Film or drum scanner?

[GuidoH]

Hello everybody,

since several years I'm using an EPSON 4990 with Silverfast AI IT-8 for scanning my 6x6 color slides (prefered) and negatives. But, I'm not really satisfied with it's sharpness (although using USM after scanning and before post processing in PS) and densitiy (although performing multi-sampling in SF AI).

Now I heard and informed me a lot about dedicated film scanners and drum scanners. But, as more I read as more I get confused. My knowledge increases more and more but I veer away from a decision also more and more.

So my question is how to decide what's the right/best scanner for my purpose:

- It should scan in an higher real resolution then the EPSON flatbed scanners (i.e. >> 1.700 spi, see c't-magazin 3/06, p. 132), not the extrapolated to nominal 2,400 3,200 or 4,800 spi.

- Many details as possible in dark areas too.

- most "brilliant" color scans from my slides. My EPSON-scans often appear a little bit plashy in comparison to the slides itself (I think this is related to the max. Density).

- ideally I'd like to continue working with ICE and Silverfast. But, both is not a "must have".

First, I thought a Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED would be the right one for me. Then I heard Nikon won't continue producing the coolscan series and the price for it increased in several webshops.
Now it seams to be heavy to get one here in Germany. Although many webshops offer it you mostly get the answer "out of stock" when you try to order it.

Therefore I look for alternatives and come drum scanners. For example Imacon, Scanmate or others. Some guys told me I would be able to buy used ones for about 2,500 - 3,000 €.

So what to do now? What would be the best (if possible) or wise decision?

Oh, I forgot, my biggest prints are A2+ which means 17''x22'' at 360 dpi (with the R3800).

Any help/hint/tip would be greatly appreciated!

Many thanks for your assistance and greetinx from Upper Bavaria

Guido

http://www.pix-bavaria.com

[Lenny Eiger]

Hello everybody,
So my question is how to decide what's the right/best scanner for my purpose:
- It should scan in an higher real resolution then the EPSON flatbed scanners (i.e. >> 1.700 spi, see c't-magazin 3/06, p. 132), not the extrapolated to nominal 2,400 3,200 or 4,800 spi.

- Many details as possible in dark areas too.

- most "brilliant" color scans from my slides. My EPSON-scans often appear a little bit plashy in comparison to the slides itself (I think this is related to the max. Density).

- ideally I'd like to continue working with ICE and Silverfast. But, both is not a "must have".

First, I thought a Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED would be the right one for me. Then I heard Nikon won't continue producing the coolscan series and the price for it increased in several webshops.
Now it seams to be heavy to get one here in Germany. Although many webshops offer it you mostly get the answer "out of stock" when you try to order it.

Therefore I look for alternatives and come drum scanners. For example Imacon, Scanmate or others. Some guys told me I would be able to buy used ones for about 2,500 - 3,000 €.

So what to do now? What would be the best (if possible) or wise decision?
Guido


Guido,

You have asked for two things - it isn't fair. Best and wise... However, I looked at your site, and I saw the image of the Jesuit's church in Vienna. It looks very much like a drum scanner would be the best for you... This kind of detail is best handled by the sharpest scanner you can ind. Especially if you want the atmospheric feeling of it as well.

One note - an Imacon is not a drum scanner, it has a ccd sensor and doesn't utilize a wet-mounted rotating drum...

Lenny

[cobalt]

Perhaps you should get a scan from someone who has a 9000 before deciding to go for a drum scanner, or for paying for scans from someone else. I just sold my 9000. Although it was better (for MF) than my 4990, it wasn't 4 times better; the 4990 cost me about $500, the Nikon $2000. I do black and white; no scan compares to a silver gelatin print. DON'T believe the hype.

I sold my scanner and bought a 6x7 enlarger with a color head, which gives me the ability to make contact prints as well as enlargements of my Hasselblad negatives. I wish I had saved the $2000 I spent on the Nikon; the enlarger, a Beseler, cost me all of $50.

