Best strategy to use to insure long term access to a good scanner

Best strategy to use to insure long term access to a good scanner
My color workflow is all film to scanner and my B&W is all analog. I enjoy both approaches. For the color I actually like to scan. I have a Nikon 9000 and assuming that there is color film for the next 20 years I would like to be able to use a comparable scanner for that period of time. I continually have this internal debate about hording Nikon 9000 scanners if any should come up for sale or just having faith that something, perhaps a flat bed scanner, will be available that is as good as the Nikon when the 9000 finally quits. Does anyone have a recommendation?

g'day slum

i wouldn't sweat it

by the time film scanners are not available that won't be your only problem

and even if things never get to that point do you really want to be tied to old technology if new technology, at that future time, is brilliantly better?

Ray Heath said:

g'day slum

i wouldn't sweat it

by the time film scanners are not available that won't be your only problem

and even if things never get to that point do you really want to be tied to old technology if new technology, at that future time, is brilliantly better?

Click to expand...

But Ray, you assume Nikon or others will continue to make reasonably priced dedicated film scanners in the future. Slumry has a good point, in that the chances of a $1,000 Nikon 5000 ED Super CoolScan replacement 10 years from now is uncertain, given the fact that film continues to slide in sales.

For my part, I have one Nikon 5000, and will buy a 2nd one before the end of the year because I believe the day will come when nobody will make a dedicated 35mm film scanner.

SilverGlow said:

But Ray, you assume Nikon or others will continue to make reasonably priced dedicated film scanners in the future. Slumry has a good point, in that the chances of a $1,000 Nikon 5000 ED Super CoolScan replacement 10 years from now is uncertain, given the fact that film continues to slide in sales.

For my part, I have one Nikon 5000, and will buy a 2nd one before the end of the year because I believe the day will come when nobody will make a dedicated 35mm film scanner.

Click to expand...

what? did you even think about what i posted?

i certainly did not assume anything of the kind

my main point, "... do you really want to be tied to old technology if new technology, at that future time, is brilliantly better?" has nothing to do with equipment availability, it is more a comment on the mind set of people with the simplistic belief that their artmaking is tied to some "magic bullet".

i personally can see less and less reason to stick with film and i can't understand why people use film then convert it to a digital form

surely film is good when used as film is intended to be used, maybe not so good when it is used it for the things digital is designed for

rather than bemoan the loss of current methods, materials and equipment, perhaps you, and many others, should embrace new technology and learn the techniques that make it high quality

Ray, I appreciate the input. I shot digital for five years and it helped me learn a lot about creating images. There is a lot to like about the convenience of digital capture. However, after going back to film, my interest is only in film for capture. Hence my current workflow. I know that sooner or later I will be forced to move to newer technology. Now that I have found something I like, I want to be able to pursue it as long as possible. I like SilverGlow’s approach and will probably pursue something similar. This is based on a belief that there will not be any decent scanner options for film in the not too distant future. Hording scanners now kind of overlooks some of the other issues such as being able to find a suitable computer to use the scanner with and even being able to find software that can effectively scan film. How long it will be possible to nurse film scanning along is a big question for someone like me who has a color hybrid work flow. I have more faith that color film will be available than film scanners.

slumry said:

Ray, I appreciate the input. I shot digital for five years and it helped me learn a lot about creating images. There is a lot to like about the convenience of digital capture. However, after going back to film, my interest is only in film for capture. Hence my current workflow. I know that sooner or later I will be forced to move to newer technology. Now that I have found something I like, I want to be able to pursue it as long as possible. I like SilverGlows approach and will probably pursue something similar. This is based on a belief that there will not be any decent scanner options for film in the not too distant future. Hording scanners now kind of overlooks some of the other issues such as being able to find a suitable computer to use the scanner with and even being able to find software that can effectively scan film. How long it will be possible to nurse film scanning along is a big question for someone like me who has a color hybrid work flow. I have more faith that color film will be available than film scanners.

Click to expand...

yeh, but if you want to get the "best" out of film you should be enlarging, printing and processing it in a traditional/wet darkroom not converting it digital and trying to pull the best print

Ray Heath said:

yeh, but if you want to get the "best" out of film you should be enlarging, printing and processing it in a traditional/wet darkroom not converting it digital and trying to pull the best print

Click to expand...

