Scanner/Printer/Software recomendation for a new Mac

[michaelbsc]

I'm relatively new to the whole scanning/digital imaging world, so just point me in the right direction if this has been beaten into the ground and I'm just not searching in the right places.

I currently have a number of years experience with wet darkroom processing, all of it as a hobby rather than professionally.

A few years ago I bought a cheap Epson scanner from the Epson refurbish site, but I don't use it much. (So little I don't even remember the model number. A 44xx something.)

In a desire to start working with more alternate processes I see some significant advantages to the hybrid work flow that folks here use, so I'm interested in getting into this.

My current scanner is only capable of 135 and 120 size film, not 4x5. At least not in transmission mode. I have thrown a couple of 4x5s onto the glass and they do scan.

My interest is taking work I already have plus new images, and converting that into materials for printing in new mediums like carbon prints or bromoils.

My wife, however, is interested in jumping full bore into the digital work flow. The whole nine yards of it; scanning, retouching, and printing for presentation all in bits and bytes.

Our negative collection, and our cameras for future negatives, span everything from 110 (16mm) to 8x10. (But I expect the 5x7 and 8x10 may not be economically scannable. Tell me I'm wrong about that and make my day. I can't optically enlarge anything bigger than a 4x5 negative, so getting a 5x7 turned into an 11x14 would make me very happy.)

In the near future my wife will be acquiring a pretty fully tricked out Mac workstation, everything from a wheelbarrow full of ram and OMG cores to big disk packs. I want to piggy back on this to get a scanner, printer, and image software that will satisfy both her desire to make presentation quality work and supply me with materials for use in more traditional chemical printing practices.

But I'm not much of a Mac guy, nor do I really have a good feel for the scanner/printer/software availability. In my youth I was accused of being a Unix bigot more than once by the DOS weenies, so the Mac itself isn't an issue for me. But what's out there, and what are the pluses and minuses for them, for the imaging hardware and software? I distrust the magazine reviews, since their job is to sell advertisement. I want advice from someone who actually uses the stuff.

While I don't want to say that cost is no object, I'm not looking for the Wal-mart solution here. Aside from the computer and monitors which are already budgeted I'm willing to budget several thousand dollars extra for this.

 

[Ben Altman]

To my mind, money spent on a good scanner is the foundation of a good workflow. You save much time not needing all the fussing and fixing. The options are a professional grade flatbed like an Eversmart or a drum scanner. I have Howtek drum scanners and a flatbed Fuji Finescan 2750. The Fuji does my quick and dirty "first look" scans (it's overkill for that) and can do a good scan if needed. The Howteks are getting harder to find but often go pretty cheaply. I've been using the 4500 but now upgrading to the 7500. Either will do your 5x7's and 8x10's at file sizes as big as you will ever need. Aztek provides service, parts and (expensive) rebuilds.

I'm talking used equipment here. Production shops don't need to scan any more, so they are unloading at very low prices - the most expensive one I have cost me $1,750, the others $350 up. But you'll get quality that makes a new prosumer scanner look like a toy. However, these pro machines run on special software. You can run a Howtek on Silverfast, or the original Aurora or Trident if it comes with, but I went for the high end Aztek DPL Pro and have not regretted it. (That's Windows only; I have cheap Dell box hooked into my Mac network to run it. That way it's easy to do something else on my Mac Pro while the scanner is grinding away.) I also use one of the faster old Mac G4's to run my printers, for the same reason.

You'll get different opinions about printers. If you end up using a QuadTone RIP workflow for digital negs, you need an Epson and not the latest x900 series - QTR only runs up to the 3880, 4880, 7880, etc.. Otherwise people use Canon and HP printers with success. With Epsons, the pro models, 4880 and up, have a vacuum platen, better than the pizza-wheel feed in the 3880 and down - and they take roll paper.

Hope this helps...

Best, Ben

 

[Loris Medici]

For negatives sizes >= 4x5", an Epson V7xx series scanner is more than enough if you don't intend to print murals. I think the effective / equivalent enlargement factor would be something around 6-7x. (Even more depending on how competent you're in post-processing...) Pretty enough for "usual" print sizes. (Let me see: 4x5" x 6 = 24x30", 8x10" x 6 = 48x60"... Wow! Anything beyond 17" - short edge - would fall into the category of "unusual", to me. How many prints larger than 17" width - that's net image size - you've made before?)

Regards,
Loris.

