Imacon 848

[Maretzo]

Hello,

I am negotiating the purchase of an Imacon 848. The seller wants 3500 Euro (4500 USD). I am presently using a V700 for scanning 6x6 and 4x5.

When looking the collaborative LF scanner comparison in this site, I noticed a not-so-big difference between the Epson 4990 (close to V700) and the 848.

It is then worthwhile to upgrade? Please share your experience.

Serge

[Stephen Best]

When looking the collaborative LF scanner comparison in this site, I noticed a not-so-big difference between the Epson 4990 (close to V700) and the 848.

The 848 results from the scanner comparision look suspect to me, either from operator error or it being a dud unit. I've volunteered to redo the test with my unit. Tests like these though are of limited use. For example, testing shadow detail by heavily ramping up the composite RGB curve is just plain dumb ... unless you want huge saturation and hue distortions.

I don't know what the market price of these is, but the figure you quoted looks pretty reasonable for a good unit (little use or recently serviced, no CCD dropout, good alignment etc).

[g.lancia]

I would keep the V700 and either learn how to use it, or learn how to develop yourself. I do develop myself and frankly I sell photos scanned by Epson 4490, now getting a wider one for 4x5" film.

CCD from recent scanners are better than old stuff.

[Maretzo]

I would keep the V700 and either learn how to use it, or learn how to develop yourself. I do develop myself and frankly I sell photos scanned by Epson 4490, now getting a wider one for 4x5" film.

CCD from recent scanners are better than old stuff.

Hello,

You seem to be well-informed about the capabilities of the V700 compared to the Imacon.
Could you post the same negs scanned with the 2 machines for comparison?

[Lenny Eiger]

Hello,

I am negotiating the purchase of an Imacon 848. The seller wants 3500 Euro (4500 USD). I am presently using a V700 for scanning 6x6 and 4x5.
It is then worthwhile to upgrade? Please share your experience.
Serge

I wouldn't pay that much for a CCD scanner. The only benefit over a Nikon would be the ability to do 4x5. For that amount of money you can get a nice Howtek 4500 drum scanner.

Lenny

[David Luttmann]

Hello,

You seem to be well-informed about the capabilities of the V700 compared to the Imacon.
Could you post the same negs scanned with the 2 machines for comparison?

I'm gonna guess that's a no ;-)

[cobalt]

Where can you get these high end flatbeds... used?

[g.lancia]

Hello,

You seem to be well-informed about the capabilities of the V700 compared to the Imacon.
Could you post the same negs scanned with the 2 machines for comparison?

I do not own both. If you expose and develop properly, you can use any decent scanners, as long as you know how to (many film people don't even undestand histograms). If you need a specific dynamic range, you have not exposed/developed properly and you have not used light properly. It is a science. No point in trying to look for more expensive equipment. Improve your technique, instead. I am sure your Imacon/Howtek is fantastic to scan photos of your cats.

[Lenny Eiger]

I do not own both. If you expose and develop properly, you can use any decent scanners, as long as you know how to (many film people don't even undestand histograms). If you need a specific dynamic range, you have not exposed/developed properly and you have not used light properly. It is a science. No point in trying to look for more expensive equipment. Improve your technique, instead. I am sure your Imacon/Howtek is fantastic to scan photos of your cats.

I am going to disagree. Before I do, however, you make a reference to photos of cats. Mr. Maretz has a web site listed in his profile for all to see and I see no cats. There are numerous landscapes, some still life, etc. In some of these cases a scan would be easy, others not.

While it is true that scanning may be a science, there is no good book on the subject. There is no real information available anywhere. There are so many intangibles that trial and error on one's own film is necessary. I've been doing this for years and re-did a client's scan the other day as the first one didn't give me the result I expected. I would say it is more like a black art. All the professionals have their own approaches, it isn't consistent.

Scanners are different, and the difference shows up in a variety of ways. It depends the level of print quality one is after, the size of the original film and the size they intend to print. For one example, from the Aztek/Howtek scanners, one usually sharpens at a Radius of .2. This is very different from the flatbeds of .8-1.2. One can see, scientifically, that one is starting with better information...

I do agree that for folks taking pictures of their cats, that anything will suffice.

Lenny

[GuidoH]

"While it is true that scanning may be a science, there is no good book on the subject."

May be this book can help: "Scanning Negatives and Slides: Digitizing Your Photographic Archives" by Sascha Steinhoff (Paperback - Feb 9, 2007) - Illustrated.

I have the German (original) one and found it very useful for basic knowledge about scanning.

Greetinx

Guido

www.pix-bavaria.com

[Lenny Eiger]

May be this book can help: "Scanning Negatives and Slides: Digitizing Your Photographic Archives" by Sascha Steinhoff (Paperback - Feb 9, 2007) - Illustrated.

I have the German (original) one and found it very useful for basic knowledge about scanning.
Guido


The book appears to only cover lower end scanners. Is this correct?

