espon, microtek scanners

[cobalt]

I know there are as many opinions about scanners as there are photographers. I wonder if anyone on this forum uses or has used an Epson or Microtek for professional use. I talked to a photographer a couple of years ago who was using a Microtek... 1800f I believe, for architectural photography. Although he has since switched to digital, he was using the scanner professionally, and, apparently being paid well for his work.

Anybody else?


p.s. should be Epson.... oops...

[Kirk Gittings]

Was it me? Sounds familiar. As Microtek has pulled scanners from North America, I would stay away from even used 1800f at this point. They were always a little prone to self destructing anyway. For my architectural photography, I relied on one for a few years (had two or three that went bad) and then switched to an Epson 750, got tired of all the scanning and went fully digital. Yes you can do professional level work with one, if you don't mind the slow workflow, but for really large prints you will probably want to get a drum scan.

[Kirk Gittings]

Van, Not at the moment. I meant fully digital for my commercial work. I still shoot film for my art work. I haven't really decided what to do with it. I do not currently have the space to run it so it is in storage and I need to finish remodeling my kitchen and master bedroom before I can even look at that space issue, but aside from commercial photography, when and if I get it set up, I will still use if for scanning 4x5 b&w anyway.

[cobalt]

Kirk, do you live in Michigan? Just curious... how were your scans used and what size were they, typically?

Thanks for the response. That makes two of you.

[Kirk Gittings]

Cobalt, sorry I live in New Mexico. Most of my work is for regional/national magazines and architecture books these days. So I am always supplying enough on a horizontal for a 16" wide 300dpi image (potential double truck spread) or vertical 11" for full bleed.

[cobalt]

Cobalt, sorry I live in New Mexico. Most of my work is for regional/national magazines and architecture books these days. So I am always supplying enough on a horizontal for a 16" wide 300dpi image (potential double truck spread) or vertical 11" for full bleed.

So when you were scanning, nobody gave you a hard time about the quality of your scans?
Looks like I might have to grow up (if I want to make some loot) and start considering a permanent digital tool in my arsenal. Oh the shame...

(A rather bizarre aside: how the hell do you change your screen name? cobalt sounds so much in the same vein as... johnny venture... speed racer...)

[Frank Petronio]

Yes professional photographers have been using Epsons and Microteks for years now (over several model generations). For fractional page ads they are more than fine. For big spreads AND fine printing YOU would likely see a difference between a drum scan and a flatbed scan if you compared the two. But an awful lot of big ads have been scanned with cheap flatbeds, and by the time they are Photoshopped to death and printed on, at best, a 175 lpi web press, it seems like the origin of the scan hardly matters ;-)

It is unlikely you would ever have the opportunity to compare a drum scan and flatbed scan from a commercial job unless you sprung for the drum scan out of your own pocket. Higher end clients -- Shelter Goods, the former Automotive Industry, Luxury Goods -- that would want film and high quality scans are willing to pay the extra for it. But most clients, especially at the business to business trade magazine/banner ad/brochure/trade show booth level would balk at paying for a drum scan. And given how they reproduce their stuff, they are usually correct.

As a designer who might hire a photographer, if you attached a bill for a bunch of $200 drum scans without having a truly magnificent reason, like it being an art book printed in Switzerland, I'd balk.

[cobalt]

Thank you FRANK for staying on topic...

So... I'm still a little confused. If I want to use 4x5 commercially, an Epson or Microtek is fine... unless its for some super duper premo artsty stuff... right... or no?
For example, let's say I am shooting fashion, and want to use 4x5... or 8x10. Are scans from those machines acceptable? How would an art director want to have those scans done?

[Frank Petronio]

When you get to the level where you would be desired and paid to shoot 4x5 or 8x10 fashion work you really won't have to worry about it.

Really. Stephen Meisel or Annie Liebowitz shoot hundreds of sheets of 8x10 for an assignment and they barely know how to load a film holder, much less mount film on a scanner. They just hand their film over to Pascal Dangin, who most definitely drum scans the final edited images.

In the meantime, where you make the progress between being Colbalt on the LF forum (or me) to becoming that fab $$$ fashion photographer who shoots 8x10, the Epson will serve you just fine for making awesome portfolio images that prove your worth.