 

[donbga]

For negatives sizes >= 4x5", an Epson V7xx series scanner is more than enough if you don't intend to print murals. I think the effective / equivalent enlargement factor would be something around 6-7x. (Even more depending on how competent you're in post-processing...) Pretty enough for "usual" print sizes. (Let me see: 4x5" x 6 = 24x30", 8x10" x 6 = 48x60"... Wow! Anything beyond 17" - short edge - would fall into the category of "unusual", to me. How many prints larger than 17" width - that's net image size - you've made before?)

Regards,
Loris.

I'm sorry Loris I disagree. The differences between drum scanned images and ones made from a flat bed scanner such as the V700 can clearly be seen in prints much smaller than mural size - say 11x14 inches. Now I must admit I'm comparing scans made on an Epson 4990 and a Howtek 4500 scanned at 4000 spi and some scanned at 2000 spi. Some people on this forum scan their 35mm negatives @ 8000spi and make really large prints. Why? Because they can and they want to.

After reading my last paragraph please let me clarify, my drum scans were made at 4000 and 2000 spi, while the scans on the 4990 were all made at 2400 spi.

Now I know some of you may not think that's an equal side by side comparison, but it need not be since the drum scans are so much more superior. The differences can be seen in the ultra fine details, say like the writing on the faces of natural gas meters shot from 12 feet away. Or the weave of chicken wire made from 30 yards out (you can do the metric conversions if need be). The details of the scans are so sharp that one can reduce output sharpening (sharpening for printing) by about 50 or 60% on most images.

Don't believe me? Then do the real world comparisons. They are very real and startling differences and much more revealing than numerical comparisons.

TTFN,

Don

 

[michaelbsc]

While the used pro gear sounds good, the new pro gear is probably out of my league. For us this is just a hobby. I don't want to spend more than $2-4K on the software/hardware (excluding the Mac itself) in this endeavor.

On the wet darkroom side I cannot print anything larger than 16x20, and I have never felt restricted by that limit. So I expect this won't be an impediment for digitally printed material. After all, you still have to frame the thing. Just how much wall space can you take up anyway.

And a significant part of my desire is to end up with materials for cyanotype and to start playing with carbon and bromoils. Printing the final image to an inkjet is my wife's desire. So for a hand made alt process print I doubt I'll ever try to go bigger than 16x20 anyway.

Now, I'll grant you that if I do try to scan a 35mm image and print it at 16x20 that's a lot more enlargement than a 4x5. But I don't do that now. Just because it's digital doesn't mean the basic ground rules change.

So, if I troll the auction site for used pro gear, what's the recommendations? I already rejected a Leaf several years ago as unworkable.

And if I buy an Epson V7xx instead, aside from "modern" what does that buy me?

And what about the software? Does the pro software feature set make up for the difference in cost?

 

[donbga]

While the used pro gear sounds good, the new pro gear is probably out of my league. For us this is just a hobby. I don't want to spend more than $2-4K on the software/hardware (excluding the Mac itself) in this endeavor.

On the wet darkroom side I cannot print anything larger than 16x20, and I have never felt restricted by that limit. So I expect this won't be an impediment for digitally printed material. After all, you still have to frame the thing. Just how much wall space can you take up anyway.

And a significant part of my desire is to end up with materials for cyanotype and to start playing with carbon and bromoils. Printing the final image to an inkjet is my wife's desire. So for a hand made alt process print I doubt I'll ever try to go bigger than 16x20 anyway.

Now, I'll grant you that if I do try to scan a 35mm image and print it at 16x20 that's a lot more enlargement than a 4x5. But I don't do that now. Just because it's digital doesn't mean the basic ground rules change.

So, if I troll the auction site for used pro gear, what's the recommendations? I already rejected a Leaf several years ago as unworkable.

And if I buy an Epson V7xx instead, aside from "modern" what does that buy me?

And what about the software? Does the pro software feature set make up for the difference in cost?

Don't misunderstand our recent posts in this thread.

The V700/V750 will work fine for your needs. It's really okay to say you want to make ink jet prints here if that is what you wish to do.

Purchasing the V700/V750 means you've purchased the Epson's current best which is marginally better that it's previous model or two. You don't need to purchase special scanning software. Just take the scanner home, pull it out of the box and use the Epson software. You will be just fine.

I would be more concerned with a printer if digital ink jet negatives are your main interest.

Many people come here looking for a concise quick answer regarding digital gear required for hybrid printing. We (regular longtime forum members) sometimes get over exuberant foiling with each other hurling the details of minutia at one another.

But the truth is that there are many solutions. Also problematic for the rank beginner begging for information is their position in the knowledge hierarchy. Without the experience of working with all of this gear as it's applied to producing digital negatives it's sometimes rather confusing to form the proper questions to ask, especially when hundreds or thousands of dollars are in play. And that's just to get skin in the game.

