 7 and got 120Mp equivalent which is approximately 5000dpi

A colleague and I have been testing colour transparency film on a good 35mm camera and we think that for transparency we have never seen more detail than 5500dpi worth (note that many scanners say they scan at a resolution more than this but for real world scans they don't. Typically to scan at higher resolutions means a smaller aperture which exacerbates noise to such an extent that it hides detail).

Once you're in the realm of true high end scanners, the results are typically not about resolution (they should all manage 5,500dpi or more which is more than most film has) and it's about the quality of colour, shadow noise, etc. For example, when I had a Howtek 4500 and I had just moved to the Heidelberg Primescan, I worked on a 10x8 from a client in Italy. They asked for a 4000dpi scan which I did on the Howtek but just out of interest I tried a 2000dpi scan on the Primescan. The Primescan result was superior in nearly every way (and yes I checked this multiple times including focussing manually etc).

So you can't completely trust dpi - I would suggest getting scans from few different providers to check everything is as it seems if you're planning on spending the time and effort of getting 1Gb+ scans. Most providers should do a sample scan for free or at least for a substantial discount.

Tim

p.s. If you're scanning grainless microfiche film like Adox CMS20 then you do benefit from higher resolutions (with smaller apertures).

p.p.s. For 35mm negative (colour and black and white) one of the best scans I've seen is from a flatbed scanner. The Screen Cezanne Elite Pro gives pretty much perfect 5500dpi scans with incredibly smooth grain. Sadly it's an awful transparency scanner (built in colour boost in hardware that can't be turned off). I would be interested in hearing from someone with a IQSmart3 to try a side by side test..

Loose grown-up galleries

Novel programme
http://amateur.selfies.purplesphere.in/?gain.abbey
bondage erotic experience man erotic harry potter erotic erotic comments

Open full-grown galleries

Late-model programme
http://cupid.dating.hotblog.top/?epoch.delilah
date chinese girl 100 percent free adult dating sites free sex site save the date sizes casual sex group