I'm not being sarcastic, if you need to generate the amount of work you'll need to do to develop a reputation and following that will pay you to shoot 8x10, then you'll need to shoot A LOT and you won't be able to afford a lot of expensive scans, at least at first, and your money is probably better spent on promotion and marketing. So learning how to use an Epson and doing it well will serve you well throughout your career, even when you can afford to have Pascel do your work at $1000 per hour....

In other words, when the time comes that your clients will want and be able to distinguish between a decent Epson scan and a great drum scan, you'll know well ahead of time. In the meantime you have a lot bigger concerns to worry about in making your way as a photographer.

Face it 99.9% of the potential clients out there will want digital camera files for any commercial work, especially anything considered "bread and butter" and common. Commercial use of 8x10 is left to arty higher end fashion/luxury type stuff. Even car photographers stopped using 8x10 years ago.

Worry about getting work, not about whether your gear is sufficient. Once you get work you can borrow or rent whatever you're lacking. And more young photographers go bankrupt because they are gearheads instead of marketeers. And even the marketeers struggle (oh believe me...)

All this flies out the window if you are a wealthy retired dentist making 800gb files to print 40" wide on a fancy inkjet... there you can definitely see the difference between scans and it would be foolish to go cheap on the scanning when the print costs hundreds too. But most lowly commercial photographers rarely print paid work over 11x14 ;-)

[cobalt]

(Heavy sigh).

I'm too old for this. Should coulda woulda started 20 yrs ago.

(Heavier sigh).

[sanking]

You need to evaluate your scanning needs in terms of the size of final output, and resolution of the output device. Generally one can get decent results from Epson and Microtek flatbed scanners. Professionals have certainly been using them for many types of scanning. My own limit for quality from these scanners is about 3X, though some people are perfectly happy to make much larger prints. But the bottom line is that compared to drum scanners, or even other high end CCD scanners, the Epson and Microtek scanners give very mediocre scans.

I am going to attach four scans I just posted to another site as part of a comparison I was doing for myself between a Canon 5d and a Fuji GA645Zi. As part of this comparison I shot a resolution target with the Canon 5d and Fuji GA645Zi, adjusting the zooms on the two cameras to give approximately the same field of coverage. I then scanned the negatives, which were Portra 160 VC, with an Epson 4990, and with my Leafscan 45 at 2540 spi and 5080 spi.

The crops have been adjusted to show all at the same size. The scan with the Epson 4990 is pretty awful, resolving less than 35 lp/mm, the Leaf at 2540 is much better but still leaves some detail in the film, while the Leaf at 5080 pulls all of the detail out of the negative, which is about 70 lp/mm. The crop from the Canon 5d shows resolution of about 52 lp/mm, not bad since the theoretical maximum is 61 lp/mm, and of course it is very clean.

I am not going to into more detail about this here because it is a DSLR/MF comparison and off topic, but I thought it might be interesting for you to see the difference between the quality of an Epson 4990 scanner (not quite as good as the V750 but not far off) and a much higher level scanner.

Bear in mind that you are looking at the center of a resolution target that is about 2.5" X 2.5" in size, photographed at a distance of 20 feet.

Sandy King

[Larry Menzin]

Sandy,

If I understand this correctly, you are using a 645 negative. The Epson does not look very good. However, I'm looking for a solution for scanning 8x10 Provia/Velvia. Wouldn't the paltry 30-35 lp/mm you get with the Epson work out pretty well on an 8x10 area? We're left with the choice of a $500-700 scanner or a $10,000 scanner (Creo IQSmart, etc.) with not much in between.

[Frank Petronio]

Yeah that's the idea, the Epsons are fine for 3-4x enlargements so larger film is the idea. Scans of 35mm and 120 from an Epson blow. A Drum or a Scitex scan will always be better but be realistic....

[sanking]

Larry,

The 30-35 lp/mm from the Epson would be fine for magnifcations of about 3X, maybe a bit more perhaps. I also expect tha the latest Microtek would be a bit better than the Epson scn you see.

Bottom line, I used the Epson flatbeds for scanning 5X7 fillm for several years and printing to about 12X17" size. I was very happy with the results. A professional flatbed or drums scanner will definitely give better scans, but whether or not you can appreciate the difference depends on the magnification, and of course on the individual evaluating the results.