The best way to go about this is to have the scans yourself for comparison. I was considering buying a digital back for my Hasselblad. I had a camera dealer send me a file from the back I was going to spend more than ten thousand dollars on. I found that the 2000 dollar Nikon gave me bigger and better files than the hideously expensive back. Spend wisely, AFTER doing your homework. Nobody selling digital hardware or digital services is going to be objective when it comes to your specific needs.

[Peter De Smidt]

Both Lenny and Cobalt give good advice. A contemporary drum scanner in perfect working order used well will give the highest quality, but the question is, is that increase in quality worth the costs over a Nikon 9000 for the size prints that you want to make. None of us can answer that for you. The best way is to have some tests done. Note, make sure that whoever does your Nikon scan knows what he or she is doing. Ideally the negative should be wet-mounted, and the focus should be set appropriately... You might check out Ernst Dinkla, who I believe is in the Netherlands. He has a Nikon 8000, I believe, and he certainly knows how to wet-mount properly on it. http://www.pigment-print.com/

[Lenny Eiger]

Perhaps you should get a scan from someone who has a 9000 before deciding to go for a drum scanner, or for paying for scans from someone else. I just sold my 9000. Although it was better (for MF) than my 4990, it wasn't 4 times better; the 4990 cost me about $500, the Nikon $2000. I do black and white; no scan compares to a silver gelatin print. DON'T believe the hype.


This is silly. You didn't get the results you were looking for - I hear that. That doesn't mean that someone else couldn't. The quality of high end scanning is well documented, there are many advantages over silver prints - it's not even close. Unless, of course a silver print is what one wants.



The best way to go about this is to have the scans yourself for comparison.

This is good advice.

There are many people, like myself, who can do a high end scan for you to compare with.... and you can make the decision.

Lenny

[cobalt]

This is silly. You didn't get the results you were looking for - I hear that. That doesn't mean that someone else couldn't. The quality of high end scanning is well documented, there are many advantages over silver prints - it's not even close. Unless, of course a silver print is what one wants.



This is good advice.

There are many people, like myself, who can do a high end scan for you to compare with.... and you can make the decision.

Lenny

I don't give a damn what's been "documented". The fact is, the Nikon will probably be fare more than sufficient for what he wants to do. His work is far superior to that of most "measurebaters" who like playing with gadgets and statistics. Why depend on drum scans when, for about 2k (or less used), he can do it HIMSELF, and NEVER need to pay someone else for a scan?

Artists use what works. Spending dough needlessly,because the conventional wisdom says to do so, serves only to keep the pockets of others well lined. I don't thing Jackson Pollock worried that all the paint he used wasn't formulated by Windsor and Newton.

[Lenny Eiger]

I don't give a damn what's been "documented". The fact is, the Nikon will probably be fare more than sufficient for what he wants to do. His work is far superior to that of most "measurebaters" who like playing with gadgets and statistics. Why depend on drum scans when, for about 2k (or less used), he can do it HIMSELF, and NEVER need to pay someone else for a scan?

Artists use what works. Spending dough needlessly,because the conventional wisdom says to do so, serves only to keep the pockets of others well lined. I don't thing Jackson Pollock worried that all the paint he used wasn't formulated by Windsor and Newton.

It's your judgement that the Nikon will be "more than sufficient". I don't agree with you. After looking at his work, reading the words, paraphrased - I want the best quality I can get, I conclude differently.

A drum scan by an experienced operator who understands the work will be far better than a CCD scan. A 22 inch print will show the difference - in the kind of work he does.

Lenny

[Aender Brepsom]

Hi Guido,

I can understand your dissatisfaction with scans form your Epson 4990. My results from the V700 with 6x9 slides are not as good as the scans I can get from my Polaroid Sprintscan 120. The Collscan 9000ED is at least as good as my Polaroid and a lot better than our flatbeds.
Although drum scans may even be better, I think that you would be very happy with the results from the Nikon 9000.

