4x5 scans.. drum or virtual drum for 40"x50" print

[starkhaze]

Hi guys,

I am shooting a project on 4x5 portra 400 mostly. I want to make prints around 40"x50". I want them to look great.

Subject matter is people in situations. full figures no close ups.

I use a epson 700 for rough scans and proofing. Quite soon I'm going to have a batch of pictures ready to be printed. I am leaning towards a digital lambda print.

I want quality, and I am on a budget!

What are my options in the scanning department? I will want to do some retouching to some scans. Some pictures will need to have 2 negs scanned and then a little editing done to combine them.

Is it really drum scan or nothing? and if so.. anyone have a link to CHEEEAP drum scans from friendly people?

Thanks for any input you can give.

Stark

[eric black]

I would go with a drum scan for that size- every once in a while West Coast Imaging has a sale and might provide you with a cost effective alternative. My experience with scanning is that you get what you pay for- less expensive alternatives might end up costing you quite a bit of time getting the output ready for the print in the end. For me time is money so Id rather spend the extra bucks and get a good result than spend hours in front of a computer fixing poor work.

[Ari]

I had a show last spring; 14 prints, all 30x40 inches. I could have gone larger, but the gallery was not that spacious. I printed 8x10s from my 4x5 negs and scanned the 8x10s at 1200 dpi.
I had some very good quality lambda prints made for around $75 each (I asked the lab to sponsor the event, hence the affordable price).
The scans were done by me on an Epson 4870. I did spend a lot of time retouching and adjusting, but that was due to my own inexperience. Next show, I will do the same and expect to spend only about an hour on each photo.

[starkhaze]

totally agree with you Eric.

Ari sorry to say but that doesn't really sound like the way to go.. anyone disagree with that diagnosis?

I found these guys in the netherlands.

http://www.drumscanservice.nl/DRUMSCANSERVICE.html

This seems to be a pretty good deal, and seems like they've got their Sh-t together.

anyone have any experience with them?

[starkhaze]

Ari have you ever seen a show by someone that shoots large format and prints it correctly? It can look amazing. I saw a print by massimo vitali recently.. standing 3 inches from the 40x50 inch print there was not the slightest hint of grain or noise or softness. granted he probably shoots 8x10. even so 4x5 should produce very smooth prints i'd imagine.

[rdenney]

If you want 10x enlargements, your 700 will be running at the very fringes of its capability. You might get acceptable prints, and they might be good enough if you can't afford better. You can only do what you can do--a commitment to extreme quality in prints that size ain't cheap.

Maybe the cheapest way is to shoot 8x10, but I gather that ship has already sailed.

I think you are stuck with having higher-quality scans made for you, despite the cost, if you must have prints that large.

Even when I was working professionally, I would not have accepted an assignment that required a technology that I could not afford, unless I built the cost of adding that capability into my price (not easy to do, of course). But that ship has already sailed, too.

I have seen gallery prints at 8x that were actually quite good, made using an Epson flatbed. But the images were visualized to minimize the loss of tonality from that sort of scanning process. You might consider how to visualize your images so that they don't depend on the depth of tonality that separates flatbeds from more expensive options.

Rick "ask for samples, or start with one image, when testing an unfamiliar lab" Denney

[starkhaze]

yeah good idea to send one neg and get the scan back to test.

[Sean Galbraith]

Is there any point/advantage paying for 16-bit scans if there are no 16-bit printers? (there aren't, right?)

[Don Hutton]

Is there any point/advantage paying for 16-bit scans if there are no 16-bit printers? (there aren't, right?)
Yes - if you intend manipulating anything before you print it, 16 bits will help a great deal in avoiding all sorts of problems. Muck around gently with an 8bit greyscale file and you will see the issues very fast.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Yes, indeed; 16-bits per color will allow much more tonal manipulation before banding occurs. This allows for other-than-perfectly-exposed films (and those films having no more than about 4 stops of dynamic range) to be useful.

Earlier in the thread WCI was mentioned. As their workflow was until recently transparency-only (probably still is if they're yet are using a Tango scanner), I'd suggest the OP investigate other bureaus that might do negs more credibly. Tangos may also be incapable of scanning at a true 16-bit depth. (Don't ask me how much I spent on scans before finding out this tidbit of information).

[bob carnie]

Sean
better to edit in 16bit as Don points out.

all RA4 devices are 8bit( Lambda, Lightjet, Chromira }
Our Cannon is a 16bit printer, not sure about other makes.

Is there any point/advantage paying for 16-bit scans if there are no 16-bit printers? (there aren't, right?)

[bob carnie]

WCI did a large series of BW scans for me recently and they were excellent.


Yes, indeed; 16-bits per color will allow much more tonal manipulation before local banding occurs.

Earlier in the thread WCI was mentioned. As their workflow was until recently transparency-only (probably still is if they're yet are using a Tango scanner), I'd suggest the OP investigate other bureaus that might do negs more credibly.

Tangos may also be incapable of scanning at a true 16-bit depth. (Don't ask me how much I spent on scans before finding out this tidbit of information).