There is a lot to learn about good scanning, and learning by practice on a lesser machine is much better than just listening to what other people have to say.

Sandy King



Sandy,

If I understand this correctly, you are using a 645 negative. The Epson does not look very good. However, I'm looking for a solution for scanning 8x10 Provia/Velvia. Wouldn't the paltry 30-35 lp/mm you get with the Epson work out pretty well on an 8x10 area? We're left with the choice of a $500-700 scanner or a $10,000 scanner (Creo IQSmart, etc.) with not much in between.

[cobalt]

OK..
If we can get the original topic back please....


The question was regarding what (if any) photographers are using the machines in question professionally; not whether or not they are good enough for a particular size. That discussion can be found just about anywhere...

[Frank Petronio]

I know of a dozen commercial photographers and local designers/ad agencies doing work for Fortune 500 companies who use the typical consumer flatbeds for professional work. For posters or special situations they may order a high-end scan, but for most of their stuff the Epson scans are fine. Also, this a few years ago, pre Canon 1Ds, now I bet they rarely scan at all unless it's archival materials.

If you look at my graphic design/ad website, all the work was done with older digital cameras and the last four generations of Epson flatbeds. Some has been printed sheetfed commercially to 11x17 on good stock for nice brochures and posters; also billboards to 14x40 feet (albeit those have a very low resolution).

True there is a lot of Photoshop work in most of the images... I don't think an Epson flatbed would be that nice for a 4x5 landscape printed full-bleed 11x17 or 13x19 by a decent printer. I'm thinking of the very rare situations where that might occur, outside of the usual photographer's vanity publication. I can't think of a recent ad that really uses a full-bleed, very detailed photo to take up the entire spread. Maybe some of the DuPont carpeting ads in Metropolis, and maybe a golf course panorama in a golfing magazine... but in those limited circumstances it probably wouldn't kill you to pop for a drum scan!

[cobalt]

Thanks, Frank. By the way, damn nice work. (and big assed feet!)
So the Epson is useful in the real world. Interesting.

[Greg Miller]

Just to add another point of reference, the cover of my book was shot with 4x5 (Velvia 50). The cover is 12.5" x 9". I had provided an Epson scan to my publisher. They were not happy with the image quality (resolution was OK but shadow detail was not (the shadows are not that deep in this image but there are subtle tonal gradations)). So we had it drum scanned and that scan was acceptable. That was the only image in the entire book that was rejected due to image quality. And that includes 35mm film scanned with a Nikon Coolscan 400 and DSLR images, as well as other 4x5 Epson scans.

So it depends on the image and it depends on how it will be used.

[sanking]

That is the point. The list of people who have used Epson and Microtek scanners professionally in some way must run into the thousands, if not tens of thousands, so there is no doubt but that they can be used for professional work. One could walk into any major advertising agency or photo studio in the US and chances are someone would be using one of the consumer flatbeds for professional work. Many people who own and use much more expensive professional flatbeds and drum scanners also use the Epson flatbeds in a variety of ways for proofing, small prints, etc.

The important thing that most people want to to understand is when one can get professional quality in a fine art print from the consumer flatbeds and when one needs a scan from a dedicated film scanner or a high end flatbed or drum scanner. Of course, even this is subject to a fair amount of personal opinion.

Sandy






So it depends on the image and it depends on how it will be used.

[cobalt]

With all the back and forth about scanners we read about here, I was wondering if I was really missing something. I like prints I've made from 4x5, 5x7 and especially 8x10 using the Epson 4990. I've enlarged 8x10 negs to 16x20 and printed (11x17 crop), and was quite pleased with the results. Made me wonder what the hubub was all about. Now I am beginning to see the picture, no pun intended.

So, for now, I can happily scan and print my 4x5 negs without worrying about the quality police confiscating my film holders, and not worry so much about affording (taking a chance!) on a high end flatbed scanner, which may require purchasing yet another computer to run it. Thank you so much for the discourse. It has been quite enlightening.

Oh, by the way, Greg, BEAUTIFUL images!

[g.lancia]

Thank you FRANK for staying on topic...

So... I'm still a little confused. If I want to use 4x5 commercially, an Epson or Microtek is fine... unless its for some super duper premo artsty stuff... right... or no?
For example, let's say I am shooting fashion, and want to use 4x5... or 8x10. Are scans from those machines acceptable? How would an art director want to have those scans done?