In short you are on the right track. The V700/750/4990 will all work for your immediate needs. Just try to pay as little as possible for them.

Also don't forget calibration software for your monitor, editing software such as PS and so forth. Get as much memory as you afford for your computer. Be very leery of older iMacs as they don't allow proper monitor luminance control during calibration.

There is a world of difference between carbon, bromoil, and cyanotype.

Good luck,

Don Bryant

 

[Loris Medici]

I don't say Epson V7xx is in the same league with any of the drum or pseudo-drum scanners... OTOH, I really wonder how the viewer will be able to actually see those "ultra-fine" details - which an Epson 7xx can't capture whereas the drum scanner can - in a small (11x14") inkjet reproduction. I mean, most importantly, what's the practical limit of the inkjet's resolution to begin with? I like the fact that my old Epson (which its real / actual resolution isn't even near to level of the newer V7xx provides) can't see the grain (when small enough); I don't loose any useful detail (appropriate at intended print size), and at the same time I don't get grain too...

Regards,
Loris.

P.S. My 12Mp digicam (that has a high resolution lens) is able to give me the detail level you mention below... BTW, FWIW, my (28mm equivalent wide angle) pinhole 4x5" camera was giving me chicken wire detail from around 11 yards. See Dead Link Removed image. (Upper right corner - can provide the 100% crop of the scan if you like...)

...
The differences can be seen in the ultra fine details, say like the writing on the faces of natural gas meters shot from 12 feet away. Or the weave of chicken wire made from 30 yards out (you can do the metric conversions if need be). The details of the scans are so sharp that one can reduce output sharpening (sharpening for printing) by about 50 or 60% on most images.
...

 

[donbga]

I don't say Epson V7xx is in the same league with any of the drum or pseudo-drum scanners...

Loris you need do a side by side visual comparison of your own work printed on your printer, one scanned with a drum scanner and one scanned with whatever consumer flatbed scanner you choose to appreciate the difference. Until I did that I did not appreciate the difference. And believe there is a difference.

Don

 

[michaelbsc]

Don't misunderstand our recent posts in this thread.

The V700/V750 will work fine for your needs. It's really okay to say you want to make ink jet prints here if that is what you wish to do.

That's exactly what my wife wants to do: use the ink jet to make the final product. So that's got to be part of the mix. After all, I'll be using her new computer to drive things and her desires better get satisfied. But it isn't my objective.

Purchasing the V700/V750 means you've purchased the Epson's current best which is marginally better that it's previous model or two. You don't need to purchase special scanning software. Just take the scanner home, pull it out of the box and use the Epson software. You will be just fine.

I would be more concerned with a printer if digital ink jet negatives are your main interest.

Working negatives are my my goal. I can make them in the darkroom with lith film enlarging them optically. But I don't see that as either interesting or desirable, and it's an entire new skill set to learn. My real objective is the final prints, and what ever intermediary materials are created along the way are not germane to the final product other than as support structure. So optically enlarged negatives or digitally enlarged negatives, assuming the result is comparable, are just a by product of producing the final work.

I've been doing some cyanotypes using 8x10 negatives recently. This was my first real step outside silver based medium, and I want to pursue it into other mediums besides just cyanotype. That just looked like an easy starting point. Freestyle's kit was a reasonable investment, and it proved to me that there's no magic in it, only a learning curve.

There are any number of smaller images I already have that I think would be good choices for alternate processes, but I've got to get enlarged negatives to do them. Hence my start down this road.

Many people come here looking for a concise quick answer regarding digital gear required for hybrid printing. We (regular longtime forum members) sometimes get over exuberant foiling with each other hurling the details of minutia at one another.

But the truth is that there are many solutions. Also problematic for the rank beginner begging for information is their position in the knowledge hierarchy. Without the experience of working with all of this gear as it's applied to producing digital negatives it's sometimes rather confusing to form the proper questions to ask, especially when hundreds or thousands of dollars are in play. And that's just to get skin in the game.

In short you are on the right track. The V700/750/4990 will all work for your immediate needs. Just try to pay as little as possible for them.

Also don't forget calibration software for your monitor, editing software such as PS and so forth. Get as much memory as you afford for your computer. Be very leery of older iMacs as they don't allow proper monitor luminance control during calibration.

There is a world of difference between carbon, bromoil, and cyanotype.

