Best scanner for 11x14 B&W negative scans for 1:1 enlargement

[Adam Verver]

I have scoured the Internet and this website for info on the best scanner for scanning 11x14 B&W negative sheet film for 1:1 enlargements. My price range is a maximum of $3000. While there is much info and comparisons (e.g. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/) of various film scanners, the focus is on resolution performance for enlargements, but I intend only to scan 11x14 B&W negatives and print on the same format. So, resolution aside (to some degree), what is the best scanner out there (especially from the effective Dmax performance point of view) that can accommodate 11x14 film for that price range and for that particular application? Any helpful advice would be appreciated.

[mcfactor]

This is probably a silly question (im sure you have a reason), but ill ask anyway: If you are going to print it 11x14, why not just make contact prints in the darkroom?

[cobalt]

I can't answer for the original poster, but I've been looking at an 11x14 camera, and am hesitant because I don't know of a good scanner. Fact is, you have to have a REALLY good negative for contact printing. It is SOOOOO much easier to save a damaged (e.g. by dust, hair, scratches, etc.) negative digitally than by by other means. 11x14 film is diabolically expensive; my recent foray into darkroom only (yeah, right) printing made me keenly aware of the costs involved (and that's just with 4x5 and 8x10!).

One might assume the same sentiment here. Just a guess on my part. Oh, and I'd like to know who makes a good scanner for 11x14 also... one that doesn't cost an arm and a leg and a testicle.

[Peter De Smidt]

Well, a used pro flatbed, such as a Screen Cezanne (I have one of these), Creo/kodak Eversmart...would work. Note, though, that they are huge, often need "legacy" computing equipment, and can be very expensive to service. A Cezanne would be able to scan the negative at about 750 spi in one pass. The Eversmarts would be able to do higher because they stitch multiple passes. That said, if you're doing 1:1, 750 should be fine. The Cezanne can save the file as 16 bit. I don't know about the various Eversmarts. You can get one in the price range you're talking about, but it'll take some looking.

Another option would be a Howtek drum scanner. I'm not sure what sizes each of the models can do. I'm sure others will chime in.

[Ben Hopson]

To add to what Peter said about the Pro Flatbeds, Some of the Creo/Scitex Eversmart series scanners, the ones that can run the oXYgen software will save 16 bit files. They will handle up to 12"X17" on the bed. They can be found within your budget with lots of luck. I picked up an Eversmart Supreme with oXYgen at a live auction for $1000. It came with all the masks calibration sheets and oil (fluid) mounting station. If you can find one at a decent price, they are very good scanners. They are large, but I would not describe them as huge. They are several times larger than consumer flatbeds like the Epsons and Microteks though. The Supreme weighs in at around 154 lbs. I don't have the scanner or manuals in front of me, but if memory serves, it is about 27X34X14"h.

Good luck,

Ben

[Peter De Smidt]

The Cezanne is 5 ft wide and weighs about what Ben's Supreme does.

[Ken Lee]

Could you scan it in sections, on an affordable consumer flatbed, and stitch the sections together ?

An alternative, would be to shoot 8x10 or 5x7, scan on an affordable flatbed, and still have plenty of resolution left.

[Oren Grad]

You can get a new Epson 10000XL with transparency adapter for well under $3000. It's unlikely to be in the same league as the high-end professional flatbeds, though the performance differences may not matter for your application. But it's much smaller and lighter (unlike the pro flatbeds, you can easily fit it on a desk and move it around yourself), it will run from virtually any late-model computer, and you get a new one with a warranty for your money.

[venchka]

I have zero experience with any of the hardware and film mentioned. It seems to me that an 11x14 negative is begging to be contact printed. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Jeremy Moore]

The Epson 10000XL will scan 11x14 negatives. The two we have seem to top out at ~2400ppi with their optics being the limiting factor. A 2000ppi scan of an 11x14 negative would result in a 55" x 70" print @ 360dpi so I think you'd be just fine with an Epson 10000XL.

[AutumnJazz]

Does Kodak still make the Creo scanners? If so, does that mean they'll keep the software up to date?

[venchka]

So, with a modestly priced new Epson scanner and a contact frame, you could have the best of both worlds. I knew I was wrong.

[Adam Verver]

This is probably a silly question (im sure you have a reason), but ill ask anyway: If you are going to print it 11x14, why not just make contact prints in the darkroom?

I've long given up on my darkroom (lack of time and intolerance to chemical vapors) and I am now looking at reviving my 11x14 view camera photography with a "digital darkroom".