There is a guy in Germany who offers a scanning service using a Nikon Coolscan 9000. It might be a good idea to send him some slides/negatives to see how the results compare to your own Epson scans. You can even have them scanned on his Hasselblad X5. Take a look here: http://www.digitalcopy24.de/
His service is not expensive at all. He has done 6x17 and 4x5 scans for me, and I'll use his service again.

[PenGun]

Oh, I forgot, my biggest prints are A2+ which means 17''x22'' at 360 dpi (with the R3800).

http://www.pix-bavaria.com

Hmmm. My research would lead me to a Canon 5D Mk 2 for stuff around 16x20. It will do the resolution and I think the straight to digital is a better way than scanning.

I want to do 24x30 and a medium res scan of a 4x5 will do that for me. I'm pretty sure the Epson V-750 will do what I need but I'm starting from a much bigger negative/slide.

I think the right way to do photography is to decide what you want to produce and go from there. That is the reason I have gone 4x5, to produce big prints.

[Lenny Eiger]

Hmmm. My research would lead me to a Canon 5D Mk 2 for stuff around 16x20. It will do the resolution and I think the straight to digital is a better way than scanning.

I want to do 24x30 and a medium res scan of a 4x5 will do that for me. I'm pretty sure the Epson V-750 will do what I need but I'm starting from a much bigger negative/slide.

I think the right way to do photography is to decide what you want to produce and go from there. That is the reason I have gone 4x5, to produce big prints.

Canon 5D at max is 5616x3744. Divide the 5616 by 20 and you get 280dpi. Better not crop, better be working in color....

Lenny

[Paul Kierstead]

I think the right way to do photography is to decide what you want to produce and go from there. That is the reason I have gone 4x5, to produce big prints.

I can honestly say that your "right way" is just about the most opposite of my idea of the "right way" that I could think of.

The tools do not stand apart from the user. The final print is a marriage of all of the people, parts, location and machinery combined and interwoven. Resolution, color/tonal fidelity, sharpness, etc. are all just details that may contribute to the final result, but will not make it or even ruin it if they are somewhat off.

And cheap skin mags and some bad catalog photography aside, they are not manufactured.

[Ken Lee]

"..my biggest prints are A2+ which means 17''x22'' at 360 dpi (with the R3800)."

From a 6x6 image, that means around 10x magnification. To print out 10x at 360 dpi, you need to capture 360 x 10 = 3600 spi. (That presumes no cropping).

With the Epson 4990 you won't be able to get there, because it only gives around 2100 spi. (If you specify a higher setting, you will get a larger file, but not more detail).

The Nikon will give you the 3600 spi you are looking for. It will scan down to the film grain (or dye clouds). It may not provide as wide a dMax or give as true a rendition of color as more expensive drum scanners or pesudo drum scanners, but it will do the job.

Keep in mind that when you start with a lens that delivers up to 80 l/mm and enlarge it 10x, you end up with 8 l/mm. That's when the image starts to look blurry, even with the finest film - because you have reached the limit of your optics. Your 6x6 lenses may reach 80 l/mm at their best settings, and less at others.

So 10x is a lot of magnification. You might consider getting a 6x9 camera, or even a 6x7, because they will require less magnification to make your 17x22 images. For 6x9 film, the difference will be around 30%.

[Lenny Eiger]

The Nikon will give you the 3600 spi you are looking for. It will scan down to the film grain (or dye clouds). It may not provide as wide a dMax or give as true a rendition of color as more expensive drum scanners or pesudo drum scanners, but it will do the job.

Ken,

I'm in basic agreement with you here - except for when I look at his images. He's got a picture of a church that I saw. Brought back memories of Frederick Evans - it was a little similar, altho' in color. If he wants that kind of exquisite detail, and wants all the atmosphere, I think he should use a drum scanner. That's where that little bit extra will make a difference. Not every photographer needs it, but Guido has suggested that he wants it...

Lenny

[PenGun]

I can honestly say that your "right way" is just about the most opposite of my idea of the "right way" that I could think of.