Good luck,

Don Bryant

The computer is a done deal. It will be a Mac Pro with either 8 or 12 cores, 32GB RAM and the ATI Radeon graphics. I'm not involved in that too much, but it's a monster machine. I'm not sure about storage, but that's easy to add later if necessary.

I do need help with things like calibration software, scanning software, editing software, and obviously the printer discussion.

I can pick up an Epson V700 pretty inexpensively. Does that come with Mac scanning software as well as Windows software? And that's all that required to drive the scanner? The OEM software?

As I mentioned earlier, I did buy an Epson 4??? a few years ago, but it's stuck in a closet for now. It's not the 4990. The largest negatives are 120, no LF. I suppose I could drag it back out as a starter and start with MF and 135. But I'd hate to dump any money into it if it needs replacing. I'll dig it out this weekend and see what model it is.

I do understand the difference between carbon, bromoil, and cyanotype; at least I do from a theoretical perspective. Aside from my very recent experiments with cyanotype I have no practical experience other than silver printing.

Interestingly, as I started researching the cyanotype stuff I thought to myself, "this is just like blueprints." Duh! It is blueprinting, just with negatives instead of with vellum drawings.

So, I'll dig out the old Epson scanner I already have, see what it is, and ask whether it's a keeper as a starting point for MF scanning.

Michael

 

[Loris Medici]

OK, I'll take your word then... Will do a Imacon scan and a 2450 scan of a 6x6 MF negative, and see the difference at 12x12" print size asap.

Regards,
Loris.

Loris you need do a side by side visual comparison of your own work printed on your printer, one scanned with a drum scanner and one scanned with whatever consumer flatbed scanner you choose to appreciate the difference. Until I did that I did not appreciate the difference. And believe there is a difference.
Don

 

[michaelbsc]

OK guys, I dug out my scanner, and it is an Epson 4180. I'm not quite sure where the software is, but I'll look for that over the next few days.

I realize this isn't the best scanner in the world, but it sure does meet the cheap criteria. I already have it, so it is effectively free. I know it will scan, or at least it used to scan. (Haven't tried it yet.)

Is this a reasonable platform to use as a starting place, accepting that it is only a stepping stone? Or is it so out of date that I shouldn't waste my time and frustrate myself?

 

[Ben Altman]

Just to clarify and respond a bit... I think you can get quite decent results from scanning large format on Epson type scanners. I had a Microtek 1800f which wasn't bad for 4x5 until it broke and I couldn't get it fixed. And you can fuss with fluid mounting and that will help. But as Don says, scans from a drum scanner or a pro flatbed are just better, need less work, less sharpening, etc. The DPL software adjusts the gain of the Howtek sensors so you can fill the histogram with real data when scanning a neg, which is nice. Also if you scan small formats you'll need some kind of high rez scanner anyway, either a something like a Nikon, or an Imacon, or the drum. So $$ either way.

And... if you have a drum scanner you still need a low end scanner to do the first-look scans of new images, b/c you won't want to spend the time to mount film on the drum unless you are sure you want the good scan - unless you want to keep making wet darkroom proof sheets. I use the big Fuji scanner for this because I got it dirt cheap, but any flatbed is fine. So in your position I'd get the new or used Epson to start with but over time find a good used pro scanner. BTW shipping big scanners is usually a disaster - pick up is the way to go.

For profiling I have - you guessed it - used gear. An I1 Pro. Works great. Can do all sorts of things I don't understand. Software is a free download to profile your monitors, scanners, printers. For digital negs a reflection densitometer is really nice and the I1, with the free trial version of Babelcolor software, does this as well. It also works with QTR if you want to make B&W ICC profiles. When it broke the mfr couldn't fix it and replaced it for the standard (although not small) recalibration fee - even though it's obsolete. Others use Spyders and ColorMunkis.

For 16x20 you can use a 17" printer. Epson has good refurbs and I think they are doing a rebate on the 4880 now. As I said earlier, I think it's worth the extra $$ over a 3880. But if your wife needs bigger, no problem.

Other editing programs have their fans, but I see little reason not to use Photoshop. There's a world of advice available because lots of people use it. And it works well.

Best, Ben

 

[michaelbsc]

Just to clarify and respond a bit... I think you can get quite decent results from scanning large format on Epson type scanners. ... ... if you have a drum scanner you still need a low end scanner to do the first-look scans of new images, b/c you won't want to spend the time to mount film on the drum unless you are sure you want the good scan - unless you want to keep making wet darkroom proof sheets. I use the big Fuji scanner for this because I got it dirt cheap, but any flatbed is fine. So in your position I'd get the new or used Epson to start with but over time find a good used pro scanner. BTW shipping big scanners is usually a disaster - pick up is the way to go.