Epson scanners are fine for most applications. These days photoshop skills are more important than photographic ones. If your film is not too bad, Epson scanners will do. Of course if you can get even better scanners, then go for it. Better is always better. :)

[Brian Ellis]

Sandy,

If I understand this correctly, you are using a 645 negative. The Epson does not look very good. However, I'm looking for a solution for scanning 8x10 Provia/Velvia. Wouldn't the paltry 30-35 lp/mm you get with the Epson work out pretty well on an 8x10 area? We're left with the choice of a $500-700 scanner or a $10,000 scanner (Creo IQSmart, etc.) with not much in between.

645 is too small a negative to produce good results with a 4990/700/750 scanner. I didn't even get very good scans from 6x7 negatives with my 4990 and after a couple scans just to see how bad they'd be I stopped scanning 6x7 negatives. However, those scanners work very well with my 4x5 and 8x10 negatives, up to apparoximately the 3x enlargement factor Sandy mentions (I actually go a little larger than that but not much).

[cobalt]

Epson scanners are fine for most applications. These days photoshop skills are more important than photographic ones. If your film is not too bad, Epson scanners will do. Of course if you can get even better scanners, then go for it. Better is always better. :)

I am beginning to concur.

[Lenny Eiger]

With all the back and forth about scanners we read about here, I was wondering if I was really missing something. I like prints I've made from 4x5, 5x7 and especially 8x10 using the Epson 4990. I've enlarged 8x10 negs to 16x20 and printed (11x17 crop), and was quite pleased with the results. Made me wonder what the hubub was all about.

The question was regarding what (if any) photographers are using the machines in question professionally; not whether or not they are good enough for a particular size. That discussion can be found just about anywhere...
!

Of course it all depends on what the word "professional" means. It seems that many took it to mean that you were a commercial photographer, and spoke in terms of double page spreads and the like. You spoke about the quality police.

I took a look at your images on flicker and wondered whether some of them could be better with a better scan. I do drum scans, so I almost always look at it from that perspective. I think there are some that could. And it does depend on the size and what you are looking for.

I think one has to look at other people's images, closely, and make up their minds. One shouldn't dismiss higher level scanners until you've seen the results from them.

Your question of whether any professional used a consumer flatbed seems odd to me. There are so many professionals out there who know so little about their technology, it's embarrassing. I printed in a fancy black and white lab once for a while and some of the pros would come in with these negs, ask me for shadow detail from areas that had nothing - perfectly clear, like Saran Wrap! They had no idea how to make a negative. Others were very good at it, but the higher percentage of commercial photographers were unaware of many things that most of the folks on this list take for granted, like even the most rudimentary zone system concerns.

If I dislike a particular film and someone says well, famous so-and-so uses it how does that help. So-and-so may very well be a total incompetent when it comes to choosing film, or developing it. The word professional doesn't indicate that a person knows about technology, whether it be the technology of film, scanning, photoshop, etc.

I think the questions here are often answered too quickly. Before someone clarifies what they want to do with a piece of equipment, they are asking someone else to recommend it. Flatbeds can work, certainly. There are levels of flatbeds, each better than the next, there are drums, etc. How you choose is based on what you want to accomplish.

Lenny

[cobalt]

Lenny:

We all know you have a very expensive scanner.
We all know you will scan things for people for a fee.
I think you know, as evidenced by the lack of a response to your pm weeks ago, that I am not interested.

It appears you have a tendency to chime in on any post related to scanning; it would not be a problem if you would show the courtesy of sticking to the topic. This thread was not started to indulge in a holy war regarding acceptable resolution or the like. It was started in order to pose a simple question.

Quite frankly, I wish you would take your suggestions and observations to another thread... perhaps one of your own making?

Believe it or not, I do not intend to be harsh, but I don't see how your comments contribute in any positive way. More to the point, I find them rather annoying. Please do us the favor of not responding here...
REALLY... I don't mean to me a jerk... I just really would like to make due without your commentary on at least ONE issue related to scanning. I have gotten responses that answer the question; why insist on taking the discussion in that all too tortured to death direction?
AGAIN... I don't mean to be rude... but this is making this forum less than palatable, in my opinion.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation (which I suspect is unlikely).