[Adam Verver]

I have zero experience with any of the hardware and film mentioned. It seems to me that an 11x14 negative is begging to be contact printed. Maybe I'm wrong.

Indeed, that's what I did for years but I a few years back I have gotten rid of my vacuum frame, threw away my chemicals and turned my darkroom into a storage room. Since then digital came a long way and I would like to see how close I can match my old 11x14 contact prints using a good scanner, photoshop and Chromira prints.

[Adam Verver]

You can get a new Epson 10000XL with transparency adapter for well under $3000. It's unlikely to be in the same league as the high-end professional flatbeds, though the performance differences may not matter for your application. But it's much smaller and lighter (unlike the pro flatbeds, you can easily fit it on a desk and move it around yourself), it will run from virtually any late-model computer, and you get a new one with a warranty for your money.

Thank you for the valuable advice. I looked into the Epson 10000XL but I got a bit worried after I read a bad review at:
http://reviews.cnet.com/scanners/epson-expression-10000xl/4864-3136_7-30925128-2.html?tag=mncol;uo
in which the reviewer lamented "...Scanning 4x5 transparencies revealed an inability to match sharpness and dynamic range with a Scitex Eversmart even though the Scitex specs were not as good as the Epson. Interesting also was the inability to scan for shadow detail despite the higher reported Dmax of the Epson (3.8 vs 3.7)"

Since the ability to scan for good shadow detail with little noise is what I am looking for (not so much the resolution) this is making me think twice before going with 10000XL.

[Jon Shiu]

Note that that review was of film transparency scanning rather than B&W negatives. Dynamic range is usually not much of a scanning problem with black and white negatives, unless they are severely overexposed and/or over developed.

Jon

[Oren Grad]

"...Scanning 4x5 transparencies revealed an inability to match sharpness and dynamic range with a Scitex Eversmart even though the Scitex specs were not as good as the Epson. Interesting also was the inability to scan for shadow detail despite the higher reported Dmax of the Epson (3.8 vs 3.7)"

The first thing to bear in mind when shopping for a scanner is that the specifications for both resolution and Dmax are largely fictional. A professional-grade machine may well produce better results than a consumer-grade machine with more optimistic specifications.

FWIW, my friend Carl Weese uses a Microtek 9800XL - a relatively inexpensive consumer-grade tabloid flatbed - for scanning 8x10 and 7x17 B&W negatives for inkjet printing up to 2x enlargement, with results that range from quite presentable to very fine indeed. I'm not recommending the 9800XL in particular - Microtek has essentially pulled out of the US market now. But you may find that a relatively modest machine is all that you need for 1:1 reproduction.

It really depends on what you're hoping to achieve. To my eye, it's sometimes possible to achieve a reasonably convincing simulation of a Pt/Pd or other alt process print with inkjet, but if the look you're trying to mimic is that of a good contact print on commercial silver gelatin paper, using either inkjet or one of the big laser machines, forget it. Either way, I think you're likely to find this new approach most satisfying if you forget about trying to match your old darkroom results, and think about it as a new medium with its own distinctive attributes that you need to learn how to optimize.

[8x10 user]

Does Kodak still make the Creo scanners? If so, does that mean they'll keep the software up to date?


They do update the software. I have oxygen scan 2.6 and it supports mac OSx 10.3 and possibly 10.4.

New scanners are still being manufactured in isreal just as they were for Creo. I believe that right now they are mostly selling new scanners to schools, institutions, and various governments for archival purposes and scientific research.

IMO, I think that there are enough users of Scitex/Creo/Kodak scanners that kodak will at least update the software for new operating systems.

[Adam Verver]

.... Either way, I think you're likely to find this new approach most satisfying if you forget about trying to match your old darkroom results, and think about it as a new medium with its own distinctive attributes that you need to learn how to optimize.

That is a very helpful advice. Would there big differences between a darkroom contact print and a 1:1 scan + printing on a continuous tone printer such as the Chromira?

I am indeed looking forward to exploring the "new medium," as you stated, after giving up on the hassles of 11x14 contact printing in the darkroom. An admittedly tough question to answer is: what would be the most evident difference between a darkroom contact print and one produced through a scan and an a 1:1 print on a professional inkjet printer (such as the Epson Sylus Pro with K3 ink and UltraSmooth Fine Art Paper)? I know that the best way to know is to produce such prints, compare to my contact prints, and see such subjective things myself, but I am curious if people have come up with ways to express the difference.

I suspect that the main difference would be related to the fact that inkjet prints would have more the look of artwork with pigments absorbed in the paper fiber as opposed to the "glassy" (for lack of a better epithet) look of a photographic print surface.

