• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Why did drum scanners give way to other technology?

However, one thing that is not as widely known as it should be is that solid state photo sensors can't compete with PMTs in terms of signal to noise ratio for point detectors.
The question is not which conceptual approach is technically better in this specific respect. The question is ultimately which one gives the best tradeoff, and it's evident that it's at this point in time, silicon. While you're technically right that PMT tech can produce a cleaner signal, in reality, we don't need that badly enough when scanning film. Silicon, despite its somewhat lower performance, is just plenty good enough, and offers many other advantages that make it a better solution.

Of course, predicting the past is always easy to do.
 

Wow, what an amazing journey! Thanks for sharing this.
 

Wow! That's an amazing and highly informative story.
 
Thanks for taking the time to read it all. I type really fast...it turned out longer than I thought, but glad a few of you found it interesting. It's been an interesting ride for me through the decades and I'm grateful to be touring the West Coast right now. Installed two scanners in Los Angeles and one in Big Sur so far. I will be leaving the Bay Area in a couple of days and head towards Seattle & Vancouver, returning to San Francisco one more time before heading towards Denver in a 5 ton box truck full of vintage scanners.
 

It was an really interesting read indeed - thanks a lot for that Touring the West Coast with a bunch of drum-scanners sounds pretty cool B-)
 
It's interesting as a consumer of commercial drum scans and also a flatbed and LEAF (an early CCD scanner that did 4x5, kind of like an Imacon) in that some of the commercial scans I bought couldn't do color negative very well since their workflow was based on scanning chromes which have a much smaller dynamic range. The Howtek and later Aztek scans of color negatives were significantly better than old school drums that were optimized for 5-stops of chrome rather than 14-stops of negative tonal range. The entire chrome positive workflow was simpler for the tog - simply hand over the chrome to get paid - but it also kept the profits within the printing companies that owned the scanners. Once togs could buy decent scans or scanners then the business model collapsed, just as print media continues to do.

Originally in the post WWII American Empire environment Eastman Kodak envisioned photographers shooting color neg and making - and retouching - prints for reproduction, that would then be photographed to make color separations. This would have generated more profits for photographers which was win-win but then printers started demanding chromes and lazy photographers said sure, I'll just shoot 3x as much film and bracket, then hand over a pile of chromes and collect $.

Cheapskates would demand that catalog photographers shoot products at actual reproduction sizes so slobs would shoot a 3" tall thing with 8x10 film so they wouldn't charge for an enlarged color separation.

A proof and set of color separations cost $200 or so early 90s. A sheet of Kodak 8x10 EPN was only $3-4. Easier and cheaper to shoot a bracket of film.

It's all moot, my phone could probably do better catalog photos than a 1990s William Sonoma catalog (remember 300-page mail order catalogs?)
 
I have some different observations from the time I was a graphic designer and art director working with photographers and printers. No photographer I knew ever re-photographed a retouched print. That was left to the printer and process cameras designed for that. Or specialist houses called engravers, left over from the time they actually engraved plates. Bracketing is pretty useless as a substitute for proper retouching, which might involve removing blemishes, stray hairs or threads, distracting or entire backgrounds. Today, the model of a photographer scanning their own work to hand over to a client or printer is pretty much obsolete, since almost every commercial photographer shoots digital. The post-processing of those files is the new income stream, whether done in-house by the photographer or staff or contracted out to an independent retoucher. Of course, AI is rapidly improving and will soon take away a lot of what remains of the commercial photographers' traditional business.

In the 90's I was paying much more than $200 for separations an a matchprint proof. Of course, that is in a major market, the cost elsewhere could have been less.