Best scanning solutions for 8x10?

[e2aa]

Recommendations?

[Peter De Smidt]

Aztek Premier and ICG, sorry I don't know what the current model is. These will get the most detail, as they have the smallest apertures. Next in line would be other high quality drum scanners and maybe the Kodak Eversmart Supreme.

"Absolute Best" and "a more economical option" usually don't go hand-in-hand.

An important question is how much info is really on 4x5 and 8x10 negatives. As f-stops get smaller, maximum resolution goes down, and at some point film flatness issues will limit resolution achievable on the film. I don't know the answer.

The only way to know is to compare scans, and you're really only testing the complete system.

I'd be surprised if any good drum scanner, or one of the Kodak/Creo/Scitex flatbed scanners wouldn't make better scans than the Flextight.

[Ben Syverson]

Define "best."

[venchka]

The only solution that costs less than the camera is one of the Epson models capable of scanning 8x10.

Correction: I should have said consumer flatbed scanner. Epson isn't the only company that made scanners that will scan 8x10 negatives. They are the only company still producing flatbed scanners that will scan 8x10 negatives.

[e2aa]

The Aztek Prem. is nice, I have used it several times. My only issue is that $125 per 3,000+ dpi scan is painful (don't ask why, but I need that quality of scan).




Aztek Premier and ICG, sorry I don't know what the current model is. These will get the most detail, as they have the smallest apertures. Next in line would be other high quality drum scanners and maybe the Kodak Eversmart Supreme.

"Absolute Best" and "a more economical option" usually don't go hand-in-hand.

An important question is how much info is really on 4x5 and 8x10 negatives. As f-stops get smaller, maximum resolution goes down, and at some point film flatness issues will limit resolution achievable on the film. I don't know the answer.

The only way to know is to compare scans, and you're really only testing the complete system.

I'd be surprised if any good drum scanner, or one of the Kodak/Creo/Scitex flatbed scanners wouldn't make better scans than the Flextight.

[Don Hutton]

Although not the "best" solution, you should be able to pick up a Howtek 4500 for a reasonable amount of money ($3000-$4000) which would be a very economical solution for given quality. You'll only be able to scan 8x10s at 2000DPI, but it's very unlikely that you will be leaving anything on the negatives at that resolution in real world shooting. You'd still be ending up with files which are close to 2Gigs. I've seen Premieres second hand for between $10K and $15K - if you have a lot to scan, it may well be your best bet. I will add, that in my experience, anything bigger than 5x7 needs excellent technique when loading a drum... and you may in fact be better off having someone else do it for you if you do not intend to make many, many scans.

[Lenny Eiger]

Define "best."

Exactly. There have been a lot of posts lately requesting the cheapest, for example. Do you mean absolute best, money is no object, or best bang for the buck, etc.? What kind of photos do yo want to do, high contrast, low contrast, super sharp, sharpness not really an issue?

I like the Howtek 4500, I had one and it had great results, great bang for the buck. A premier is the tops, but its expensive, and not appropriate for everyone. There are other ones, but some folks buy two, one for parts. That's great for tinkerers, not so great for those that don't have time, etc.

Lenny

[Uri A]

Personally, I doubt that most of us would ever get value out of buying our own drum scanner (I'm a pro shooter and wouldn't dream of it).

I would rather pay for a lab to do my scans on their $xxxxxxxx machine than buy one for a few thousand and have it become obsolete in a couple of years. I find that if I ask for unclipped (no curves applied), straight, unspotted scans I often get them about half list price. I'm happy to do my own spotting and apply my own curves.

Never get a lab to give you a scan that's been manipulated (most labs WILL do this because scans with curves applied look "good"), but you're paying them to throw away data in the shadows and highlights.

I'd rather spend my money on more 'fun' toys - lenses and cameras! :)

[Ben Syverson]

My only issue is that $125 per 3,000+ dpi scan is painful (don't ask why, but I need that quality of scan).
Well, you told me not to ask, which means I have to. Why do you need that level of quality?

Scanning an 8x10 at 3000 DPI and printing at 300 will give you a print 8 feet wide (80x100"). If you're really printing that large, you wouldn't sneeze at a mere $125 for the scan.

So what are you doing with these files?

[Bob McCarthy]

there is so much real estate with an 8x10 that scanning at 1200 dpi is almost overkill. Even a consumer grade (ie Epson 4990) will do a credible job.

bob

[Mike1234]

Oh, I don't know. At 300 DPI that's only a 32x40" print.

