Flatbed vs dedicate negative scanner...

[Daniel Balfour]

I don't have all the answers, but here is a comparison that speaks for itself. Nikon 9000 on the top, Epson 4490 on the bottom. Scala developed in Rodinal as a negative.

View attachment 205

Sorry I just had to bud in with my $0.02 -

If you're buying a scanner for your applications you're going to be doing Photoshop editing anyway. Granted, one should aim to get the best possible scan to start with, but where would you draw the line? A drum scan would probably make the Coolscan look like child scribble.

I could go on, but a picture is worth a thousand words. Here's just something I scratched together (see attached img). I'm by no means a photoshop expert (more like novice).

 

[Jeff Searust]

That sort of looks more like I expected. I am using a UMAX Powerlook III, with the umax film holders just because it was really high end at the time I bought it 10 years back and that it has a 4x5 film holder.

I keep looking for a new scanner, but one of the requirements for me is going to be 6x9 or more for MF and hopefully 4x5. I have found a couple scanners I like, but I think in the end it's going to be last years best stuff off ebay rather than something like the 9000.

 

[sanking]

In no way do I doubt the results posted by folks like Sandy King, I can't help but wonder. What difference does it make if this car goes 300 mp/h and that one only goes 225 mp/h. I'm not going to be driving any faster then 75-85 mp/h!

Just to keep things in perspective my first message in this thread was in response to a claim that no flatbed gives real resolution of more than 1200 ppi. I have personally tested the Epsons 4990, V700 and V750, and they all give real optical resolution of much more than 1200 ppi, the 4990 about 1800-2000 ppi, and the V700 and V750 slightly more. I personally own an Epson 4990 and find it very useful for a variety of tasks, even though I have a couple of higher end scanners.

Sandy King

 

[donbga]

Wow, I was actually going to pick up an Epson V-700/750 tomorrow - probably still will. The idea of being able to do post-process editing digitally & output near-perfect digital negatives for traditional & alt photography processes is too tempting to pass up.

In no way do I doubt the results posted by folks like Sandy King, I can't help but wonder. What difference does it make if this car goes 300 mp/h and that one only goes 225 mp/h. I'm not going to be driving any faster then 75-85 mp/h!

I've done most of my shooting in MF and some in 35mm. My enlargements were generally 8x10 and some even smaller, with the odd 11x14. The losses in quality inherent to the enlargement process seem to exceed the differences in the quality of the scans that can be had with ANY of these scanners!

Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm just starting out with digital negatives.

I would reccomend that you consider obtaining one of the variable height film holders from Betterscanning.com. It's probably one of the best and easiest things you can do to improve the quality of your scans from the 750 (I assume yours is a 750 since you didn't make that clear.) Anyway the Epson film holders are pretty lame; the ones available through Betterscanning.com will make you much happier.

Don Bryant

 

[lenny]

Wow, I was actually going to pick up an Epson V-700/750 tomorrow - probably still will. The idea of being able to do post-process editing digitally & output near-perfect digital negatives for traditional & alt photography processes is too tempting to pass up.

I've done most of my shooting in MF and some in 35mm. My enlargements were generally 8x10 and some even smaller, with the odd 11x14. The losses in quality inherent to the enlargement process seem to exceed the differences in the quality of the scans that can be had with ANY of these scanners!

Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm just starting out with digital negatives.

I wouldn't wish this scanner on anyone. I am a drum scanner pro. However, if you are doing 8x10 prints and not going larger, it doesn't really matter what you use. I would get a digital camera if I was going to shoot at that size. Anything over 5 mpixels would do. It's when you want to make a 16x20 print that all the low end scanners fall apart.... and the low end digital cameras a well.