[John T]

Cobalt,

Nothing Lenny said in this thread warranted your response. You may not like him, that's your choice, but once you start a topic, it belongs to everyone in the forum. You don't own the thread.

What he basically said is that "professional" doesn't really mean anything. You can have professionals who are great at their craft, are extremely picky about sharpness, detail and image quality, and others who don't know anything about how to create a quality image but can do a good job of convincing people to hire them.

To ask one of the most knowledgeable person regarding scanning to not respond is, quite frankly, questionable. One way of becoming the professional I first described is to seek out the best. In fact, with the number of mediocre to lousy "professionals" claiming to be photographers, it would make sense to try to not just be as good, but to produce a product that blows the others out of the water.

Lastly, most of the quality professionals I know either shoot digitally or get their films scanned by a professional. They don't have the time or skill set to do the scanning and printing themselves-in the same way they would send their film off to be processed. They might scan for proofs.

John

[Sevo]

I took a look at your images on flicker and wondered whether some of them could be better with a better scan. I do drum scans, so I almost always look at it from that perspective. I think there are some that could. And it does depend on the size and what you are looking for.

I think one has to look at other people's images, closely, and make up their minds. One shouldn't dismiss higher level scanners until you've seen the results from them.


Yes, but it always boils down to a question of cost efficiency. There is no question that you can always throw more effort and money at every task, and get improvements - but at some point they are diminishing to the point of insignificance, and much earlier, they are beyond economic.

Does a job with a turnaround of $300 warrant a drum scan? Probably not - it did not warrant internegs or lab masking in the past either. In either case, my wife would be asking me at the end of the year why one quarter of my income and/or time vanished into drum scans or internegatives when all the customers made of it were two column spreads in magazine print quality, or 800px wide jpeg for online use...

Personally, I like doing the original shot in MF or LF film, as that gives me an archive that allows for future scanning to a wide range of target resolutions - but I won't spend money in advance upon a scan which is wasted on the clients requirements.

Sevo

[Gene McCluney]

Us professional photographers that do studio work can control the contrast ratios of our transparencies or negatives such that a scan on a consumer flatbed does just fine. A double-page reproduction (11x17") of a 4x5 transparency is not much of an enlargement for a 4x5 original and quite within the resolution capabilities of an Epson or Microtek (type) scanner.

[Ken Lee]

With large format lenses, 3 or 4X is around all we should probably want anyhow, whether we use a drum scanner, a consumer flatbed scanner, or an enlarger.

Ignoring grain altogether, good LF taking lenses give us somewhere around 40-60 lp/mm at best. Once we divide that by 3 or 4, and toss in some degradation due to the copying process itself, we're down to the range where things start to look... fuzzy.

With a superb taking lens and a superb scanner, perhaps we can squeeze a little more detail, but I'd rather make the jump from 4x5 to 5x7 or 8x10. Even a humble flatbed scanner does wonders with them. That's the beauty of Large Format: It's the latest in 19th century technology.

[Paul Kierstead]

Ignoring grain altogether, good LF taking lenses give us somewhere around 40-60 lp/mm at best. Once we divide that by 3 or 4, and toss in some degradation due to the copying process itself, we're down to the range where things start to look... fuzzy.


Come now; sharpness is a good tool, but it is not the defining characteristic of a good image. Many, most or even all images (for artist use, not technical) can stand a little fuzzy. It may not be the goal, but can be tolerable. And, sometimes, it might even be the goal.

[cobalt]

Us professional photographers that do studio work can control the contrast ratios of our transparencies or negatives such that a scan on a consumer flatbed does just fine. A double-page reproduction (11x17") of a 4x5 transparency is not much of an enlargement for a 4x5 original and quite within the resolution capabilities of an Epson or Microtek (type) scanner.

That's what I thought. Thanks for the confirmation.

[Ken Lee]

Come now; sharpness is a good tool, but it is not the defining characteristic of a good image. Many, most or even all images (for artist use, not technical) can stand a little fuzzy. It may not be the goal, but can be tolerable. And, sometimes, it might even be the goal.

You're certainly right. :)

For those of us who look to Large Format to avoid grain, blurriness, and pixels, sharpness may be important, but I have overlooked other important considerations, like dMax and color fidelity.

