scanner and 4x5 or contact print 8x10

[Percy]

Basically...which way to go???
Is there an affordable (>$2000) scanner that does a professional job with 4x5 scans? Will it perform as well, less well than, or better than scanning 6x6 on medium format scanner? Does anyone know? The answers seem to change with the times....as I am about to spend some disposable cash, I'd like to do it right.

Would 8x10 contact printing be a better choice? Thinking about 8x10 cambo (huge beast. or no?) and 300mm or so lens.

Hope this makes sense.

Oh...purposes: fine art prints. People, primarily.

Thanks.

Percy.

[Janko Belaj]

Parcy, I would go with contact prints. The enlargement from 4x5 to 8x10 isn't huge and most of so caled "photo scanners" (like fine epsons) might be able to produce decent job if not extraordinary, but contact print is still much, much more... better? plesant? ;-))

[Ken Lee]

Either way there will be a learning curve. The advantage of the digital method is that you can make corrections to your image easily, and make identical prints easily. If you buy a different printer, then you can make larger prints. However, it is not cheap, and requires a fair amount of cost and training in the use of the software and hardware.

With contact prints, you get real analog quality, which can often look better than digital quality. You also get greater simplicity and lower cost for the equipment: a frame and a light bulb. Your analog work, correctly processed, will outlive inkjet prints. Inkjet prints are "born to fade", as I say. But maybe that isn't an issue for you.

Before you decide, make some digital prints yourself, and have a look at the work of others. Also try to see some really nice contact prints.

There's no reason why you can't do both. Just make sure you get cameras that take the same lens boards.

[David F. Stein]

Remember, many photogs would make a master print, copy negative that and then contact print en mass. That is what Lens Work does, in effect, with its Special Editions prints.

[Percy]

??
please clarify...

[Ted Harris]

Note Ken Lee's response. IF you are set on 8x10 then there is no reason not to do both. The investment in a decent contact frame is less than 100 bucks. OTOH, if you are new to LF altogether you would be well advised to rent some equipment before you make a major committment to LF in general and 8x10 specifically. Yes, an 8x10 Cambo is a huge beast, a heavy beast and not a very portable beast if you are planning on doing landscape work in the field.

As to the specifics of your question regarding scanning, yes, you can do much better with a mid priced scanner that handles 4x5 and 8x10 than you will with most medium format scanners and 6x6. The two scanners you should consider are the Microtek 1800f ands the Microtek 2500f, there really is nothing else in this range. There is an article in the current issue of View Camera that discusses the various scanners and scanning approaches to LF in detail. There will also be another article on planning your digital workflow in the July issue. The current article goes into some detail on the various classes of scanners.

Good luck and enjoy.

[Brian Ellis]

There certainly are excellent scanners available for under $2000, quite a bit under if you don't plan to enlarge beyond 16x20 or thereabouts from a 4x5 negative. You might want to read Ted Harris' article on scanners in the current issue of "View Camera" magazine.

It seems to me that your decision would turn in large part on whether you or your clients will be happy with a print no larger than 8x10 (contact printing) and whether the principal benefits of contact printing (great detail and tonal separation) are important for the type of photography you plan to do. FWIW, I don't think of people photography as being a type of photography for which contact printing is used to its best advantage but then the term "people photography" can cover a pretty broad spectrum.

If you've done no darkroom work before and if you've done no digital work before you will get to a fine print much faster with contact printing than with scanning and editing in Photoshop. The latter is a very steep learning curve, contact printing is relatively simple because you have very few options in terms of manipulating the image. It's pretty much a matter of getting the exposure and the contrast right, maybe doing a little dodging and burning, and that's about it.

8x10 is a very seductive format. I've been in and out of it three times now, I'm currently back in it. You might think in terms of 8x10 for contact printing and then using a good lab to scan and print enlargements when you or your clients need something bigger than 8x10 (though that isn't cheap).

[Percy]

Thanks for the replies.

I have considerable experience scanning film. I've used the Epson 3200, Minolta MF scanner, and currently use a Nikon 9000, which I am very happy with.

The reason for the question is that I am interested in using movements to achieve certain effects, e.g. VERY selective focus, increased tonality and detail. I have no room for a 4x5 enlarger, although I do use an ancient General 6x9 enlarger. I find that, beleive it or not, many prints look better as a result of scanning, adjusting, printing than do straight darkroom prints.

I think Ted may have answered my question...I am wondering if the increase in film size (6x6 to 8x10) will MORE THAN MAKE UP FOR the decrease in scanner resolution/dmax.

Percy

[Ted Harris]

Percy,

You need to go by 'real' resolutiuon and Dmax 9and a host of other factors), NOT the manufacturers specifications on the 'consumer' 'class flatbed or dedicated film scanners. When you get out of the 'consumer' class the 'real' resolution is usually right on the money with the specs. Dmax is another story as most manufacturers use a convoluted test for Dmax but that of the higher quality scanners is way better than that of the 'consumer' scanners. Do take a look at th earticle if you ahve a chance.