Lenny
EigerStudios

 

[Daniel Balfour]

Just to keep things in perspective my first message in this thread was in response to a claim that no flatbed gives real resolution of more than 1200 ppi. I have personally tested the Epsons 4990, V700 and V750, and they all give real optical resolution of much more than 1200 ppi, the 4990 about 1800-2000 ppi, and the V700 and V750 slightly more. I personally own an Epson 4990 and find it very useful for a variety of tasks, even though I have a couple of higher end scanners.

Sandy King

Sandy,

I intend to scan 35mm/6x6 films for digital negatives (Epson 3800). In your opinion, could I get away with buying the V-700 I was thinking of picking up or should I go for the pricier LS-9000 for it's higher quality scans?

Speaking of "higher quality" - shouldn't output dictate that?

Thanks!
Daniel

 

[Daniel Balfour]

I wouldn't wish this scanner on anyone. I am a drum scanner pro. However, if you are doing 8x10 prints and not going larger, it doesn't really matter what you use. I would get a digital camera if I was going to shoot at that size. Anything over 5 mpixels would do. It's when you want to make a 16x20 print that all the low end scanners fall apart.... and the low end digital cameras a well.

Lenny
EigerStudios

Lenny -

I take it your'e not a fan of Genuine Fractals?

Hehe.. If only I had the disposable income for the Flextight H1!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Sorry folks, don't mean to hijack the thread, just asking for a bit of clarification.

Lenny, would that go for scanning 4x5 and 5x7 negs as well, to print large, like 16x20? I am definitely going the digital neg route when I can afford it and will print large when I do. I'm pretty set on the Epson V750 with a liquid mount kit because it's juuuust within grasp for my kind of money.

Thanks,

- Thomas

I wouldn't wish this scanner on anyone. I am a drum scanner pro. However, if you are doing 8x10 prints and not going larger, it doesn't really matter what you use. I would get a digital camera if I was going to shoot at that size. Anything over 5 mpixels would do. It's when you want to make a 16x20 print that all the low end scanners fall apart.... and the low end digital cameras a well.

Lenny
EigerStudios

 

[sanking]

Sandy,

I intend to scan 35mm/6x6 films for digital negatives (Epson 3800). In your opinion, could I get away with buying the V-700 I was thinking of picking up or should I go for the pricier LS-9000 for it's higher quality scans?

Speaking of "higher quality" - shouldn't output dictate that?

Thanks!
Daniel

Daniel,

The LS-9000 is definitely a better scanner than the V-700 and for 35mm/6X6 film I think it would do a better job for you. However, the difference in resolution (at least in my tests) is not really all that great. I can easily get about 2200 lppm with the V-700, and a maximum of slightly less than 3000 lppm with the LS-9000. For prints no larger than about 12X17 from 6X6 negatives I believe you can get acceptable results with the V-700, but not from 35mm.

Sandy

 

[claudermilk]

I think Thomas' situation (and my own very similar one) illustrates where the nicer flatbeds have value. While a dedicated film scanner or a drum scanner is nice and acknowledged to give better results, the price simply removes them from consideration for many of us. Thus the intense examination of what the flatbeds can do.

For me, the V700 will just fit within my budget & isn't too much more investment than the camera system with which it will be used.

 

[Daniel Balfour]

However, the difference in resolution (at least in my tests) is not really all that great. I can easily get about 2200 lppm with the V-700, and a maximum of slightly less than 3000 lppm with the LS-9000.

I'm sure this is a stupid question (or rather "ignorant"), but what does LPPM stand for, and what is the practical significance?

For prints no larger than about 12X17 from 6X6 negatives I believe you can get acceptable results with the V-700, but not from 35mm.

Why is print size a significant factor? I'm guessing there is some sort of relationship between scan resolution & output size. Would you humor a novice by explaining this point?

 

[sanking]

I'm sure this is a stupid question (or rather "ignorant"), but what does LPPM stand for, and what is the practical significance?



Why is print size a significant factor? I'm guessing there is some sort of relationship between scan resolution & output size. Would you humor a novice by explaining this point?