The tools do not stand apart from the user. The final print is a marriage of all of the people, parts, location and machinery combined and interwoven. Resolution, color/tonal fidelity, sharpness, etc. are all just details that may contribute to the final result, but will not make it or even ruin it if they are somewhat off.

And cheap skin mags and some bad catalog photography aside, they are not manufactured.

If I was a painter I would agree with you. As I do photography, or rather starting again to do photography, I have a different view.

The problem with photographty as an art form is that the tools are not simple. One needs to be proficient in the use of those tools and technically master them to do useful work with them.

This means that your 'real' artist who just feels will rarely prduce anything useful in photography. There have been notable exceptions but at my level I need to think seriously about what I am doing. That has led me to pursue the 4x5 format for making large prints.

As tho OP wants to make 16x20s I recommend he look at a full frame DSLR as it is just about right for his stated needs.

[PenGun]

Canon 5D at max is 5616x3744. Divide the 5616 by 20 and you get 280dpi. Better not crop, better be working in color....

Lenny

Yup but the digital file cannot be beat by any scanner for sheer quality. That may be open to argument, I would like to hear what that might be though.

[Lenny Eiger]

Yup but the digital file cannot be beat by any scanner for sheer quality. That may be open to argument, I would like to hear what that might be though.

This is crazy. I would rather have the range of color or the dynamic range of film any day. I would also rather not use a Bayer chip. I know that digital is very useful for a lot of things, but its ease of use and not quality where they excel.

Lenny

[Aender Brepsom]

The 21MP files from my Canon 1Ds Mark III deliver a lot of details and smooth tonalities, but the damn camera does not allow movements. That's where a view/field camera wins, even in 6x9.

[PenGun]

This is crazy. I would rather have the range of color or the dynamic range of film any day. I would also rather not use a Bayer chip. I know that digital is very useful for a lot of things, but its ease of use and not quality where they excel.

Lenny

The straight digital captures are actually quite impressive to my eyes.

It will cost me $135 for one 4x5 4000 dpi scan. I can buy a scanner for $700 that will do 6400 dpi.

K, I yanked your chain. I do understand the difference between a good drum scan and a flatbed is quite large even at the same resolution. I do understand the 6400 dpi is fantasy.

I like to do it all myself. Always have. There are 10,000 chromes, several thousand B&W and maybe 1000 colour negs under my bed in storage. No one but me has touched any of them. I discovered early on
that I did better work than any lab I have used.

I am going to buy an Epson V-750 and see what I can get from it. I think I can get good scans from 4x5 for 24x30 to feed to my big HP. The price is right and my extensive computer and technical background wants a challenge.

I will, when I get this all running as well as I can, spring for 4000 dpi scan from you to test my setup. Prolly Feb the way things are going.

[D. Bryant]

I will, when I get this all running as well as I can, spring for 4000 dpi scan from you to test my setup. Prolly Feb the way things are going.
Why not let Lenny do a drum scan for you and compare it to a V750 scan? I think you will discover that the Epson v750 just doesn't cut it.

My 2 cents,

Don Bryant

[dwhistance]

"Why not let Lenny do a drum scan for you and compare it to a V750 scan? I think you will discover that the Epson v750 just doesn't cut it."

I agree, particularly if you want to make a 24"x30" print!

David Whistance

[Lenny Eiger]

It will cost me $135 for one 4x5 4000 dpi scan. I can buy a scanner for $700 that will do 6400 dpi.


It's true that a great scan from a 4x5 costs $135 (about half of what most labs charge for a full rez file). However, with all due respect, you're not comparing scans appropriately. The epson 750, which states 6400 dpi, is a very blurry scanner. The number of pixels something can create (the 6400) is meaningless. The most important number is the optical resolution. That gives you an indication of the sharpness of the device. There are other numbers as well, such as DMax which tell you about the range it can scan, etc. The Epson is a consumer flatbed as opposed to a professional's tool.

The optical resolution of a 750 is somewhere between 1000 ppi and 2000. We argue back and forth about this but suffice it to say it isn't more than 2000. The optical resolution of most drum scanners is 4000 and the ICG and Premier, which I use, is 8000. There are certain limits, with regard to aperture and everything else that go into it, these aren't exact numbers, but drums scanners scan sharp as a tack from the get-go.

