Anyone want to post a really great large format scan?

[paulr]

There have been discussions lately about the ultimate potential of one kind of photographic capture over another. I've scanned a lot of film, but never with a high end scanner ... all of mine has been for small black and white prints, well served by wet mounting on desktop scanners.

I'd love to see examples of the best of what's possible.

Anyone have a scan to share? Throw on an ugly water mark if you're worried about anyone stealing the image.

[altec2]

Can I second that request and ask that it is posted in the original large size TIFF (after post-processing)?

I'd like to compare what my 4x5 scans look like, because I'm not sure if I'm doing it right.

[vinny]

Viewing the results on the web isn't going to blow anyone's mind. Hasn't this been done over and over already? I've posted links to my own comparisons here in the past. Plenty more will surface with a simple google search.

[SpeedGraphicMan]

I would love to!

Send me a drum scanner and I will get right on that! ;)

[Ken Lee]

Tim Parkin shows some at http://cheapdrumscanning.com/

[Drew Wiley]

Once it's on the web, you've pretty much destroyed all the nuances that really count anyway. Kinda like trying to listen to
a symphony with your head stuck in a bucket of sand.

[paulr]

The web doesn't magically destroy anything. I'm looking for full resolution files.

[Light Guru]

The web doesn't magically destroy anything. I'm looking for full resolution files.

Making it viewable on the web certainly would destroy the quality.

As for giving you the full file anyone that shoots large format and goes to the expense to do a high quality drum scan is going to consider their work Fine Art. And you are going to find it mightily difficult to find someone who considers there work to be fine art to hand over to you the a file that is not reduced down to web quality. I know I would not do it unless your willing to pay big money for it.

[bob carnie]

No with a simple link Paul would have what he requires.

Making it viewable on the web certainly would destroy the quality.

As for giving you the full file anyone that shoots large format and goes to the expense to do a high quality drum scan is going to consider their work Fine Art. And you are going to find it mightily difficult to find someone who considers there work to be fine art to hand over to you the a file that is not reduced down to web quality. I know I would not do it unless your willing to pay big money for it.

[C. D. Keth]

Making it viewable on the web certainly would destroy the quality.

No it wouldn't. The web simply transfers information. If one is willing to wait for it, you can view a full resolution, uncompressed tiff over the internet just fine.

[Brian C. Miller]

Ian Mazursky has sample scans (http://www.prepressexpress.com/pages/scanning/scanning/samples.html) on his Prepress Express (http://www.prepressexpress.com) site.

[paulr]

And you are going to find it mightily difficult to find someone who considers there work to be fine art to hand over to you the a file that is not reduced down to web quality.

Like I said, put a big dumb watermark on it.

You could also post a full resolution crop.

[Drew Wiley]

What's even the point of a large format scan unless you're going to do something with it, or have very specific parameters
you're going to pin down? You'll learn more looking through a loupe at an original. Those sample shots in Ian's could have
been taken with a disc camera with vaseline over the lens and nobody would know the difference over the web.

[paulr]

I can learn a lot from a scan. I work with digital files. I can get a sense of useable detail present and the signal/noise ratio. And I can print a slice of it.

I can't learn anything from looking through a loupe because, like I said, I'm interested in looking at high end scans.

Why are you here, Drew?

[Light Guru]

No it wouldn't. The web simply transfers information. If one is willing to wait for it, you can view a full resolution, uncompressed tiff over the internet just fine.

Yes I know it transfers information. It is simply just not reasonable to post a file that big to a web page. It would take forever to load. Would you want to wait 15 minutes to an hour for a wet page to load.

[Light Guru]

I can learn a lot from a scan. I work with digital files. I can get a sense of useable detail present and the signal/noise ratio. And I can print a slice of it.

I can't learn anything from looking through a loupe because, like I said, I'm interested in looking at high end scans.

Then why not pay to have your own negative scanned.

[paulr]

I'm don't wish to spend over $100 to satisfy this interest.

People transfer files this big and bigger via the web and ftp all the time. It's not a big deal. If you have no interested in participating, no one's twisting your arm.

[John NYC]

Yes I know it transfers information. It is simply just not reasonable to post a file that big to a web page. It would take forever to load. Would you want to wait 15 minutes to an hour for a wet page to load.

Not on my Internet connection it wouldn't. Besides, you can start a download in a separate window and come back to it later when it is done.