Why would you say such a thing? It has no relationship to reality.

There are lots of photographers and as many different styles of printing. Some like warm, others like cool, more less contrast, obsessed with shadow detail or obsessed with highlights. I would rather use the fine art papers that one can use with inkjet than emulsion covered darkroom paper. Personal preference.

Scanning and printing with top-level inkjet printers, inks and paper often produces exquisite prints - and that depends on the printer, as in the human behind the device. It's a different medium, in some ways far superior. Other ways maybe not. But certainly equal.

If you don't want to work in that medium, that's fine. Everyone gets to choose their poison...

Lenny
EigerStudios

lenny said:

Why would you say such a thing? It has no relationship to reality.

There are lots of photographers and as many different styles of printing. Some like warm, others like cool, more less contrast, obsessed with shadow detail or obsessed with highlights. I would rather use the fine art papers that one can use with inkjet than emulsion covered darkroom paper. Personal preference.

Scanning and printing with top-level inkjet printers, inks and paper often produces exquisite prints - and that depends on the printer, as in the human behind the device. It's a different medium, in some ways far superior. Other ways maybe not. But certainly equal.

If you don't want to work in that medium, that's fine. Everyone gets to choose their poison...

Lenny
EigerStudios

Click to expand...

thnx for the response Lenny, i don't disagree with most of what you write, however my reality is that i continue to use film, and paper neg, for many reasons not the least of which is the fact that i more appreciate the all analogue result

on the other hand i don't, as much, care about colour printing and am losing nothing in learning to do "good" all digital work for colour images, though i must admit that i also enjoy doing horrible things to inkjet prints like transfering the ink to canvas or textured paper

i said such things previously because i believe them to be true, film is/was designed to be projection enlarged, digital is designed to do something else, why try to combine the two? you must lose something somewhere

why not learn the intricacies of an all digital workflow just as many of us learnt how to best use analogue materials

Hi

Ray Heath said:

g'day slum

i wouldn't sweat it

by the time film scanners are not available that won't be your only problem

Click to expand...

I agree with Ray, the present commercial interest in 120 4x5 and 8x10 scanning indicates it will be around for a while. People cite the discontinuance of the LS-V as significant as an indicator, however I feel that its just a rationalisation of the product (thinking as a business person for a minute).

Back as recently as the LS-IV | LS-4000 series there was a DPI as well as bit depth difference to separate the two products. The LS-V was 4000dpi and aside from a little more bit depth and not accepting some of the attachments there was little to differentiate the products. I have even seen some sites which show how to convert the V to accept the bulk film attachments.

Orders on the LS-9000 seem strong enough to warrant their continuance and the products like the Epson V7xx series are still aparently being developed. So like Ray suggests it may be some time before they become unavailable by which time you may not be so keen on taking pictures (or able to).

FWIW (especially for larger formats) I've not seen screaming differences between LS-9000 results and that obtained from my Epson 4870. Certainly the Epson requires a tad more post processing, but if after that you can pick the print which was sourced from either I'll be surprised.

I would be happy to share my data with you if you would like to make your own calls on the same data (or perhaps I could publish it on my blog if there is interest)

My opinion is that there will be enough demand for digitizing film in the future to have reasonable expectation that scanners will continue to be introduced over the next ten years. And since there Nikon LS-9000 is a good, but not great, scanner, chances are that one at least as good as it will be available.

As for work flow, I am with Lenny. If you want to get the most out of film, get a high quality scan and do tonal corrections in Photoshop, then output on an inkjet printer or in an alternative process via a digital negative. A purely analog flow can not begin to compete with this workflow in terms of final image quality.

Sandy King

Good comments from everyone.

This thread has kind of split into a discussion of work flow and a discussion about the sustainability of that a scanner based work flow. If I could do a color analog workflow, I would but that is beyond the level of effort I am willing to make and as sanking says, it is hard to beat the film to scan to PS to inkjet print color workflow.

