Lachlan Young
Allowing Ads
Remarkable, isn't it? You guys were actually scanning film, at A0 size, at resolutions meaningful for high-quality printing in the late 1970s.
At around the same time or even a few years earlier, my dad was working at a publishing house where he was responsible for transitioning the content-to-press process to the first generation of digital technology. Apparently, the resistance among the more conservative of the printers to this development was massive (and, of course, futile).
I have a feeling you are not talking about (photographic) film scanning…
Actually, the majority drum scanners moved the pickup head (light source and pmts) instead of the drum. Scanmates did the opposite and had issues, just off the top of my head.
That would be a nightmare for maintaining beam alignment
Drum scanners were never the domain of casual, personal scanning. They remain professional gear used by the printing industry for quality work. When folks decided it was a novel idea to shoot film and have it scanned to a CD or downloadable files, they did not want to pay for the quality of a drum scan, other options being much cheaper and good enough for their purposes--mostly viewing on a screen. And of course, a drum scanner has always been out of reach for home use.Drum scanners gave way to other technology because people quit caring about quality. Convenience and novelty became what people like.
Drum scanners were never the domain of casual, personal scanning. They remain professional gear used by the printing industry for quality work. When folks decided it was a novel idea to shoot film and have it scanned to a CD or downloadable files, they did not want to pay for the quality of a drum scan, other options being much cheaper and good enough for their purposes--mostly viewing on a screen. And of course, a drum scanner has always been out of reach for home use.
Yes, but the problem is that drum scanners have mostly fallen out of professional use. Book and magazine publishing isn't what it once was. Aesthetic and production quality has greatly declined in most places.
Purely out of curiosity,and waiting for a lottery win,are there any companies today maufacturing NEW drum scanners ?
You can still buy software for the Hell/Linotype-Hell/Heidelberg Chromagraph 3300, 3400, Tango, and Primescan models from LaserSoft Imaging (SilverFast High-End Suite). And you can still buy software for the Howtek/Aztek 2500, 4000, 4500, 6500, 7500, 8000, and Premier from Aztek (Digital PhotoLab). But the software from both companies requires older versions of operating systems, so sourcing that would also have to be taken into account.
I think the cost was what killed the drum scanners.
Any comparison can be favorable as long as you look from a sufficiently large distance and with sufficiently low standards. You've posted this example many times before; I've always found it an apt demonstration of the significantly higher quality of a drum scan compared to a flatbed scan even in an informal, poorly controlled setup with digital post processing that's...well, let's be generous and call it 'haphazard'.The V850 compared favorably I believe at least looking at it digitally.
First off, the process of comparison was not haphazard. I'll let the readers who review the whole comparison thread, see how it was done and what the results look like, and make their own decision.Any comparison can be favorable as long as you look from a sufficiently large distance and with sufficiently low standards. You've posted this example many times before; I've always found it an apt demonstration of the significantly higher quality of a drum scan compared to a flatbed scan even in an informal, poorly controlled setup with digital post processing that's...well, let's be generous and call it 'haphazard'.
Of course, what your example and especially your assessment does illustrate is why drum scanners just don't have that much practical relevance in (amateur) photographic scanning today. The alternatives are simply good enough for the majority of people.
First off, the process of comparison was not haphazard. I'll let the readers who review the whole comparison thread, see how it was done and what the results look like, and make their own decision.
I post this comparison because it shows that a good flatbed scanner is sufficiently professional enough for most photographers. You don't need a drum scanner.
They were certainly expensive, but if we are considering them in the publishing and printing field, or even the professional film lab, all of the nice equipment is expensive.
I think the cost became less justifiable to people as the prevalence of film photography declined. And that is a very sad situation.
Most people consider things almost solely quantitatively now instead of qualitatively, whereas the word quality should be a big hint. Analog is and always will be king. Analog is just more beautiful and harmonious with human vision. And if you are going to use some form of digital intermediate, then drum scanning is the most analog form of scanning.
Very true, photographers don‘t need drum scanners. Printers do.
I don't know much about the wedding photography market today except is pretty much out of control and can be lucrative. What I do know is that most MF film shooters delivered photographic prints and there was no need to scan anything. Drum scanning was for images ending up being printed on a printing press.
There are still film photographers who shoot reversal film or make wet prints and if their work is published, it has to be scanned. Drum scanning is still the standard for most work that can be wrapped around a drum. There are really high-end large format flatbed scanners today for images that cannot be drum-scanned.
The average wedding photo shoot today costs more than we spent on the entire wedding 35 years ago. Now it is not unusual for a wedding shoot to last for a few days, with studio and location shots, the actual event, two or three photographers and video coverage.'Lucrative' wedding photography...it hardly seems so. I was shooting weddings over 30 years ago, and the fees average little more now than they did back then...and the cost of living is considerably higher now than 30 years ago! The CPI in 1995 was about 150, in 2015 CPI was about 230, the CPI in 2025 was about 320.
The average wedding photo shoot today costs more than we spent on the entire wedding 35 years ago. Now it is not unusual for a wedding shoot to last for a few days, with studio and location shots, the actual event, two or three photographers and video coverage.
And if one were to get only wedding cereremony + reception stills coverage (~12hr coverage, no video, not multi-day)?...compare apples to apples?!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?