40x60" prints from B&W negs: drum scanner, printer advice?

[JoelBelmont]

I am a LF photographer of 7 years, looking to convert to digital printing from 4x5 B&W negs.

I am looking at purchasing a 9800, specifically so I can make large prints, 40x60 or so, as well as smaller prints.

Can anyone speak to the issue of drum scanners... it is more cost effective to purchase one, if I will be scanning possibly hundreds of negatives, or as technology progresses, is it better to have someone else drum scan them now and will drum scanners become more affordable any time soon? What is the price of an good drum scanner?

Also, can anyone reccomend some people that do drum scanning fairly affordably? I get the sense that B&W negs might need someone who is used to working with them, but that they might be easier to work with than color.

Also, I own a cheap scanner (4870 photo)... what size prints would that comfortably make without a loss in quality?

Thanks for your time.

~Joel Belmont

PS, attached are some sample images I would be printing

[Ted Harris]

Joel, if you are willing to wait for a high end scanner to come along at a price you are willing to pay then go the purchase route. You will find one in the $5000 range with some looking and maybe less. High end scanners, both drum and flatbed are not going to get appreciably less expensive on the new market anytime in the foreseeable future. Used prices have dropped somewhat over the past years as print shop have gone largely digital but I think they, too, have now leveled out. You will find 'buys' on eBay but they may cost you a great deal to bring in to service.

As far as your 4870, IMO it is ok for prints up to 8x10 or 11x14; others are perfectly satisfied with its scans to print much larger. It is all a question of taste and satisfaction levels. From a look at the images you posted I suspect you will not be satisfied with a 4870 for large prints. Having said that, you probably would be well served to have some scans done by some of the really competent professionals who offer scanning services. There are a number. One that I work closely with and who has done a lot of good work for me is Jon Lattimor of ejarts (www.ejarts.com). You might also be interested in one of our workshops.

[JW Dewdney]

Also, I own a cheap scanner (4870 photo)... what size prints would that comfortably make without a loss in quality?

Well, to be honest - in my opinion, it can't make prints in ANY size without loss of quality - compared to a top-flight drum like a Lino. While a good drum scanner CAN give you far, far higher resolution, the strongest advantage, IMO, is tonal.

[Bruce Watson]

Basically, what Ted and JW said.

If you are going to print that big, you are going to want a drum scan. You can shop around and look at the prices and run the numbers to decide the "send it out vs. inhouse" debate.

Basically, there is almost no development going on in the drum scanner marketplace anymore. It's about like LF lenses in that regard. AFAIK, There are only three companies still in the market: Aztek, ICG, and Screen. But there are excellent used drum scanners to be had for a fraction of their retail prices. It's really a question of economics, space (even the desktop models tend to be big, noisy, and hot), and yet more learning curves (but in truth all do-able if time comsuming).

I personally have scanned a lot of 5x4 Tri-X on my drum scanner. I'm just starting to offer large format drum scanning with an emphasis on negatives (both B&W and color). Website isn't up yet, but you can always send me an email if you are interested. Else, I'll continue to chime in if I can answer specific questions.

[JoelBelmont]

Thanks for your ideas. So 5k will get a competent drum scanner? Is there a noticable difference between a 5k and a 30k drum scanner? Assuming there is nominal difference, could anyone suggest good models I could keep an eye out for on ebay or elsewhere?

Also, printing 40x60", what would be the best/optimal file size/specs? Quality is my primary concern.

Thanks,
~Joel Belmont

[Gordon Moat]

Take a look at http://genesis-equipment.com

They handle a great deal of used and new high end scanning gear, both drum and flatbed. The cost analysis is basically take the cost per scan you would incur, then multiply by the number of scans done in three years time. If you find that number is close to $10k, then maybe you want to buy your own high end scanner, either used or new.

Is there a particular reason for choosing an Epson printer? If you really are going to be doing hundreds of prints, you might want to approach it more as a business adventure, rather than a truly expensive hobby. You might want to compare to wide format HP and Canon printers, or go beyond that to even better commercial gear like Mutoh, Roland, Seiko, better HP, ColorSpan, et al.