The sustainability issue is what is vexing. I have an Epson 4990 but prefer the 9000 for slides, 35mm and 120. There are certainly better scanners in existence; however, these are mostly drum scanners. The only drum scanners being sold by B&H right now are Hasselblad Flextight scanners starting at 13K. I agree that there appears to be considerable demand for scanners like the 9000 but that has not prompted Nikon to increase the production of these scanners. So I am guessing that Nikon and anyone else who is making a pure film scanner, including all the drum scanner manufactures will get out of the market in a reasonably short period of time. Maybe five years. This leaves the flat bed scanners , mostly the Epsons. Maybe they are comparable to a Nikon 9000, for me it is a step down, albeit, a small one. How long will Epson provide good film scanning capability in a flatbed scanner is an interesting question. The driver for most folks who buy a scanner it so be able to scan paper. You would think that with billons of negatives hiding in drawers and shoe boxes all over the world that there would be a huge demand for film capable scanners. This does not seem to be the case.

As one looks at the technology used to support scanners, computers and software, one does not have to look very far to see the demise of the workstation. iPods and netstations will start to dominate the non-commercial users and PC’s and laptops will be less common. Whether these will be able to support scanners is doubtful. In fact with the throw away mentality inherent in digital, I will also guess that the interest in scanners in general will diminish. Since my time frame is 20 years, I was curious how technology has changed over the last 20 years. In 1990 what was current was the 386 chip, Windows 3.0 and XGA. A lot of changes in 20 years; however, the technology present then would still be recognizable to most today. Based on the apparent rate of change of technology I will make my final guess that things will not move as quickly as I feared.

Have said all this, I am still no sure if I should invest in spare scanner now or trust that the Epson will continue to provide good film Flatbed scanners.

In the meantime I will go back to scanning my father’s slides from the 1960’s. Kodachrome makes such beautiful scans.

sanking said:

A purely analog flow can not begin to compete with this workflow in terms of final image quality.
Sandy King

Click to expand...

I also agree with Sandy. I will add that there are a couple of key points that make a huge difference, IMO. One of them is that for silver printing most set their top end target for transmission density to somewhere between .8 and 1.0. When I did my first tests in platinum, I was surprised to find that the best result (back then) was to go just under 2.0. Film scanning also works with this range, possibly slightly higher.

This is in the range of double the tonalities between the top and bottom. Depending on the kind of print one wants to make (contrast-wise), whether it will be a neg for alternative process or an inkjet print, this can make a huge difference in the appearance of a 3rd dimension.

The justification for this comes from art school. When one takes Drawing 101, one learns that to create the appearance of a 3rd dimension, such as drawing a vase, one has to use a technique called "modeling, " basically the creation of a gradation along a 90 degree angle. You can start at the front with white, for example, and hit a full black at the 90 degree point (or the reverse). The more shades of gray you have from one end to the other, the more three dimensional one's object will appear. Thus, my obsession with midtones... and their separation....

Lenny
EigerStudios

sanking said:

A purely analog flow can not begin to compete with this workflow in terms of final image quality.

Sandy King

Click to expand...

sorry guys i simply cannot accept this statement

i would ask Sandy to post examples of each to prove his point but i'm guessing all i'd get is a variation of the usual "... that wouldn't show on a monitor".

You are correct. Proving points of fine printmaking can not be done on a monitor and to attempt to do so would be a waste of time.


Sandy King

Ray Heath said:

sorry guys i simply cannot accept this statement

i would ask Sandy to post examples of each to prove his point but i'm guessing all i'd get is a variation of the usual "... that wouldn't show on a monitor".

Click to expand...

sanking said:

You are correct. Proving points of fine printmaking can not be done on a monitor and to attempt to do so would be a waste of time.


Sandy King

Click to expand...

yeh, thnx

Ray Heath said:

what? did you even think about what i posted?

i certainly did not assume anything of the kind

my main point, "... do you really want to be tied to old technology if new technology, at that future time, is brilliantly better?" has nothing to do with equipment availability, it is more a comment on the mind set of people with the simplistic belief that their artmaking is tied to some "magic bullet".

i personally can see less and less reason to stick with film and i can't understand why people use film then convert it to a digital form

surely film is good when used as film is intended to be used, maybe not so good when it is used it for the things digital is designed for

rather than bemoan the loss of current methods, materials and equipment, perhaps you, and many others, should embrace new technology and learn the techniques that make it high quality

Click to expand...

Well, I took your comment "...do you really want to be tied to old technology if new technology, at that future time, is brilliantly better.." to be in regard to film scanners. It seems you didn't make yourself clear.