[Percy]

Which scanners are outside of the "consumer class". Thanks for bearing with me.

Percy.

[Leonard Evens]

There are of course differences in what you can do when contacting printing and what you can do when scanning. There are also differences in the look in the two cases. But it is hard to believe you could detect any difference in resolution of fine detail. For example the Epson 4990 scanner can resolve at least 30 lp/mm by any measure whatsoever. A 2 X enlargement would reduce that to 15 lp/mm. I haven't heard of anyone who claims to be able to see better than that when viewing an 8 x 10 print from 10-12 inches.

There are some other differences between 4 x 5 and 8 x 10 view cameras. As you increase the format size, you reduce depth of field for the same angle of view, relative aperture, and final size print. That means you may have to stop down more and increase exposure times for adequate depth of field. Then subject movement, even fustling of leaves can be a problem. Even going from medium format to 4 x 5 you will encounter this problem, but it will be worse for 8 x 10.

[paulr]

If you are talking about making 2x enlargements, then resolution is a complete non-issue with a halfway decent scanner. I've been working with an epson 4870 to scan a body of work that gets enlarged a maximum of 2.5x. The scanner extracts more detail than the human eye can see at print size. Also consider that the maximum image resolution of an epson printer driver is 720 pixels per inch, which translates to 14 lp/mm. All you need from your scanner to achieve 1440 pixels/inch real optical resolution. You can get a scanner that can do this for $400. And yes, 14lp/mm is plenty. Without a loupe, if all other factors are rigidly controlled, you will not be able to tell the difference between this and 11 lp/mm, no matter how good your eyes are*

The other issue is how well the scanner can see into dense areas on the negative. If you're talking about black and white or color negs, then you'll have no problem, unless your negs are outrageously contrasty. For 2x enlargements from bw, you can easily equal a drum scanner, if you do a careful job, keep the film flat, use good scan software and learn to use** it, etc. etc... If you're talking about chromes, then you will see significant differences by spending much more $$$ or by sending out for drum scans.

It would be an interesting side-by-side comparison. The work that I'm doing now includes several 4x5 contact prints. I've only begun to work on one of these; so far it appears that the digital one looks sharper, but the darkroom one somehow looks more like a contact print. I'll report more on this after I've worked with a few of them.

*in distinguishing fine detail. There may well be a difference in the appearance of diagonal lines. But this has nothing to do with scan resolution.

**it's important that you learn high quality sharpening techniques. a book like Real World Photoshop CS has a lot of good advice on this, if you're not already familiar with it.

[Aaron van de Sande]

That 2,000 scanner will be a worthless pile of junk in 10 years. Instead, get a wehman camera for the same price. Use it for 10 years and sell it for close to what you paid for it. My .02$.

[Ted Harris]

Percy, the 'consumer' class scanners are the Epson 3200/4870/4990, the Microtek i900 and the Canon 9950. The Microtek 1800f, 2500f, Creo Eversmarts, Imacons, drum scanners, etc. are all out of that consumer class, there are others too, of course. The Microtek 1800f and 2500f are the only two that come in at $2500 or less. The 1800f is under $1000.

[paulr]

"Eversmarts, Imacons, drum scanners, etc. are all out of that consumer class ... "

This is true, but the advantages that they offer will be invisible in many circumstances. The high end scanners offer higher resolution, ability to separate denser shadow values, and in some cases better color fidelity. But if you're working in black and white, your maximum negative density is well within the range of what the low end scanner can do, and the max. resolution you need is also well within its range, you're not going to see a difference. I talked this over with a number of drum scanner operators and they all concurred.

Making 8x10 bw prints from 4x5 negatives is precisely where you can get high end results from a low end scanner.

[Christian Olivet]

Contact printing is simple, very simple. Scanning and photoshopping and outputting is in my opinion more complicated and incredibly more expensive.

The simplicity of contact printing will allow you to be productive and you will learn photography from scratch by doing so. The process itself is the teacher.

Have fun, simply!

[robert_4927]

Keep in mind also the advantage in contact printing an 8x10 allows you to work in various mediums: platinum/pt. pd. van dyke, cyanotype, azo, ect..... ect.....

[Kirk Gittings]

"The other issue is how well the scanner can see into dense areas on the negative. If you're talking about black and white or color negs, then you'll have no problem, unless your negs are outrageously contrasty. For 2x enlargements from bw, you can easily equal a drum scanner, if you do a careful job, keep the film flat, use good scan software and learn to use** it, etc. etc... If you're talking about chromes, then you will see significant differences by spending much more $$$ or by sending out for drum scans."

This is all absolutely true. I have done the comparisons with drum scans and Pauls statement with those qualifications is absolutely true.

[Percy]

Thank you all.