Obviously I am still at the threshold of digital photography. Thank you for your exhortation to step in.

[Adam Verver]

Note that that review was of film transparency scanning rather than B&W negatives. Dynamic range is usually not much of a scanning problem with black and white negatives, unless they are severely overexposed and/or over developed.

Jon

Thank you Jon. That is reassuring but I do not understand the reason behind this difference. Could you (or someone else) please elaborate on this difference?

[sanking]

My own experience with the Microtek 9800 XL was very negative for scanning ULF negatives. The focus was way off, I could not calibrate it to remove streaking, and the physical layout made placing the negatives for stitching very difficult. My experience with the Epson 1640 XL and 10000 XL is much more positive.

Sandy King



The first thing to bear in mind when shopping for a scanner is that the specifications for both resolution and Dmax are largely fictional. A professional-grade machine may well produce better results than a consumer-grade machine with more optimistic specifications.

FWIW, my friend Carl Weese uses a Microtek 9800XL - a relatively inexpensive consumer-grade tabloid flatbed - for scanning 8x10 and 7x17 B&W negatives for inkjet printing up to 2x enlargement, with results that range from quite presentable to very fine indeed. I'm not recommending the 9800XL in particular - Microtek has essentially pulled out of the US market now. But you may find that a relatively modest machine is all that you need for 1:1 reproduction.

It really depends on what you're hoping to achieve. To my eye, it's sometimes possible to achieve a reasonably convincing simulation of a Pt/Pd or other alt process print with inkjet, but if the look you're trying to mimic is that of a good contact print on commercial silver gelatin paper, using either inkjet or one of the big laser machines, forget it. Either way, I think you're likely to find this new approach most satisfying if you forget about trying to match your old darkroom results, and think about it as a new medium with its own distinctive attributes that you need to learn how to optimize.

[Oren Grad]

My own experience with the Microtek 9800 XL was very negative for scanning ULF negatives. The focus was way off, I could not calibrate it to remove streaking, and the physical layout made placing the negatives for stitching very difficult. My experience with the Epson 1640 XL and 10000 XL is much more positive.

Microtek USA has certainly not been known for its quality control or its post-sales support. At any rate, that particular issue is now moot.

[Oren Grad]

Would there big differences between a darkroom contact print and a 1:1 scan + printing on a continuous tone printer such as the Chromira?

To oversimplify, that depends whether your standard for judgment is "good enough for normal viewing distances" or "looks flawless to grain-sniffing by a lunatic perfectionist".


An admittedly tough question to answer is: what would be the most evident difference between a darkroom contact print and one produced through a scan and an a 1:1 print on a professional inkjet printer (such as the Epson Sylus Pro with K3 ink and UltraSmooth Fine Art Paper)?...I suspect that the main difference would be related to the fact that inkjet prints would have more the look of artwork with pigments absorbed in the paper fiber as opposed to the "glassy" (for lack of a better epithet) look of a photographic print surface.

Except that now you can get inkjet papers that are the spitting image of traditional B&W FB papers. For example, the surface of Harman Glossy FB Al looks awfully like that of its silver cousin Ilford Multigrade IV FB, though prints made on it with ink don't really look like B&W prints made on MGIVFB. There are now far too many different inkjet paper types available - both RC and fiber - to generalize about what an inkjet print looks like, or exactly how it compares to a traditional silver print.

[venchka]

... or "looks flawless to grain-sniffing by a lunatic perfectionist".



I love it! :D I don't aspire to those types of prints. Good enough is plenty good to me.

Sorry for deviating off topic. Sometimes new folks like myself can get intimidated by the types of discussions that go on here. Keeping things in one's own frame of reference makes it easier for the rank beginner like myself to get going. If I waited until I had the hardware to pass the test as outlined above, I would never expose the first piece of film.

My own opinion of the whole wet print vs. scan original/inkjet print debate: At 3 feet, 99% of the viewers can't tell the difference. The other 1% will only be right 50% of the time.

State of the Possible works for me. State of the Art is beyond me.

[John Whitley]

Thank you Jon. That is reassuring but I do not understand the reason behind this difference. Could you (or someone else) please elaborate on this difference?

The Dmax of transparency film can be very high; a few web searches turn up a Dmax in the range of 3.6 to 4.0 as the maximum black value for various slide films. B&W Dmax is much lower, from 1.4 to 2.0 OD for normal to overexposed negatives, respectively. The scanner's real (vs. misleading theoretical advertised) Dmax needs to be high enough for the film you intend to scan. Also, the scanner's density range needs to be at least equal to (Dmax - Dmin) of your film.