Hundreds of scans, and hundreds of large prints sure sounds like a business. You might want to get a few issues of The Big Picture, which is a publication dedicated to wide printing. They also have a website at http://www.bigpicture.net

Cost per square foot is an issue with wide printing, something which that Epson 9800 might not be the best choice. Epson is the most widely marketed inkjet system, but I encourage you to compare to other systems. You might also want to look into this as offering a service, and maybe scanning too, that you can sell to other photographers. While it would be cool to have high end gear just for your own usage, unless you have money to burn it can be nice to know you balance the expenses on the gear. Best of luck.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

[Ed Richards]

Great shots, BTW. Are you successfully selling these as large prints? If so, you should be making more the cost of a good drum scan ($160) from the first print from each negative. In that case, unless your time is worth nothing, get the negatives scanned professionally. Even the folks who run their own drum scanners will probably concede that you are going to need a LOT of time to get good at it, plus even more time to be a mechanic to keep it running, because even one repair can cost more than the scanner if you have done by a service company. (These are big suckers - you pay to have a tech come to you, you do not schlep them back in for service very easily.)

If you are not already selling these big prints and generating a sizable cash flow, and money matters to you, it would seem to make more sense to start small, getting drum scans of a few negatives, have a pro lab make prints, and sell those prints to make sure you can get the cash flow. If money does not matter to you, then unless you really need to feed the inner garage mechanic geek, spending your time drum scanning seems like a poor substitute for almost anything else. There is a reason those scans cost so much money - it is a pain to do them.:-)

[JoelBelmont]

In regards to the 9800... I need prints that are 40x60 and gallery quality. Doesn't have to be the most magnificent print ever seen... but something that comes close to the quality of a silver print (not comparing, but just to give some sense of a standard... or perhaps I could just say a standard gallery quality print). I get the sense that the 9800 would do that adequately. Any other opinions on this printer and quality?

In regards to drum scanning... yes, as I start piecing it together, it would only be viable to own a drum scanner, printer, etc either as a business or as a sort of co-op with maybe four other photographers in this area (near aspen, CO). It is good advice to start small and see how it goes... I just need to start printing exhibitions, so when I contemplate 20 large prints, and the printer would be paid off by print 35, cost effectiveness of how to start is an issue.

Can anyone reccomend someone in CO with a drum scanner, who is either affordable or is willing to rent it by the day and get me started? I probably need to scan 50-60 images, so again it is the economics of it.

I'm not all for having a ton of equipment, but I am interested in the point at which it is more viable to simply own the gear.

Thanks for your help.

~Joel Belmont

[Doug Dolde]

I posted this somewhere else here but it bears repeating. I have only had 4x5 transparencies done but they are easily worth the price.

http://www.jaincotech.com

These guys do volume scanning on Imacon 949s. They run four of them. You have to call them for a quote (ask for Guatam Pai) but for me they quoted $14 each for 2050 dpi x 16 bit scans of 4x5. They include dust spotting in this price. Add $2.50 per DVD burned.

[JoelBelmont]

What is the effecitve print quality difference between a 949 scan and a drum scan, when printed at 40x60"? Do the 949's do better than 2050 dpi?

Thanks for the info.

[JW Dewdney]

Well, I had the chance to use an earlier model Imacon - so I can't really say much about the 949, but I thought it was pretty crappy. Seriously. In all fairness, it could have been screwed up somehow. But I thought it had a really high level of flare. Unusably so maybe.

[MJSfoto1956]

One thought here is that if you are ONLY going to print B&W, then get yourself a used 9600 (pretty cheap these days) and use the Cone Editions K7 Carbon Inkset instead of Epson inks. Most people feel this is delivers the best digital B&W output available.

[Ted Harris]

The Imacon 949 will give you a definite improvement over a consumer flatbed but will not approach the performance of one of the high end flatbeds or drum scanners. Problem with the Imacons is that they are resolution limited in that the possible resolution decreases as film size increases. I don't hve the exct number at my finger tips but I believe that for 4x5 ~ 2500 is the limit. That said again remember that resolution is far far from the only important thing but, Imacons don't produce the DMax of the high end scanners either. AnImacon scan may be satisfactory but it will not be the best you can get for 40x60.