[Lenny Eiger]

Lenny:

We all know you have a very expensive scanner.
We all know you will scan things for people for a fee.
I think you know, as evidenced by the lack of a response to your pm weeks ago, that I am not interested.


I never imagined that my scanning service was for everyone. As to having an expensive scanner you can lose your resentment, I'm the one who has to pay the lease on it every month. I might have been better off with the less expensive one I had (4500). It was all I needed for my own work. However, that said, I would hope that anyone who sets up a business to do scanning for others would acquire the best scanner they could - so that they could offer as good a service as they could. I don't think I should apologize for it.



It was started in order to pose a simple question.


That's exactly my point, that I made in my last paragraph - the question wasn't clear. The suggestion I made was to clarify the questions before we all answer. I still don't know what you mean by professional.

There are numerous scanning threads that I have not joined in on. I often contribute when the question of drum scanning pops up. It's something I am passionate about. I have my opinions, based on my experience, and they are not always the convenient ones of the least expensive way is just fine. Finally, I don't think that commercial photographers, whose work is usually reproduced in a magazine have any need of a high end scan, or a large format camera, for that matter. A medium format digital back should suffice for almost everything - even a medium cost one.

Lenny

[Frank Petronio]

Regardless of dpi or lp/mm, the large format image has a presence that isn't easily described in quantitative technical jargon. You can just tell it was shot with a big camera and you know there was effort involved, which makes the image that much better.

[Lenny Eiger]

Regardless of dpi or lp/mm, the large format image has a presence that isn't easily described in quantitative technical jargon. You can just tell it was shot with a big camera and you know there was effort involved, which makes the image that much better.

I'm with you. I find that a lot of these numbers don't correlate exactly to the results I am getting. For instance, which is more important, the lp/mm of the lens, scanner resolution or the fact that an 8x10 describes an object with 4 times the film real estate?

For many years I thought that a 4x5 scanned at 4000 dpi should match an 8x10 at 2000 dpi - especially on a drum scanner. I was totally wrong about this. The 8x10 is far superior. And I was trying to prove the other, I didn't want to carry around the 8x10.

Venting aside, I think the key is that one has to try things for themselves, on the kind of work that they do. I have seen some amazing scans, on scanners that shouldn't have been able to do that. I think there are a lot more variables than we know about.

Best is to try everything, on some image that's representative for your work, then you'll know where the edges are. Just my opinion....

Lenny

[venchka]

Amen, Frank!

Alas, the digi-folks who started with digi-cams and know nothing of film don't seem to understand what they are looking at. If a photograph doesn't have neon, cartoon colors and lacks "POP", they just yawn.

Sorry for the digression.

[Don Hutton]

Best is to try everything, on some image that's representative for your work, then you'll know where the edges are. Just my opinion....

That's excellent advice Lenny - unfortunately the likes of Cobalt probably don't understand that suggestion either...

[sanking]

The Hassy numbers appear to add up to me. Most photographers are using flash of one type of another for this type of photography, and one should easily get 60+ lp/mm on film in these conditions. You do the numbers and you should be able to make a print 28X36" in size with about 5 lp/mm, which is beyond the threshold of human vision at viewing distance of 10-12 inches.

Sandy King






I'm with Lenny and Frank that the numbers don't always add up. A lot of great portraits/weddings have been done with a Hassy at print sizes of to 24x30, which the numbers would not explain. The 3x rule applies to consumer flatbeds, not film. Check film under a quality 10x loupe. At 10x drum scanners aren't even working hard.

[Asher Kelman]

Just to add another point of reference, the cover of my book was shot with 4x5 (Velvia 50). The cover is 12.5" x 9". I had provided an Epson scan to my publisher. They were not happy with the image quality (resolution was OK but shadow detail was not (the shadows are not that deep in this image but there are subtle tonal gradations)). So we had it drum scanned and that scan was acceptable. That was the only image in the entire book that was rejected due to image quality. And that includes 35mm film scanned with a Nikon Coolscan 400 and DSLR images, as well as other 4x5 Epson scans.

So it depends on the image and it depends on how it will be used.

I have visited your website and your work is admirable!