[Don Hutton]

there is so much real estate with an 8x10 that scanning at 1200 dpi is almost overkill. Even a consumer grade (ie Epson 4990) will do a credible job.

bobBob

Credible is in the eye of the beholder. I have made several prints of the same size - from scans of the same 8x10 negs on an Epson 4990 and on a Howtek 4500 I aquired later - even at 16x20, there are very significant differences in the final prints; mostly related to microcontrast. At the time, I was very satisifed with the prints from the Epson scans; subsequently not... I believe that it is a common misconception that consumer flatbeds below a certain there maximum resolution will produce a scan which is as good as a decent drum or high-end flatbed. In my own experience, that is simply not the case. There are other critical aspects to scan apart from resolution.

[Mike1234]

Don,

Are you absolutely sure this isn't related to tonal control? Not your technique, of course. I mean mismatched scanning profiles.

Mike

[Don Hutton]

Don,

Are you absolutely sure this isn't related to tonal control? Not your technique, of course. I mean mismatched scanning profiles.

MikeAbsolutely sure. Compare a drum scan to a consumer flatbed scan and you'll know exactly what I'm referring to. FWIW, you cannot accurately "profile" a scanner for negative films anyway. A drum scanner (and high end flatbed) simply have the ability to record much finer tonal nuances than consumer flatbed scanners can. You can try to replicate the effect on a consumer flatbed scan by increasing the local contrast, but it never goes the whole way and introduces artifacts.

[Mike1234]

Is the term "micro contrast" the digital equivelent of analog "acutance"? If so, wouldn't bit depth be the limiting factor?

[Don Hutton]

Is the term "micro contrast" the digital equivelent of analog "acutance"? If so, wouldn't bit depth be the limiting factor?Micro contrast and actuance are different (microcontrast refers to being able to differentiate tiny differentials in tonal values while actuance refers specifically to edge contrast only) and I don't believe that bit depth is relevant beyond a certain point - my Howtek only delivers 14 bit scans, whereas the Epson supposedly is 16 bit, but the differences are very clear. There is no doubt that the Howtek can differentiate incredibly small details in tonal values that the Epson simply does not. The result is evident very clearly in textures in the final print.

[Mike1234]

So the term "micro contrast" refers to "finer steps" in tonal range... something that "digital banding" might affect?

[sanking]

So the term "micro contrast" refers to "finer steps" in tonal range... something that "digital banding" might affect?

I use both terms (micro contrast and acutance) in talking about analog photograhy. In analog photography micro contrast is the effect that results from acutance (which is an objective measurement of edge effects).

Edge effects, unless grossly distorted, are generally too narrow to be captured by consumer type flatbeds. A professional quality scanner like the Howtek 4500 drum scanner, and some high level professional CCD scanners, have sufficient resolution to discriminate the narrow edge effect lines.

Sandy King

[Don Hutton]

So the term "micro contrast" refers to "finer steps" in tonal range... something that "digital banding" might affect?Not sure what "digital banding" is except that it sounds like something that you wouldn't want in a scan (especially on a drum... means you have a problem Houston....). Actuance is basically perceived edge sharpness - basically exactly the effect on of unsharp masking on a digital file - by slightly increasing the area of "borders" of high and low contrast, you increase the perceived sharpness. Microcontrast is increased differentiation of tonal nuances, not just edge effects.

[Don Hutton]

Mike

Hopefully the following examples will illustrate what I mean between actuance and microcontrast - first image is the original, second is with some USM applied (straight increase in actuance), third is the original image with the microcontrast increased in PS - not perfect, but it should give you an idea of what I'm trying to differentiate.... Note that the actuance in the third image has not increased, but the microcontrast has (unfortunately, the overall contrast has also increased a little because of the digital manipulation required to get this effect, but this was a PS example to show the difference in the concepts).

[Mike1234]

Don,

Thank you!! But I must not be looking for what you're talking about. All I can see is what appears to be the curves or histagram adjusted to bring the uppermost and lowest values closer to near clipping... and perhaps a reshaping of the curve. Wouldn't this have an effect on local contrast as well?

Mike

[PenGun]

You will find all the drum scanner owners can see very great differences between their machines and any flat bed.

I really like my Eppy 700 for anything up to 16x20 with a 4x5. Check out stuff for yourself if you can. An 8x10 is pretty big.

[Don Hutton]

Don,

Thank you!! But I must not be looking for what you're talking about. All I can see is what appears to be the curves or histagram adjusted to bring the uppermost and lowest values closer to near clipping... and perhaps a reshaping of the curve. Wouldn't this have an effect on local contrast as well?