[Frank Petronio]

You do well to remember that while a good drum scan (from a skilled operator using a not that old drum scanner) is great, a well done Imacon scan is not exactly horse dung. I mean you can still make a great looking 40x60 from just about anything as long as you have a nice black, a clean white and a pleasing range of tones. There are valid scanning techniques that allow you to capture a very pleasing range even with an old Epson, and unless you are sticking your nose into your prints, you and your clients are only going to see tiny incremental improvements with each $10,000 expense.

And I've seen a lot of crappy drum scans too. Mastering a cheaper scanner is better than getting mediocre stuff from some ultimate scanner...

Your best bet is to take one image and try several different scanning and output services to determine which equipment is the most effective within your business plan. Then get proper training if you decide to buy your own gear. Personally, I have rarely seen group-owned high end gear deals ever work out because one guy will claim defacto ownership, one guy will be a slob, and the other guys will get screwed.

Also, just as an observation, the beautiful landscape nudes you are doing are great but their must be a market for smaller versions -- and perhaps a combination of a Epson V750 and 4800 printer that you can own outright is enough to satisfy that demand? With occassional outsourcing for the bigger stuff...

Finally, I like your work with models. Good Luck - Frank

[Ed Richards]

You also need to look at the whole workflow. Combining Qimage and proper sharpening in Photoshop that is tuned for Qimage printing does a remarkable job on big prints. I just had a good drum scan made of a couple of my favorite negatives:

Ruth Lane (http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/katrina/HTML/0-234%20-%20tree%20-%20ptr.htm?size=1&exif=)

Mardi Gras Bicycles (http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/katrina/HTML/004x5%20-%20000354%20-%20ptr.htm?size=1&exif=)

The drum scan looks sharper on the screen at 100% than does my 9950 scan. The tonality is not much different because I do not have extreme density range in the negative. If your black and while negative has a good tonal range with is centered on mid-density, i.e., not extremely dense or thin, a good consumer scan, properly done, will capture enough of the density range that the drum scan will not matter for tonality. Comparing 18 x 24 prints, there is no visible difference at any kind of normal viewing distance, 10 inches for example. I am sure there would be more difference at 40 x 60 at 10 inches, but I am not sure there would be any visible difference at a reasonable viewing distance.

Neither of these images depend on resolving the last blade of grass. Neither are on chrome film - my best 9950 scans really fall apart on good intense chromes, where drum scans and probably Imacons really shine. If you are doing black and white and your negatives are properly exposed for silver printing, you will see less value of a drum scan over a PROPERLY done consumer scan with an appropriate sharpening workflow and printed with Qimage. I am sure you could bypass Qimage, but it means a LOT more work unless you only print one size of print because you have to optimize the sharpening for each print size.

I think we spend too much time worrying about hyperdetailed resolution to justify hauling our pain in the ass cameras around.:-) There are few images where it really makes a difference to viewers. I have a hard time thinking of any great black and white prints that depended on sharpness for their power. Even the contact prints I like - Weston peppers for example - do not. Tonality is another issue, but you can deal with that with the zone system just as you do for silver printing. (Althought I bet a drum scan could help a lot on very overexposed nagatives.) If sharpness makes a big difference to you, and that is your artistic vision, then go to it. For me, I am beginning to think that it is one more magic bullet (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html).

[Doug Dolde]

The Imacon 949 scans would give you about 190 dpi at 40x50. Not sure where you are getting 40x60...that's not a multiple of 4x5. 190 dpi is probably enough for such a large print considering the viewing distance. Obviously a drum scan at a higher scan resolution would be better.

[Bruce Watson]

What is the effecitve print quality difference between a 949 scan and a drum scan, when printed at 40x60"? Do the 949's do better than 2050 dpi?
It's the difference between hardware store plexiglass and TruVue museum glass. The CCD units tend toward scans that are a little softer and tonality that is a little more veiled IMHO.