[...]

For 16x20 you can use a 17" printer. Epson has good refurbs and I think they are doing a rebate on the 4880 now. As I said earlier, I think it's worth the extra $$ over a 3880. But if your wife needs bigger, no problem.

Other editing programs have their fans, but I see little reason not to use Photoshop. There's a world of advice available because lots of people use it. And it works well.

Best, Ben

I, too, have a whole darkroom full of used stuff, and I've been buying refurbished desktop computers, servers, and office printers for years. So used stuff doesn't bother me at all.

It sounds like my strategy should be to concentrate on the printer acquisition. What I think I'm hearing is that my existing scanner, assuming it works when I get it plugged back in, is adequate as a stop gap. And the price is right; I already have it.

My wife will probably take possession of the Mac in the next couple of months, but I've got several Windows boxes around with 2-4 GB of ram. Nothing with a workstation class graphics, but they do work.

I don't expect to need anything larger than 16x20. As I said earlier, that's as large as I can do wet, and I've never felt restricted.

The 4880 is quite a bit pricier than the 3880. As I said, I am interested in digital negatives, not final prints. But my wife is interested in using the printer to produce the final image. What about the 4880 makes it worth the difference in price?

MB

 

[Ben Altman]

Atlex prices with rebates: 3880, $819; 4880, $1320. A solid difference. However. The 3880 is the top end prosumer model, the 4880 is the smallest pro model. Lots of people use the 3800 or 3880 for digital negs and love them. I have a 3800 but prefer the 9800 that I also have because:
- the vacuum platen system for handling paper transport is better. 38xx and smaller printers use little toothed "pizza wheels" to move the paper which can leave little white dots in your digital negs. You can work around this by using an ink profile with less ink, but I don't like to be restricted in that way as some processes need a lot of ink. Or you can use the front feeder, but that is temperamental and often won't work unless you tape the neg to a carrier sheet - a PITA. And the front feeder is slightly narrower and won't take 17' material without trimming, so with all that a full 16x20 would be marginal. See recent posts on Colin Graham's digineg thread.
- 4880 handles rolls. If your wife ever wants to print in quantity or a long panoramic, this is good to have. I actually use neg material in rolls, too.
- Finally the 4880 uses bigger ink cartridges, cheaper per printed inch. If you print a reasonable amount, you'll get back some of the initial investment.
I note that digital neg. expert and forum member Ron Reeder just upgraded to the 4880, so maybe he could describe his reasons.

Best, Ben

 

[donbga]

OK guys, I dug out my scanner, and it is an Epson 4180. I'm not quite sure where the software is, but I'll look for that over the next few days.

I realize this isn't the best scanner in the world, but it sure does meet the cheap criteria. I already have it, so it is effectively free. I know it will scan, or at least it used to scan. (Haven't tried it yet.)

Is this a reasonable platform to use as a starting place, accepting that it is only a stepping stone? Or is it so out of date that I shouldn't waste my time and frustrate myself?

You should be able to download drivers for most Epson scanners but I don't know if the drivers are current for whatever OS version you are running. Epson.com has them all available. Which ever Epson you end up with you usually want to get the current driver.

I'm not familiar with that scanner but go ahead hook it up see if you can get it to function and practice scanning. Again Epson.com should have the specific scanner software for your scanner. Since you are new to scanning and the whole hybrid workflow make small negatives/prints in the begining to learn your technique.

You may wish to purchase Ron Reeder's latest book and visit Wayne Fulton's scanning site as well as our other scanning guru's blog Pellicle. All contain potentially good tips.

Don

 

[michaelbsc]

You may wish to purchase Ron Reeder's latest book and visit Wayne Fulton's scanning site as well as our other scanning guru's blog Pellicle. All contain potentially good tips.

Don

Thanks. These look very helpful.

I'll be back when I get out of the starting blocks and past the first turn.

 

[Slixtiesix]

As your question was about scanners and software, I must admit here that the Hasselblad Flextight line together with Flexcolor totally convinced me. Sorry if this may sound like a stupid advertisement, but I cannot imagine an easier and faster way to edit my scanned images. A used Imacon 646 may be within your price range. One should stay away from the older Imacon models before they went Firewire, because these arent supported anymore. The picture quality of the Imacon models did not change much during the years, but the scanning times are much faster with newer models.
I do not have my own Flextight, but sent my slides to a scan service. I found this to be the best solution, because I do not take enough pictures to justify buying my own scanner. However, Im totally satisfied with the picture quality they deliver.

Best, Benjamin