[SergeyT]

I'm don't wish to spend over $100 to satisfy this interest.
So maybe you do not have quite of an interest in the subject at all?
On the other hand, there is enough of info available on the web already, including overviews and 100% res crops from both High End flatbed and drum scanners. Some of the scans are even presented side by side.

[Tyler Boley]

the transfer is no problem, given a link you can download all night if needed... next question is.. what do you want.. what do you mean by "full resolution"? Of the hardware capability? Just answering that will start some disagreement on this list. And then with what size film, 4x5? Lastly, you want the operators finalizing and tweaking or a raw scan? Just the choices with aperture and then post USM will vary things a lot, and again results will vary based on hardware and operator.
I don't mean to complicate things... just seeing if there is a way I can help.
Tyler

[ndrs]

Well, why not.
I don't mind sharing a couple of raw drum scans from 4x5 transparencies @ 4861x6148 and 5291 × 6779. Not really high-end, dry-mount scanned on Screen DT-S1030AI. No post-processing. I must add that I'm still learning to get something usable out of this machine and that I find scanning deeply depressing.

I'll not share them publicly, though. Send me a PM and I'll reply with the link.

[Light Guru]

Not on my Internet connection it wouldn't. Besides, you can start a download in a separate window and come back to it later when it is done.

It's not just your Internet connection that is part of the equation. It also has to do with Internet connection of the server its hosted on.

The file size could easily be 1GB or more.

[Light Guru]

So maybe you do not have quite of an interest in the subject at all?
On the other hand, there is enough of info available on the web already, including overviews and 100% res crops from both High End flatbed and drum scanners. Some of the scans are even presented side by side.

Vary good point.

I think the OP does not just want to see one I think he wants to try and edit one.

[Ken Lee]

A really great scan is required to the degree that the photo in question needs to be rescued (too dense, too thin, wrongly processed) and enlarged (too small).

The smaller the image, the greater the strain throughout the entire workflow - not just at scanning time. 4x5 is really at the entry-level. If we're struggling to squeeze data out of the image (fretting over lenses, grain, developers, scanners, sharpening algorithms) it may be a signal that the image is too small in the first place.

One way to get a more ultimate scan is to shoot larger film. There's more effort in the beginning, but there's less struggle in the end. We can get superb results with a modest lens, modest tripod, modest film, a modest scanner and... a modest scanner operator :cool:

[Nathan Potter]

Pauls' request is entirely reasonable. I've been doing just the opposite - namely downloading large digital camera files from various sources (including his of the relic building interior) in order to assess the quality obtainable from such. The Nikon site has a couple of outstanding images for download. Certainly one image from a Foveon sensor posted recently by? on the other endless thread about this subject is one of the most detailed images I've seen from any small format sensor and analyzing it using my Wild M3 stereo microscope after printing a section shows detail that makes me suspect it may be a stitched composite; the window pane sashes have detail that is considerable finer than what should be possible from a 10µm pixel.

The same logic holds for transmitting, viewing and printing a scanned LF film. I can output a 56 X72 inch print but print only an 8X10 section for analysis. Of course there are a bunch of variables related to the scanner, quality of the original film, etc. but they can be documented. If I had a very high quality scanner I would oblige Pauls' request but I'm really only using a V750 Epson which is inadequate for his purposes. There are a number of methods for transmitting very large files in reasonable times.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[John NYC]

It's not just your Internet connection that is part of the equation. It also has to do with Internet connection of the server its hosted on.

The file size could easily be 1GB or more.

I understand that. Hopefully anyone making scans of that size and offering them would not be hosting them somewhere ridiculous.

[Greg Miller]

It's not just your Internet connection that is part of the equation. It also has to do with Internet connection of the server its hosted on.

The file size could easily be 1GB or more.

It isn't that hard. A 1GB file can be uploaded in less than 3 hours with a typical ISP (2 hours 15 minutes would be more likely). Download would be less than 20 minutes. I upload/download data 10GB or more all the time - so I know from actual experience.

[Light Guru]

It isn't that hard. A 1GB file can be uploaded in less than 3 hours with a typical ISP (2 hours 15 minutes would be more likely). Download would be less than 20 minutes. I upload/download data 10GB or more all the time - so I know from actual experience.

Yes it can but name a website that will allow you to display a file that big on the website. That's my point.

I know you can send files but the my earlier comment was about posting the image to make it viewable on a web page, and that is simply not feasible with a 1gb file. A free flicker account limits you to a total of 300mb of total images a month and a 20mb size limit per image.