Whether or not this is meaningful for your images is a decision that only you can make. The best way to see the differences is to have scans made of the same film in several different ways. Then have prints made (or sections of what would have been a full size print) and compare.

[Bruce Watson]

...If your black and while negative has a good tonal range with is centered on mid-density, i.e., not extremely dense or thin, a good consumer scan, properly done, will capture enough of the density range that the drum scan will not matter for tonality.


If you are doing black and white and your negatives are properly exposed for silver printing, you will see less value of a drum scan over a PROPERLY done consumer scan with an appropriate sharpening workflow and printed with Qimage.

I used to think this myself. What changed my mind was when I started wet mounting with my drum scanner. I was very taken aback. This was back when the Epson 2450 was the hot comsumer flat bed and I'm sure that the newer consumer flat beds are considerably better (at least I hope they are).

What I did was to scan a 5x4 Tri-X negative with the 2450 and VueScan to try to get the best scan I could for a 20 x 16 inch print. Then I scanned the same negative on the drum, fluid mounted, for the same print size. I then printed both files and put them on my "proofing wall" side by side under the same lights. The difference that stood out wasn't sharpness, although the drum scan print was somewhat sharper. What stood out was the considerably smoother tonality of the drum scan print.

It was as if I had printed the flat bed file onto a fine grade of sandpaper, and I had printed the drum scan file onto glass.

I was, I thought, pretty good with the flat bed, and I was just learning drum scanning. And it was definitely not a scientific test. But it did show me the value of a drum scan even in smaller enlargements.

[Andre Noble]

I saw a high end film (Imacon, etc) and numerous drum scanners competition on the web recently of a 35mm neg. The ICG drum scanner results were spectacular - the best in my opinion.

[Ed Richards]

I used to think this myself. What changed my mind was when I started wet mounting with my drum scanner. I was very taken aback. This was back when the Epson 2450 was the hot comsumer flat bed and I'm sure that the newer consumer flat beds are considerably better (at least I hope they are).

I do not have an Epson scanner and cannot speak to them. I have a Canon 9950, and my experience with it seems to be better than the Epson users. I also cannot speak to the older flat bed scanners for LF film, I only used devoted 35mm film scanners before the 9950.

I have worked hard to optimize my workflow for digital printing, which I think is critical. I have benefited from Paul Butzi's oberservations and have extended them. I use Tmax 100, Xtol 1:3, and use somewhat shorter development times than most folks, but that may be because I live in an N-1 world. I get very smooth negatives with controlled contrast. (Except when I forget to stop down, etc.) The scanning software is critical - Vuescan is a lot better than it was a year ago, and no scanning software was very good when the 2450 was the scanner de jure. I oversample by a significant amount to average out noise and improve signal (tonality) - I scan at 4800 DPI and then downsample in PS, using bicubic sharpening, to 1600 DPI. (750 meg file to 90 meg file, 16 bit grey.) I sharpen very carefully and selectively, and then let Quimage rez the file for printing.

When I did a comparison with good drum scans, I did not see much difference in 18 x 24 prints for the negatives I scanned. Drum scans are better, and if money were not an issue, I would have everything drum scanned in a second. If I only shot a few sheets of film a year it would not be a problem, but I shot 800 sheets for the Katrina project, and scanned probably 400 of those to get to about 120 keepers. Time is even shorter than money, so running my own drum scanner would mean less time to shoot. Whatever I would gain by slightly better scans would not make up for the lost images. For me, I think it is better to shoot more images than to worry about whether each one is perfectly processed. Better to be out shooting when Moonrise comes along than to be home messing with processing and scanning.:-)

[Bruce Watson]

When I did a comparison with good drum scans, I did not see much difference in 18 x 24 prints for the negatives I scanned.
I think the problem, if there is one, is how each of us defines "much difference" for his/her prints.

Other than that, I think we in "violent agreement" again. ;-)

[Ed Richards]

I think the problem, if there is one, is how each of us defines "much difference" for his/her prints.