LPPM is line pairs per millimeter. Most prints need a mininum of 5 lppm of resolution at critical viewing distance of ten inches or so. You can equate lppm to ppi by the formula ppi / 25.4 / 2. So if a scanner has real resolution of 2540 ppi the resolution will be 50 lppm. Unfortunately the effective resolution of most scanners, in particular the consumer flatbeds, is much less than the stated optical resolution. The Epson V-750, for example, will not deliver more than 2400 effective resolution, even though the stated optical may bd 4800 or 6500.

Print size is important because you need a minimum of about 300-360 ppi of real resolution at the output size. If you scan an 8X10 negative at 300 ppi and then print it out at 16X20 the final resolution will decrease to 150 ppi.

Sandy King

 

[lenny]

Sorry folks, don't mean to hijack the thread, just asking for a bit of clarification.
Lenny, would that go for scanning 4x5 and 5x7 negs as well, to print large, like 16x20? I am definitely going the digital neg route when I can afford it and will print large when I do. I'm pretty set on the Epson V750 with a liquid mount kit because it's juuuust within grasp for my kind of money.
Thanks,
- Thomas

That scanner is just fine for the folks for whom it is fine. I am an experienced printer, who loves fine quality. I make prints for myself that are either 16x20 or 32x40, and on occasion larger for my clients. Mine are also in b&w, which is more critical than color. I think it depends on the print quality you want to achieve. If you want the best, then, no, it is not enough, by a long shot. A drum scanner is, by most accounts.

It's important to note that for some, the quality they will get will be just fine. It's not about dissing those that have this scanner. However, it's clear that the plastic camera one can get in the store does not compare to a Leica, Hassleblad or a large format camera with a good lens. It's about calling something what it is. I think the drum scanner is about as far from the 750 as the plastic camera is.

i wish I could tell you that it was great, but my experience with this device has not been great, and I won't lie, even if my truth is only the truth for me... or what I understand to be correct.

Lenny -
I take it your'e not a fan of Genuine Fractals?
Hehe.. If only I had the disposable income for the Flextight H1!

I purchased Genuine Fractals a while back. Did some tests at about 30 inches. There was no difference from the bicubic inside of Photoshop. I also took a file that I wanted to be 20 inches with a 16 megapixel camera and uprezzed it... 16 mgpixels is only 4,000 x 4,000, so I had 4,000 along one edge, total. When I divided the 4000 by 20 inches, I got only 200 dpi. that was awful so I tried a few of the best uprezzing techniques. I upped it to 400 dpi, so that it would be perfectly even, etc. None of them were able to improve the quality of the print in any way whatsoever. That's why I got a scanner.

In talking with other scanner pros over the years, they all echo the same sentiment - get the pixels you need from the scan to begin with. Don't try and create pixels from nothing...

Finally, I wouldn't get a Flextight, or Imacon anything. They are overrated and overpriced. Drum scanners are a much, much better deal...

Lenny
EigerStudios

 

[Daniel Balfour]

Sandy & Lenny,

Thank you both for taking the time to write such thorough replies. Your contribution to the learning experience is noble and appreciated.

I managed to find, but sheer luck if nothing else, a great deal on a barely unpacked LS-9000 that was purchased about 7 months ago. Needless to say, I jumped on the deal! $1250 in total. Can't imagine going wrong with that.

Heh..

I've also concluded, much from the posts here, that the term "quality results" is altogether subjective. What one person might see as acceptable, another person might not, and vice-versa. I think I'll try my hand with this and report back on my findings.

I should point out -

My intended workflow is a hybrid one. Mostly liquid light & traditional silver printing at an output size only limited by my printer. I hope that to be the Epson 3800 so, that puts it at roughly 17x22". Should be a good start. Especially since I'm doing 35mm & 6x6 work.

 

[Marco B]

I've also concluded, much from the posts here, that the term "quality results" is altogether subjective. What one person might see as acceptable, another person might not, and vice-versa. I think I'll try my hand with this and report back on my findings.