MikeMike

The example is just that and all three are from a drum scan... and real microcontrast is a characteristic present on the negative which can be preserved with a good scan or lost in degrees - it's impossible to "put it back" digitally without some compromise - which is why my example may have confused instead of clarified. I was just trying to separate the term microcontrast from actuance.

If you think of a typical pictorialist image shot with a very low contrast lens, there may still be a full range of tones in the image from black to white, but the tonal transitions are all very smooth as a result of very low microcontrast. With a higher contrast lens, textures would become more evident due to higher microcontrast - drum scanners reslve the nuances of these tonal differentials much more clearly than consumer flatbeds do. And these subtle differences show up in prints.

I know Pengun has a flap everytime someone with a drum scanner who has actually compared it to something else posts their findings, but I'm not making it up - I test every piece of my imaging chain pretty extensively and I can assure, drum scanning is not my first love - I much prefer making images, but it does IMO, offer significant advantages over consumer grade flatbeds. Anyone who says it doesn't is simply too ignorant to know any better. I've also seen outstanding scans from professional grade flatbeds. If your images are "pictorialist" style, shot on negative films, a consumer flatbed is possibly a decent enough solution. If your images have a great depth of detail and texture and you want to translate them with maximum effect it probably won't cut it.

[Frank Petronio]

than buy one for a few thousand and have it become obsolete in a couple of years.

LOL nobody is making any new "prosumer" or "professional" scanners, ever. Perhaps Epson might have one last go round with a new model but it's been years since they introduced the 700-series.

The best scanners use state-of-the-art 2001 technology. Professionals buy two or three of the same model so they can scrounge parts.

Trust in what Don says when it comes to image quality. Everything I have read by him rings real-world true.

[Mike1234]

Hi Don,

Okay... I guess I need to make some first-hand comparisons. I agree that once detail is lost it's gone forever and this is something I wish to avoid.

I'll be shooting on negative films and I might try a B&W direct positive process I saw in other posts... can't remember the very short name... but it looked promising. I'll be shooting for the most detail and acutance as is practicable.

When I was a younger lad I shot Agfapan 25 overexposed and underdeveloped in dilute (1:50 or 1:100) Rodinal and selenium toned to improve and extend the gamma curve. Prints were made on Ilford Gallery #2 or #3 (latter preferred) and exposure limited to prevent shadow blockage then they were selenium toned to deepen lowest values. Prints sparkled with detail... worked very well, IMHO. Acutance was superb to my eyes.

Mike

[Eric Leppanen]

Don,

When drum scanning 8x10 film, do you see any significant differences in microcontrast rendition between color negative films and chromes? My local digilabs have historically made the argument that, for scenes with a contrast range that chrome film can handle, chromes will yield better microcontrast than color neg. (West Coast Imaging has even made the argument that Provia was superior to Astia for the same reason). I've always thought that the large film real estate of 8x10 minimized the significance of such concerns, allowing significant leeway in picking the best film for each application.

Yet when shooting that alpenglow right-before-sunrise scene, I can't help but wonder: should I not worry, be happy, and shoot color neg without a care in the world? Or will enduring the hassle of chrome film (ND grad filters, exposure bracketing, etc.) result in a positive image (and drum scan) with noticeably superior microcontrast?

[Don Hutton]

Eric

I'm pretty convinced that chromes do offer a little more microcontrast than negative films and it's most visible in areas where it really helps - for example in clouds and in transitions from deep shadow areas. I do think that it's less of a factor on larger negatives, because you generally have more space to digitally adjust tonal values (to some extent) with a larger file of information because trying to introduce small tonal expansions does start degrading files fast. However, like yourself, I still shoot plenty of chromes especially in smaller formats, where I believe you get similar sharpness to the best negative films with less grain and better microcontrast. The downside is obviously very compressed dynamic range... If it's on the film, you can get it off with a good scan from any source, but if it's not there, you can't. That said, I always carry negative film for the times when a difficult scene arises where I have neither the time or I lack the enthusiasm for sorting out the DR of the shot with filters etc. Obviously on smaller formats, bracketing is far less of an issue than it is with 8x10 chromes too!

I made an image earlier this year which was shot on chrome (Velvia 100, which probably has higher microcontrast than any other film I've used) of a scene in very flat light which prints very well - the image is very reliant on microcontrast and I'm sure it would not have been as successful if I had shot it on 160VC, which would have been my substitute at the time.