Yes you can share a "file" but no you could not make that 1gb file viewable on a web page.

[Andrea Gazzoni]

Paul I'd gladly help.
The best option is maybe working on one of your negatives. I am not a pro, I just operate two drum scanners at home. Drop me a message so we can arrange.
Andrea

[Greg Miller]

Yes it can but name a website that will allow you to display a file that big on the website. That's my point.

I know you can send files but the my earlier comment was about posting the image to make it viewable on a web page, and that is simply not feasible with a 1gb file. A free flicker account limits you to a total of 300mb of total images a month and a 20mb size limit per image.

Yes you can share a "file" but no you could not make that 1gb file viewable on a web page.

Where did Paul say we wanted a "file viewable on a web page"? His request was "I'd love to see examples of the best of what's possible". That's easily achieved by making the file available via download - where the file can then be viewed in Photoshop.

[Richard Mahoney]

Hello Paul,


There have been discussions lately about the ultimate potential of one kind of photographic capture over another. I've scanned a lot of film, but never with a high end scanner ... all of mine has been for small black and white prints, well served by wet mounting on desktop scanners.

I'd love to see examples of the best of what's possible.

Anyone have a scan to share? Throw on an ugly water mark if you're worried about anyone stealing the image.

I'm attaching a small 1:1 crop of one of my 300 ppi A0 scans from 4x5 Astia together with a small version of the whole image. This was made by Andrew Budd -- the fellow I always use -- on his Fuji Celsis 6250 (Crosfield). You always hear people going on about detail and all that with good drum scans. For me the main advantage -- and you can see this even with smaller scans and prints -- is the tonality, and then there is the reach into the darkness.

Wood's Mill, Addington, New Zealand :: Ironbark Post and Beam

http://camera-antipodea.indica-et-buddhica.com/works/richard-mahoney-kristina-pickford-building-a-sense-of-place/woods-mill-christchurch/woods-mill-addington-ironbark-post-beam.jpg?hires


http://camera-antipodea.indica-et-buddhica.com/works/richard-mahoney-kristina-pickford-building-a-sense-of-place/woods-mill-christchurch/woods-mill-addington-ironbark-post-beam-big-crop.jpg



Best, Richard

[Light Guru]

Where did Paul say we wanted a "file viewable on a web page"? His request was "I'd love to see examples of the best of what's possible". That's easily achieved by making the file available via download - where the file can then be viewed in Photoshop.

Hi did not, it was others who first brought up posting it online.

[paulr]

Richard, thank you very much, that's helpful. What resolution is the original scan?

Zak, Sergey, what's with the bizarre suspicion? I'm asking for samples of what people consider excellent scans. I know people in this community have such scans because they talk about them. If you think that I'm not really interested because my first choice isn't paying someone $130 per negative for their service, then go piss off.

If you don't have anything to share, find another conversation.

[John NYC]

For goodness sakes. I just downloaded a 365MB file this morning. The whole time i was still surfing the web in another process window. Also modern browsers will load huge files and scale them down and you can right click to save. But the easiest way is just to provide a download link the user can click on and save to their drive to open the file in their editor of choice without burdening the browser to first show te file. This is just not a hard problem to solve here in 2013.

[tigger_six]

It's not just your Internet connection that is part of the equation. It also has to do with Internet connection of the server its hosted on.

The file size could easily be 1GB or more.

Send me your 1GB file and I'll happily host it on my website, I'm sure many others wouldn't have a problem either. Or you could just upload it to a plethora of file sharing services. It's 2013, not 1993. Downloading a 1GB file wouldn't take me more than 2 minutes, I can survive that.

Furthermore, a 4x5 4000dpi jpeg with very low compression that doesn't lose any detail (~95) would be only roughly 60MB large. Even if it was scanned at 8000dpi, it would be only 240MB. Even when served directly, it is no problem for a web browser to show it, it might lag a few seconds, but most computers today have way more memory than the ~1.2GB it needs to store the image as a bitmap.

No elves that run the Internet will be hurt in the process.

[paulr]

Furthermore, a 4x5 4000dpi jpeg with very low compression that doesn't lose any detail (~95) would be only roughly 60MB large. Even if it was scanned at 8000dpi, it would be only 240MB. Even when served directly, it is no problem for a web browser to show it, it might lag a few seconds, but most computers today have way more memory than the ~1.2GB it needs to store the image as a bitmap.