I usually sharpen using a radius of .2 vs the Epson, which requires a radius of .8-1.3, depending. That's quite a bit of difference.



I am going to buy an Epson V-750 and see what I can get from it. I think I can get good scans from 4x5 for 24x30 to feed to my big HP. The price is right and my extensive computer and technical background wants a challenge.

By all means try it...



I will, when I get this all running as well as I can, spring for 4000 dpi scan from you to test my setup. Prolly Feb the way things are going.

I look forward to it...

Lenny

[PenGun]

Why not let Lenny do a drum scan for you and compare it to a V750 scan? I think you will discover that the Epson v750 just doesn't cut it.

My 2 cents,

Don Bryant

Compare it to whose V750 scan? That is the crux of the matter it seems. Also I only need 2200 dpi for 360 dpi on the 30x24 print.

Don't forget it's one V750 for every 5 scans in money terms. I will need the V750 to tell me which images I might want to pay for in any case.

[dwhistance]

"Compare it to whose V750 scan? That is the crux of the matter it seems."

Having both an Epson V750 and a Howtek D4000 drum scanner I can safely say that it doesn't matter who uses the V750 - there is just no comparison. I would also dispute the widely held view that the scanners are "indistinguishable from each other" for prints up to 16x20 - they aren't, you can easily see the differences in much smaller prints. Before anyone comments I do know how to get the best out of the V750 having used it and its predecessors (ever since the 1240) extensively for both transparencies and prints. If anything I am still learning how to get the best out of the Howtek. I would love to see the additional quality obtainable from a Premier like Lenny's, however I need a more regular flow of drum scanning jobs before I can justify the purchase price (and the not inconsiderable transport cost to me in the UK!).

David Whistance

[Jeremy Moore]

Why not let Lenny do a drum scan for you and compare it to a V750 scan? I think you will discover that the Epson v750 just doesn't cut it.

My 2 cents,

Don Bryant

This just reminded me of one thing that Lenny touched on in an earlier post: the actual work will dictate some of this.

I have printed a 20" x 20" image from a 6x6 negative scanned on an epson 3200 and it looked wonderful--the negative was made with a holga.

A soft focus portrait will not need the same resolution as a tack sharp landscape photo full of twisted brambles.

[GuidoH]

Hello everybody,

I'd like to say a big THANK YOU to all of you for your discussion and comments, your hints and tips!

Meanwhile I get a little bit closer to my decision. I think I'll buy a Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED if possible. But, at the moment it seams very heavy to get one here in Germany. Anyway if new or used.

Well, if I can't get one, may be all I'll go ahead searching for and hopefully find a used Imacon. I know it's not a real drum scanner but the results of this device will substantially fulfill my needs and I don't hear really bad things about this scanner so far.

Again, thanks for your support and have a nice time!

Greetinx from Upper Bavaria

Guido

www.pix-bavaria.com

[D. Bryant]

Compare it to whose V750 scan? That is the crux of the matter it seems. Also I only need 2200 dip for 360 dip on the Cox print.

Don't forget it's one V for every 5 scans in money terms. I will need the V to tell me which images I might want to pay for in any case.

PG, until you get a high quality drum scan you won't understand the difference in appearance. I can understand your satisfaction with the V750 but in terms of absolute quality, prints made from scans from the V750 won't compare to the prints made from a drum scan. It's more than just the number of pixels one can produce from a specific scanner.

I can certainly understand the cost consideration of the V750 vs a drum scanner, but 2200 spi with a V750 will be and look inferior to the equivalent spi scans from a drum scanner.

An analogy from the wet darkroom would be the difference one would see with prints made from an enlarger with a high end enlarging lens compared to a print made through an inexpensive enlarging lens.

Seeing is believing.

Good luck,

Don Bryant

[PenGun]

Looks like I have a deal on a Scanview 5000. Interesting times for me.