All this sums up as: scanning B&W negatives (vs. transparencies) is much less demanding on the scanner as regards Dmax and density range.

[mcfactor]

No, a lightjet (or inkjet) print of an 11x14 negative will not look like a contact print. It will be very easy to tell the difference. Im not saying that digital methods are not good, but there is a very clear difference between them and contact prints. If you go through the trouble of loading, taking, and processing 11x14 negs, is it really that much harder to print them? For me, the reason to shoot 11x14 is to be able to make large contact prints.

Once you digitize the negative, you will not see much (if any) difference between, say, an 8x10 and an 11x14 neg since most of the information would be discarded when printed at a small size. As an earlier post mentioned, a 2000ppi scan of an 11x14 neg would yield a giant print (something like 55x70" @360dpi), however most of that information would be discarded when printed smaller.

On the other hand, when you make a contact print, all of (or, the vast majority of) the information from the negative is recorded, resulting in an image that has spectacular tonality, richness, and definition.

[Adam Verver]

If you go through the trouble of loading, taking, and processing 11x14 negs, is it really that much harder to print them?

When I used to make 11x14 contact prints in a vacuum frame I used to spend hours in the darkroom to perfect the printing of a single negative, but I eventually developed an intolerance for the vapors from the chemicals (including selenium toning) despite a well-ventilated darkroom. I have since retired the darkroom and lost the vacuum frame and I am evaluating the state of the art of digital scanning/printing to see if it is worth resuscitating my 11x14 camera. (I do have a local professional outfit who will develop the film but I would like to retain control over the rest of the process.)

I may very well find that this digital route is not as rewarding as the one through the darkroom but I am curious to see what kind of prints can be made that way.

[Oren Grad]

I may very well find that this digital route is not as rewarding as the one through the darkroom but I am curious to see what kind of prints can be made that way.

Adam -

I'm sorry that you can no longer work in the darkroom, but I think it's great that you're exploring different ways of continuing to work with your big negatives. If there comes a time when I can't do darkroom work any more, I will probably do the same.

Based on what I've seen in prints by other photographers, my guess is that I would not find Chromira prints satisfying - I expect they would look like inferior contact prints - but that there may be considerable potential in inkjet printing on matte papers. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, in that case you wouldn't be trying to recreate the look of your silver prints, but rather entering into a new medium with its own "look and feel".

Your tastes may be different, of course, but I think you are on the right track and that there is indeed a good possibility you can find an alternative approach that will be rewarding in its own way and that will let you continue to enjoy the use of the big camera. Good luck in your search...

...Oren

[Tyler Boley]

...now you can get inkjet papers that are the spitting image of traditional B&W FB papers. For example, the surface of Harman Glossy FB Al looks awfully like that of its silver cousin Ilford Multigrade IV FB, though prints made on it with ink don't really look like B&W prints made on MGIVFB. There are now far too many different inkjet paper types available - both RC and fiber - to generalize about what an inkjet print looks like, or exactly how it compares to a traditional silver print.


But the image delivery system and resulting image structure are still very different. Similarities between materials made for either approach are only part of the story.

Though I realize many don't shave my opinion, an image emerging from my printer is just a thrilling today as an image coming up in the paper developer years ago, and it still dries down and cures, so I never know until the next day as has always been the case. I still devote many hours and days to making a print I like, in some ways it's harder because of the options available.
There's no need to leave the reward of the activity behind.
Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/

[Ron Marshall]

Another option, a few labs output digital files to silver gelatin, such as:

http://www.elevatordigital.ca/printing.html

[Bruce Watson]

Another option, a few labs output digital files to silver gelatin, such as:

http://www.elevatordigital.ca/printing.html

But the prints are not better, they are just different. Silver gelatin prints are not wanna be inkjet prints and vice versa. They are two different media, each with it's own pros and cons.

The main difference here is the price, which last time I looked was something like 5x the price for comparable inkjet prints. At that pricing it's no wonder that the market penetration has been so small.

[Bruce Watson]

Though I realize many don't share my opinion, an image emerging from my printer is just as thrilling today as an image coming up in the paper developer years ago, and it still dries down and cures, so I never know until the next day as has always been the case. I still devote many hours and days to making a print I like; in some ways it's harder because of the options available.

There's no need to leave the reward of the activity behind.

Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/

Absolutely. Nicely said. There's something interestingly rewarding in watching a print slowly inching its way out of an inkjet printer.

The dry-down can of course be hastened along with a hand-held hair dryer. Low heat, high fan. Not so painful for smaller work prints, but drying big full sized prints this way can certainly be boring and tedious. ;-)