As to digital, I'm already an accomplished DSLR shooter, and PhotoShop guru, so I'll pass on your encouragement to "...should embrace new technology and learn the techniques that make it high quality...".

I shoot B&W film because I like how it looks better then digital B&W. I scan the analog film to digital, master on the PC, then make prints the wet process way. ADA is what I do. I do it because I like the look.

As to color, it's digital all the way for me, with the exception of prints. Even color digital pictures are printed the wet way.

So then if one wants to continue with film into the future, for anyreason, good or bad, real or dillusion, this thread is still relavent, to be sure.

So is the OP "bemonaing"? I think the only one "bemoning" here is you. ;-)

Ray Heath said:

yeh, thnx

Click to expand...

You're unreasonable. You ask for proof on a digital monitor, all the while knowing full well this is not possible in ways that will show the actual fidelity of the analog print. Then you sharkingly say "yeh, thnx".

Wow!

Slumry

slumry said:

How long will Epson provide good film scanning capability in a flatbed scanner is an interesting question.

Click to expand...

given the number of business places which will be interested in film scanning that's good enough I'd say for a while ... the V700 / 750 is apparently a good seller. Seems to have followed the line ... 3200 - 4870 - 4990 - V700 with iterative incremental developments.

looked at another way, I still see 4870's pop up on ebay and I recently bought a 3200 (even though I have a 4870).

I think you're getting worried about nothing much

You would think that with billons of negatives hiding in drawers and shoe boxes all over the world that there would be a huge demand for film capable scanners. This does not seem to be the case.

Click to expand...

well I guess that would be the same reason that I have not scanned my boxes of negative / slides.

That and I believe that things will continue to get better before they go bad (perhaps unlike your film). Despite hearing cries of panic of the death of scanners I still seem to find new ones.

And don't forget 99% of the people who own those boxes of film hiding in drawers really don't give much thought to them. Scanning takes time and skills and organisation if you're going to catalog those billions

heck, my father in law can't even find the CD I gave him of the negs / digitals his own fathers funeral (and that's not long ago either!)

Have said all this, I am still no sure if I should invest in spare scanner now or trust that the Epson will continue to provide good film Flatbed scanners.

Click to expand...

basically no ... its not an investment and you'll likely have it sitting around for 20 years and not need it.

This is speaking as somone who has 3 EOS 630 bodies and now only rarely uses any of them and defaults to a 10D or 6x12 film.

SilverGlow said:

You're unreasonable. You ask for proof on a digital monitor, all the while knowing full well this is not possible in ways that will show the actual fidelity of the analog print. Then you sharkingly say "yeh, thnx".

Wow!

Click to expand...

wait a minute, i think it is possible to post meaningful visual examples, my question and comment was to, once again, test the veracity and worth of the many unsubstantiated statements made on this and the sister site

consider;
xyz software sharpens better than PS, but can't be shown

film/analogue workflow is better than a full analogue workflow, but can't be shown

Leica lenses and cameras are better than anything else, but can't be shown

Azo is the best paper ever invented, but can't be shown

Pyrosomething or other is the best developer, but can't be shown

you must use my magic bullet to make images, but can't be shown

and on and on

though we are discussing a visual medium, nobody is willing to offer visual examples, dare i ask for proof, of these or any number of other strong statements

in fact here and on the sister site too many people post too much verbage and not enough imagery, sorry but this makes me just a little skeptical

Ray, to demonstrate the problem with using monitors to show differences I have uploaded two files.

One a print scan from a full analogue workflow, scanned on a top end scanner for reproduction.

The other a neg scan that was worked on for output as a light jet.

Now, I know which one has more dynamic range when printed and I can pick it out easily (as can others) when the two images are in front of me. The difference is major. As I know which file is which I "think" I can tell a difference on the monitor. Both images were printed by outstanding printers who are used by leading photographers.

I have just done an unscientific test, I asked two people if they could tell the difference between the two files on the (carefully calibrated) monitor. Neither could. And one is a person with a lifetime of experience in the printing industry. Someone who has supervised printing for very high end publications. He is the sort of guy who can look at a pulled press print and tell the printer exactly how much more or less cyan to mix in.

His comment, you can't tell on screen, thats why they do "hard proofs" of everything.

Hope this helps clarify things.