Lenny

[8x10 user]

The Imacon is going to be better then a Nikon for sure. It uses a higher quality CCD sensor and lens. The downside is that it is optimized for 35mm and 120, with larger formats the resolution per inch goes down substantially. For 4x5's and larger you would be better off with a high end XY scanner such as the Eversmart or a drum scanner.


I wouldn't pay that much for a CCD scanner. The only benefit over a Nikon would be the ability to do 4x5. For that amount of money you can get a nice Howtek 4500 drum scanner.

Lenny

[paul08]

I've used the Nikon and use the 848 now. To me the 848 is noticeably better for 120. I also have an Epson 4970 at home and it's OK for proofing, but that's about it (and I've optimized the holder height). If I recall correctly, a couple of used 848s went for around $3k this summer on ebay. I tried to look them up but they've fallen off the completed listing search. Maybe someone remembers? Try to find out when the last calibration was done -- they do get out of alignment (and dusty). Good luck.

[GuidoH]

The book appears to only cover lower end scanners. Is this correct?

Yes and no, sorry.

Yes, because some photos inside the book compare scans from
Epson's V7xx family to scans of Nikon's coolscan family (last series).

And no, because there's only one subchapter which deals with direct comparison
of alternatives to filmscanners. All the other chapters deal more with scanning
technique itself, e.g. what to think/decide about before scanning, how to
handle the slides/negatives, color management, correction methods (ICE, SRD,
GEM, GANE, ...). This is followed by instructions how to configure/handle
SilverFast, VueScan and Nikon Scan. Then a "scan workflow" chapter follows
up. The book will end with chapters about corrections in PS and with PS
plug-ins and a word about how to save and admin (image)files.


If I remember right, your opinion was scanning is like a science and
there wouldn't be a good book which deals with this subject. This brought me to
my idea to suggest Sascha Steinhoff's book.

Years ago I've had no experience about scanning. After buying my 4990 it takes
month for reading forums, writing articles, compare the answers and to come to
my on scanning workflow. Result: I spent a lot of time and work to get reasonably
useable scans. But, for a long time I had no idea what's the reason and where to
search for errors.

Then I read this book. Now I've something like a compendium of the "how to" for
scanning and I'm well satisfied. I could isolate my errors and miss-thinking.

Before I read this book it was more like poking in the fog and wondering about
the results. With this book I come more and more to an aim oriented doing.

Furthermore I personally like written books about a special thread more then
hundreds of single sheet and forum printouts. But, as said above this is my
personal fondness.

An other point I'd like to write about is "good". For my opinion "good" is
always relative and depends mostly on your personal knowledge and taste. Let's
have an example: If your are an outperformed high-level drum scan operator
you'll probably find Sascha's book less useful. On the other hand, if are a
novice and just beginning with scanning or thinking about doing it by yourself
or give your material away to a service provider this book may help you to come
to a decision and relatively complete scanning workflow. O.k., the manually
doing must be learned by you of course.

Sadly, I only know the German version of this book although myself prefer
English books much more when they deal with computer related stuff. Mostly the
are closer to the market and more up-to-date. Translation cost time and money.
And time between the new version decreases more and more especially in computer
environment (hw, sw). And for my opinion mostly the English original
expressions are much more clear and simple as their German pendants. For
example look at big blues translation of (computer) mouse to German in the
early 80s of last century: "Rollkugelsteuerung" (which freely translated back
to English means: "controlling a rolling ball". Does this sound easier?

Anyway, greetinx from Upper Bavaria

Guido

www.pix-bavaria.com

[Brian K]

I've owned or currently own the Agfa Duoscan 2500, the Microtek 9800xl, the Imacon 646, the Nikon coolscan 9000 and now the Iqsmart3. I have also gotten hundreds of drum scans (scitex, crosfield, shima seiki, tango, etc) going back as far as the early 1990's.

From that firsthand experience I can state that while the consumer flatbeds are adequate for low magnification scans of LF films they are not in the same league as the professional scanners, and when using roll film are not in the same league as the Nikon coolscan, Imacons and especially the professional models.

I tested the Imacon 646 against the Nikon coolscan and there was a huge qualitative advantage with the Imacon. Mind you I had reliability issues with the Imacon and ended up trading up to a IQSmart3 which was vastly better than both of them. The best quality scan will be a drum scan followed closely by the better models of the pro flatbeds, Kodak Creo eversmart supreme and IQ 3.

The advantages of the drum scanner are a slightly better dynamic range, but you would need an extremely bad transparency exposure to see this benefit, and the ability to use different apertures while scanning to decrease the appearance of grain, probably the biggest advantage to me. You can also scan at higher res with a drum scanner, i.e my IQ3 only goes to 5500 ppi optical, but all that extra resolution is moot anyway because film seems to top out at 3000 to 4000 ppi resolution anyway.

But the notion that a consumer flatbed is equal to a pro flatbed or a drum scanner is just silly. Anyone with experience with both technologies knows the differences are huge. However whether the photographer can appreciate the differences is another story. Some people are just satisfied with a lower image quality level. And if you find that the quality of a consumer flatbed is fine with you, then by all means save some money and go that route.