Seems like a sound remark . It is subjective to an extent.

I think I have formulated my initial remarks about the true optical resolution of cheap or at least "consumer" priced flatbed / negative scanners a bit to harsh ("above 1200dpi is interpolated on flatbed").

Sandy correctly points out that the V750 will do more than 1200 dpi, but in a sense I had already said this in my initial post by stating the range of tested dpi's I read in C't Magazine ("ranges from 220(!) - 1552 dpi at best" for a bunch of scannners not including the V700/750).

Even so, even the V750 will NOT do 2400 dpi according to any of the people in this thread (if I have not mist a message). That still means that no affordable consumer priced flatbed will give truely good scans for 35mm.

Of course, 1200 to 2400 dpi is sufficient for most other applications, like 4x5 scanning. I have a very beautiful 60*80cm digital B/W print based on 1200 dpi scan from a 4x5 negative (so a 4800 * 6000 pixel image). The image looks very sharp, at about 200 dpi real printing resolution...

The more you scan, the more critical you become, especially if you have witnessed the amazing results of a Flextight Imacon or drum scan at high (>=2400 dpi) resolutions (or a good negative scanner). Flatbed scans will just look poor by comparison, if repeated at the same resolutions.

 

[Carl Radford]

I know we are going around i circles at little bit with this but it does come down to acceptable print quality in the end for the given print size required by the user. If using ps etc one can get prints they are happy with from a V750 from 120 or l/f film then that is fine. If it comes down to speed, ease of use, large print size then a more professional tool may be required. Isn't this the crux though though ultimate quality comes at a price that is afforded by those with deep pockets or that do it for a profession. If an amateur has time to get the best from limited equipment but little difference can truly be seen at the print stage then it may be better to spend the extra cash on film, flash cards or paper - maybe a nice meal or beer

 

[keithwms]

Carl I think you hit the nail on the head.

If we just stand back and look at this thread and some of the related ones, there are two basic groups of opinions.

On the one hand, there are people whose goal is to get the maximum posisble info out of the film, because they want an archival copy of the frame, and so they [rightly] use the ultimate equipment and so forth.

On the other hand, there are people who want to make a print of size AxB, with such and such dpi, on such and such printer, and their specific needs are generally more modest... i.e. not archival.

Except for making LVTs, I tend to fit more into the second category at this point.

 

[lenny]

Carl I think you hit the nail on the head.

If we just stand back and look at this thread and some of the related ones, there are two basic groups of opinions.

On the one hand, there are people whose goal is to get the maximum posisble info out of the film, because they want an archival copy of the frame, and so they [rightly] use the ultimate equipment and so forth.

On the other hand, there are people who want to make a print of size AxB, with such and such dpi, on such and such printer, and their specific needs are generally more modest... i.e. not archival.

Except for making LVTs, I tend to fit more into the second category at this point.

I don't disagree with this identification of groups. I think archiving is important. It is likely that digital cameras will get better. I think they are a bit lazy at the moment in getting a truly great chip out there that will end the argument, but they will get there eventually. My guess is between 5 and 10 years.

Let's say I'm right (just for discussion) and it's 7.5 years from now. I would guarantee that all the drum scan makers and almost all the drum scanners will be out of business. The knowledge and experience will move on to other things and at some point, there won't be a way to get a great scan of a piece of film.

I think what's needed is a balance. Professionals and non-professionals alike have to have a reasonable cost of creating images. I don't add every shot I do to my portfolio. Just like everyone else, some of them are just plain, not my best work. If I didn't have a drum scanner already, I would agree that it would be nice that I got an inexpensive scan. However, I would say that if you decide that a particular image is one of your best pieces, I would get it scanned by the best drum scanner I could find.

Lenny
EigerStudios

 

[Bob Carnie]

I humbly disagree with the 7.5 years out of business for drum scanners.
As you know I am looking for a top end scanner and willing to pay the rate to get the best possible unit.