No elves that run the Internet will be hurt in the process.

Precisely.
And I'm not on the best of terms with those elves anyhow.

[Corran]

Geez, what a bunch of drivel. The web destroys the quality? Pfft, whatever.

Paul - I'd be happy to have the image I posted HERE (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?80011-Images-shot-on-X-ray-film&p=1002508&viewfull=1#post1002508) hosted and downloadable by anyone, full resolution. At 2500DPI, it is almost 400 megapixels. It's of x-ray film, so it's at a disadvantage but it's an 8x10, so I think it evens out. If anything the grain is a bit more present in the high values compared to a modern T-grain film. I can't host it on my site because I have download limits, and I don't push these kind of huge files around usually, so if someone wants to host it that would help.

It's from my new Screen Cezanne. Not a drumscan, but still quite a good scanner!

[Richard Mahoney]

Hello Paul,


Richard, thank you very much, that's helpful. What resolution is the original scan?

As usual I had the transparency scanned at 12px/mm (a little over 300ppi) at the size it was to be printed (about A0). Primary sharpening was by the Fuji Celsis 6250 -- better than post with Photoshop or some such. File sizes always vary depending on the amount of info in the transparency but I think this one was close to 500MB. When i comes to drum scanning for pre-press we never think in terms of file size. Its always 12px/mm targeted at a little over final printing size.


Best, Richard

[paulr]

Bryan, thanks so much. I PM'd my ftp info.

Richard, what was the final print size?

[John NYC]

Bryan, thanks so much. I PM'd my ftp info.

Richard, what was the final print size?

A0 paper is 33.1 in × 46.8 in

[Richard Mahoney]

Paul,


... Richard, what was the final print size?

I've just checked and I seem to have thrown out my original layout sketch for the image panels. I'm attaching an image to give you an idea. The panels were 1850mm x 1350mm. We scanned to about A0 -- as close as 4x5 with its different ratio gets -- and then just scaled accordingly. The landscapes were close to A0 and the portraits smaller. Printing was at 600dpi on ACM with a Durst Rho 600. The background was slightly grey to reduce glare.


Best, Richard


http://camera-antipodea.indica-et-buddhica.com/about/misc/building-a-sense-of-place-mahoney-pickford-exhibition-view-1.jpg

[Larry Gebhardt]

Paul, Here's a 3000dpi scan of a 5x7 negative, complete with Photoshop adjustment layers. Film was FP4+ rated at 64, developed in XTOL 1+1 on a Jobo. I forget which lens was used (probably a 180mm Nikon). Scanned on a ScanMate 5000.

This was created in Photoshop CS6, and there is a crop applied. But you can see the full image just by going into the crop tool and adjusting the borders out. The crop is 12x20 aspect ratio and is how I print the image. No sharpening has been applied to the file, which I would normally do before outputting the final destination.

This link (http://lwg-public.s3.amazonaws.com/57BW00038%20copy.tif?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJWUP6PRYXXTBASSA&Expires=1363745135&Signature=%2BOp3GwflMjwxg9X2DxEKrxY24sg%3D) should be good for 48 hours. Right click, and save to your disk. Don't download too many copies since it's almost 1GB and it's hosted on Amazon S3, so each download costs about $.10.

[paulr]

Thank you so much, Larry.
One copy only :)

[John Rodriguez]

Paul, if you still need more examples I can put up two files from the same slide, one scanned on an Epson 4870 at 2400 spi and one on a Premier at 2666 spi for comparison. Let me know and I'll put em in a Dropbox account.

[ataim]

Here is a scan low res, and a section that I scanned at 2000dpi on my epson 750. I know it not a drum, but its what I've got.

[Heroique]

Anyone want to post a really great large format scan?

Just a fun comparison, a “really affordable” LF scan – Seattle from Olympic Mountains.

Close to full-frame scan – dry mounted on station – 1500 dpi – produces 24 MB file. (My scanner’s effective resolution is higher, near 2000 dpi.)

The third image is a 1:1 crop.

Tachi 4x5 (on Ries J600 + J250 head)
Fuji A 240mm/9
Fuji Tungsten-64 QuickLoad (w/ 85b filter)
Epson 4990/Epson Scan

[paulr]

Thanks so much everyone. I have an Epson 4870 with a custom wet-mount jig, so I'm familiar with the quality available there. I've been curious to see how much more is available from a drum or Imacon, and how it compares to digital capture at various resolutions.