Asher Kelman

[cobalt]

Regardless of dpi or lp/mm, the large format image has a presence that isn't easily described in quantitative technical jargon. You can just tell it was shot with a big camera and you know there was effort involved, which makes the image that much better.

Damn... Not to be all up in your butt or anything... but I couldn't have said it better myself.

[cobalt]

Asher:

I agree. His work is superb.

[sanking]

Well, I for one would not want to make a print of 24X30" from a Hasselblad, but I don't want to print that large from any format. I am a big fan of small, intimate photographs that I can hold in my hand and look at close up. I personally believe that the government should bane outright or at least put a huge surtax on these huge large carriage printers that make prints so big you can not display them in your home, unless you happen to own a house the size of a bank.

That said, one really has to be careful in comparing prints from formats of different size. For the most part I agree with the concept that the larger the camera the more detail you will have and the larger the print you can make. But there are exceptions where with the right choice of equipment and film smaller cameras are capable of results that are the equal in every way of cameras one size up. And I know from my own work that larger camera does not always translate into higher image quality compared to work from the next smaller format.

Sandy King



"You do the numbers and you should be able to make a print 28X36" in size with about 5 lp/mm, which is beyond the threshold of human vision at viewing distance of 10-12 inches."

Hi Sanking, I thought about it, and we need to be careful what we both are agreeing on. Again the numbers suggest it is okay, but would we use a Hassy for a 24x30 landscape photography? That's why I think numbers alone are not enough, it depends on what were shooting. I was referring to those shooting portraits, and with a soft filter, where you want less detail, where the Hassy has been achieving some remarkeable images by studio portrait/wedding photographers. The sharpness in this case is not the priority, but the saturation ist still there. This is perhaps why some of us disagree with the 3x rule for consumer flatbeds, and we see some satisfied with 4 or 5x enlargements. I don't recommend it, but I think this explains why the variance in opinions.

[Don Hutton]

I have very likely forgotten more about art in general than you will ever know. Wow - you must just be awesome. Unfortunately all that means is that you've either forgotten a lot or very little - and you don't know the answer to that question because you know precious little about how much I actually do know, my education, wife's name etc. Strangely, I thought the thread had to do with the ability of consumer flatbed scanners rather than our art qualifications....

Is there any evidence out there, anywhere, that shows you are eligible to even participate in such a discussion?Yes:
1. I am a member of this forum, and despite what you may think, I am automatically "eligible" to participate in any thread I choose to on this forum. I don't need your permission. You don't "own" this thread, nor do you "own" this forum.
2. I actually know a little bit about scanning - probably not as much as many folks, but I have owned and used various consumer level flatbed scanners and various film scanners for about 7 years quite extensively and have also owned and used a drum scanner for about a year. Perhaps not as much as many folks, but almost certainly a whole lot more than you.

[Greg Miller]

Asher:

I agree. His work is superb.

Thanks Cobalt and Asher. I appreciate your kind words.

[Lenny Eiger]

Lenny:
The question was crafted (apparently not so well; all those mutli-syllabic words) in order to solicit answers from those who were/are working professionals in the field. It seems glaringly apparent that, what we have here, is a failure to communicate. Professional: one who is makes his or her living by providing a particular service or product, in this case, photography.


I make my living in photography, and so according to your definition I am a professional. I see no reason why you would think I don't. You say professional, yet the sites you reference at the bottom of your email suggest you are an artist, rather than a commercial photographer. Apparently you sell your work. Whatever.

Your question has already been answered multiple times; there are plenty of professionals who have used consumer-level flatbed scanners. (Thousands, someone said.) Apparently you want this thread to go somewhere - I'm not sure where - and Don and I were taking it in the "wrong" direction. Since your question has already been answered unequivocally, I am not sure what you want to know.

Frankly I am usually interested in what happens when a group of experts get together and discuss things. I am often interested in the thing that got uncovered that has nothing to do with the original question. In this case I am very curious why Sandy's result differ from mine - he thinks one can get results from smaller film and I don't. We are both experts at what we do.... he has obviously tested this or he wouldn't say so and I tested the same thing and got a very different result. There might be something I have missed - or maybe Sandy is after something else. I think the latter is probably the case... but I want to research it - from a point of view of mutual respect, and nothing less.

So I'm already on to the next issue unless you got something else you want to discuss....