My logic is as follows...... 1970 -2007 one hundrend million two hundred qradiulan negatives and transparancies photographed world wide.

All modern colour and black and white printing devices are being developed for a digital platform.. 1/2 century of work will be needed to be converted to high resolution files via a scanning device.

I think I will be scanning for as long as there are people alive with images to print.

 

[Marco B]

Carl and Keith: I think you both nailed it in your last posts. I will stop rambling about dpi stuff and the like. Like you both say, everyone needs to see the scanning issue from his / her perspective and decide what is needed for the purpose of the scans that one is making (webdisplay / print / archival or other). Go with whatever *you* specifically need!

 

[Carl Radford]

...

For me it gets down to where best to put limited funds into a HOBBY (although my wife thinks its more a devotion) to best use- - new camera, lens, film, etc etc - what will help me make more/better images - Yes I know more is not better but as long as I learn from the not so good ones Some of my favourite images are from pinholes -so far these have been scanned on an epson 2450 (120 & 5x4) scanner and printed out using an epson 3800 printer. I am sure if my ps skills were up to it I'd get improved results! When it gets difficult for me is the option of buying something like a new flatbed v750 or second hand dedicated for around the same money but I have made my choice and will get on with the real job - image making

All the best folks, Carl

Carl and Keith: I think you both nailed it in your last posts. I will stop rambling about dpi stuff and the like. Like you both say, everyone needs to see the scanning issue from his / her perspective and decide what is needed for the purpose of the scans that one is making (webdisplay / print / archival or other). Go with whatever *you* specifically need!

 

[claudermilk]

Carl outlined the aspect often overlooked: budget. While I'm sure we'd all love to have an in-house drum scanner to play with, for many it's simply so far beyond the budget that any discussion of them is pointless.

I want to get as good a quality as I can out of my 645 negs, however there are limited funds available and even the flatbed solutions will be difficult to budget at this point. I also keep in mind that due to the effects of digital, I only paid $350 for the 645 camera rig, so looking at 6x the cost for a scanner is tough to justify.

 

[Carl Radford]

...

I've settled on the knowledge that if I produce anything worth drum scanning I'll pay to get it done. If I am happy with the 2450 and know that I'll get even better results with a V750 then I can't justify anything else. Not even sure the archive argument works - film - looked after properly has been around for years, I am sure when I pop my clogs most of the stuff that I've produced will be heading to the local disposal site

Carl outlined the aspect often overlooked: budget. While I'm sure we'd all love to have an in-house drum scanner to play with, for many it's simply so far beyond the budget that any discussion of them is pointless.

I want to get as good a quality as I can out of my 645 negs, however there are limited funds available and even the flatbed solutions will be difficult to budget at this point. I also keep in mind that due to the effects of digital, I only paid $350 for the 645 camera rig, so looking at 6x the cost for a scanner is tough to justify.

 

[df cardwell]

I wonder how far afield this will be.

At present, all my professional work is with a digital camera: much of the time, the final product is a palladium print from (of course) a digital negative.

All my personal work is film, much of it done on 8x10. Sometimes, I make silver prints, sometimes, palladium.

I use a digital negative of the 8x10 negative to simplify the palladium process. With a digitized image, exposure and contrast are (almost) constants, for I can balance the inevitable variations of gamma and density in PS.

While I would love to posess a high performance flat-bed scanner, I can do a perfectly satisfactory job using my DSLR on a copystand to digitize the 8x10 negative.

Since I already have the DSLR and copystand, it was an easy choice for me.

The nature of my work isn’t suited to big prints (some would say, the smaller the better !). The DSLR far exceeds the needs of the internegative, and the paper texture covers my manifold sins.

Today, there are many ways to get to palladium ( or, whatever ! ) and it's perfectly legitimate to assemble a system that suits our ambition AND pocketbook.