Other than that, I think we in "violent agreement" again. ;-)

Absolutely! I realized after looking at photographers whose work I liked that none of their images, AA included, depended on ulitmate sharpness. So, for me, after seeing that drum scans did make a difference with my images, I also decided that the difference was not worth worrying about. (But, as my wife would be the first to note, I am not an obessive compulsive sort of guy.)

I would drum scan if the tradeoffs were different, and you can bet that if I ever become the flavor of the day and get offered big money for prints, I will get everything drum scanned and claim that you cannot be an artist without it.:-)

[Frank Petronio]

The type and quantity of sharpening plays a larger role in the "out of box" results than many of us might think. Many scanners give you sharpening in the background, which makes there results look better when you compare them to unsharpened scans from other scanners...

If you sharpen and process each file to the best degree possible, then you can really compare. It maybe that the better scanner may only give you slightly better results but with less work than doing an elaborate workflow to get something decent from a lesser scanner...

[JoelBelmont]

Better to be out shooting when Moonrise comes along than to be home messing with processing and scanning.:-)

Hear Hear, though moonrise didn't come along. Have you ever seen the raw print before the work? Flat grey sky... really nothing special. Of course we know how moonrise came along... in the mind and hands of a master. :)

Thanks for the ideas. I also shoot Tmax 100 with XTOL 1:3, but I usually prefer N+1 (images made in flat light)... though that has always been adapted to make silver prints easier to print... is it advantageous to have less contrasty images to scan.. to save more info and tweak later? Will nicely contrasted negs print as well?

Thanks.

[Ed Richards]

> I usually prefer N+1 (images made in flat light)... though that has always been adapted to make silver prints easier to print... is it advantageous to have less contrasty images to scan.. to save more info and tweak later? Will nicely contrasted negs print as well?

I tend toward N-1 because I am usually shooting in pretty harsh light and trying to preserve significant shadow detail. The negatives that scan best look good on the light table - good density range, without the highlights blocked up. The negatives that surprise me are the ones that look too dense overall - many times they scan fine. I would assume that they would also print well on silver. N+1 or more would really help in flat light with a consumer scanner. I suspect that the drum scanners make the most difference on flat negatives because they can get better differentiation between levels.

The exposure range of Tmax and Xtol 1:3 is pretty wide, so you can use more and less exposure to expand and contract before you need to start changing development.

[JoelBelmont]

Actually I was wrong... I use XTOL 1:2.

Hopefully my negs that have been already adjusted to the contrast I desire (more or less) will scan fine. It removes detail, but it's closer to the end product I am looking for. Is there any advantage to shooting in flat light and not boosting contrast/having more to work with?

[Richard Kenward]

I am a LF photographer of 7 years, looking to convert to digital printing from 4x5 B&W negs.

Can anyone speak to the issue of drum scanners... it is more cost effective to purchase one, if I will be scanning possibly hundreds of negatives, or as technology progresses, is it better to have someone else drum scan them now and will drum scanners become more affordable any time soon? What is the price of an good drum scanner?

Also, can anyone reccomend some people that do drum scanning fairly affordably? I get the sense that B&W negs might need someone who is used to working with them, but that they might be easier to work with than color.

~Joel Belmont



Dear Joel

There is only any point in going to the trouble and or expense of drum scanning if you can be sure of getting the very best results. It is far more than just having a drum scanner in a back room. They are large, make quite a noise, the mounting fluids require proper ventilation and above all great cleanness is required. These machines are packed with electronics and drive motors etc and can be a minefield.

It is worth bearing in mind that whilst the buying price has fallen greatly in recent years due to many print shops having gone the easier and cheaper to operate flat bed route, servicing has become more difficult or impossible to obtain and the cost has risen. In many places service is simply not available for some makes and if something wrong it means shipping to another country with all the attendent risks and costs and uncertainties.

Having said all of this I can tell you that the best drum scans are significantly better than those obtaiable from a good CCD scanner such as the Imacon......we had one here for some time and were able to directly compare the results to what we could achieve from our drum scanners. A very big plus point amonst many others is that good drum scans are very clean so your pixels will not have been messed around with to remove crud etc.

If anyone is interested in discussing this off list with me I can be reached at richard@precision-drum-scanning.co.uk

Best wishes

Richard