Lenny

[Ken Lee]

"...about 5 lp/mm, which is beyond the threshold of human vision at viewing distance of 10-12 inches".

I am delighted to stand corrected, especially by... those who know !

On recent threads, hasn't a number closer to 12 or 13 been used ?

[sanking]

Actually, there are several "thresholds" depending on who is viewing. Five lp/mm, which corresponds to about 250 ppi, is for the average human eye. Young, above average human eyes have a threshold of over 10 lp/mm.

However, some persons with especially good vision are able to discriminate resolution at figures as high as 15-20 lp/mm. As I recall this figure was mentioned by Ctein in an article published several years ago, though I can not cite the source.

The point of that was that silver gelatin prints on glossy papers have the potential for up to 40+ lp/mm, while inkjet prints are limited to about 7-8 lp/mm. In theory some people have the ability to perceive the greater resolution, though of course other factors, primarily macro and micro contrast, play an important role in image clarity.

From personal tests I am aware of the fact that my own threshold is five lp/mm, and that is optimistic. But that is without my illuminating magnifying glass of course.

Sandy King


"...about 5 lp/mm, which is beyond the threshold of human vision at viewing distance of 10-12 inches".

I am delighted to stand corrected, especially by... those who know !

On recent threads, hasn't a number closer to 12 or 13 been used ?

[sanking]

Lenny,

I am not sure we are in any disagreement as pertains to the content of this thread. First, my perspective is that of someone who does not make large prints. 17X23 is the largest I normally even consider, and even that is rare. Second, I have not ever compared 4X5 to 8X10, though I have compared 5X7 to ULF, but again, only for printing up to about 3X-4X with 5X7.

Regarding your own comparison of 4X5 to 8X10, I won't comment on it unless you provide the specifics of the comparison. I am fairly certain that the only way to come out ahead with the 4X5 would be to use a finer grain and sharper film. The same would be true with any other comparison wth formats of unequal size.

Sandy King



In this case I am very curious why Sandy's result differ from mine - he thinks one can get results from smaller film and I don't. We are both experts at what we do.... he has obviously tested this or he wouldn't say so and I tested the same thing and got a very different result. There might be something I have missed - or maybe Sandy is after something else. I think the latter is probably the case... but I want to research it - from a point of view of mutual respect, and nothing less.

Lenny

[m332720]

Greg
I need to add my vote to the very nice work crowd.

Michael

[rvhalejr]

Nikon Scan Math
2.3 X 2.8 == 6.3 sq inches @ (3200ppi^2 is 10megapixels/sq inch) == 60 Megapixels (Wet Scan E6 6x7 max)
2.3 X 2.8 == 6.3 sq inches @ (2250ppi^2 is 5megapixels/sq inch) == 30 Megapixels (Dry Scan E6 6x7 max)
2.3 X 2.8 == 6.3 sq inches @ (2000ppi^2 is 4megapixels/sq inch) == 25 Megapixels (Dry Scan C41 6x7 max)

Print Math
30x40 print == 1200 sq. inches @ (300dpi^2 is 0.1megapixels/sq inch) == 120 megapixels Source
30x40 print == 1200 sq. inches @ (225dpi^2 is 0.05megapixels/sq inch) == 60 megapixels Source
30x40 print == 1200 sq. inches @ (160dpi^2 is 0.025megapixels/sq inch) == 30 megapixel Source
30x40 print == 1200 sq. inches @ (140dpi^2 is 0.020megapixels/sq inch) == 25 megapixel Source

Comment
C41 MAY have yielded more details in the shadows, yet been scanable at slightly less

I'd like to roughly compare these 9000 numbers with the microtek and epson if
anyone would like to take a poke at it .,.

[Wally]

OT, but can't help myself. Greg, just gotta say 'Wow'.
The hillside shot in Hudson Valley - row two, column one put me in a trance. It took me there. I felt the cold air, fer gosh sakes.

[fuland123]

The InkStop store nearest me accepts cartridges with the proceeds going to fibromyalgia research

[Greg Miller]

OT, but can't help myself. Greg, just gotta say 'Wow'.
The hillside shot in Hudson Valley - row two, column one put me in a trance. It took me there. I felt the cold air, fer gosh sakes.

Thanks again to all who have publicly or privately commented on my photos. I do appreciate the kind words.