[dh003i]

I just uploaded a series of test scans with my Epson V700 (http://www.tabblo.com/studio/stories/view/1771322/) of a 4x5 picture of a railroad bridge (http://www.tabblo.com/studio/stories/view/1769443/), taken with my Nikkor-SW 90/4.5 at f/16 or f/22, probably f/16. This is an exceptionally sharp lens. Hence, my tests might not be indicative, as the resolution of the 4x5 is so sharp. I've read that the 1/R formula underestimates final resolution when one component has much more resolution than another, and works best when both components of the system are of nearly the same resolution.

In any event, from my eye, at least when given a very sharp 4x5 to begin with, it seems from my scans that the V700 can produce very good 10x enlargements as seen on screen (this is about in line with estimates of the true optical resolution of the V700 being about 2400 dpi, which would suggest 8x enlargements at 300 dpi if you don't have much loss of image quality due to 1/R). But that's just from what I see; maybe those scans don't look nearly as good to you guys.

Given a negative that has exactly the same resolution as it seems the V700 has, about 2400 dpi (47 lp/mm), we can expect the final scan to be of a quality of about 23.5 lp/mm (1193.8 dpi, which can produce about a 4x enlargement, or 20x16 print). This is in line with what I've usually seen as suggested for the capabilities of the Epson V700.

Just a parenthetical note, I've seen Lenny Eiger claim that the V700 or V750 has a resolution of about 1100 dpi or something like that, and others argue that such is wrong, and the resolution is 2400 dpi. I think I remember Lenny saying he'd seen those estimates of 1100 dpi from prints made from a V750 or V700 scanner at an Aztek lab. The preceding paragraph would explain the discrepancy between 2400 dpi and 1000 or 1100 dpi. The actual resolution of the scanner component is 2400 dpi (47 lp/mm); however, when scanning in something that is also 47 lp/mm, the 1/R law is probably pretty accurate, so final resolution drops to 23.5 lp/mm (1194 dpi). If that's the case, it explains the discrepancy between Lenny's estimates of the V700 / V750's resolution, and estimates made by others.

I will be sending another copy of the 4x5 that I scanned in to Lenny to scan in at the beginning of December (after I find out if it was accepted in a photo-show). Then I will upload a crop of the same section. If I make a print for the show, of course I'll print from the drum-scan.

[Matus Kalisky]

It is not that complicated to roughly estimate resolution of a lower end scanner like V700 or Microtek M1/F1 - just take a nice sharp 35mm slide, have it scanned by a good lab with something like Nikon Coolscan 5000 at 3000 - 4000 spi (drum scan is not necessary I think). Then make a scan with you flatbed at whatever spi you think is MORE than the scanner will deliver (2400 spi may be a good start). Make the scan the best you can - then resize the lab scan to the same resolution (2400 spi assumed here) and compare. Do not hesitate to post process both images. If your flatbed scan is obviously less sharp - resize now both scans to 2000, 1600 ,1200 and keep comparing. At some point the difference will start to disappear.

Of course - the best is to make few prints from both scans at different sizes - just find the border when the flatbed scan will not deliver the same as lab scan or it just will not be good enough for you (I assume that happens faster than the slide runs out of data - somewhere about 8 - 10x enlargement)

Once my Microtek F1 is back form service - that's what I plan to do.

[sanking]

Just a parenthetical note, I've seen Lenny Eiger claim that the V700 or V750 has a resolution of about 1100 dpi or something like that, and others argue that such is wrong, and the resolution is 2400 dpi. I think I remember Lenny saying he'd seen those estimates of 1100 dpi from prints made from a V750 or V700 scanner at an Aztek lab. The preceding paragraph would explain the discrepancy between 2400 dpi and 1000 or 1100 dpi. The actual resolution of the scanner component is 2400 dpi (47 lp/mm); however, when scanning in something that is also 47 lp/mm, the 1/R law is probably pretty accurate, so final resolution drops to 23.5 lp/mm (1194 dpi). If that's the case, it explains the discrepancy between Lenny's estimates of the V700 / V750's resolution, and estimates made by others.



I think you are being too kind. If Aztek lab tested the V700 or V750 and only observed 1000-1100 ppi they either had a defective machine or conducted a faulty test. My testing of the V700 with a high resolution target, after adjusting for plane of best focus with the document type selected, returned a resolution of 45 lp/mm (2286 spi), where resolution is determined visually with discrimination of both horizontal and vertical lines, and about 65 lp/mm (3300 spi) when discrimination is seen in only the horizontal or vertical line pairs.

Sandy King

[Bruce M. Herman]

Sandy,

Have you ever tested the resolution of your Eversmart Pro scanner?

Bruce

[sanking]

Sandy,

Have you ever tested the resolution of your Eversmart Pro scanner?

Bruce


Bruce,

Sure, see the attached file. In my test of the Eversmart Pro I got effective resolution of about 65 lp/mm (3300 ppi) with line discrimination in both the horizontal and vertical, and about 90 lp/mm (4500 ppi) with discrimination of the pair lines in only one direction.

Sandy

[drumscanservice.nl]

totally agree with you Eric.
Hello,

We are the guys from drumscanservice.nl
We are photographers ourselfs and working on all kind of film formats.

We scan for a wide variaty of artist, photographers and museums. For more detailed information you can have a look at our site.

If you have any questions about our scan services don't hesitate to contact us.

Stark, we will also contact you offlist.

Best regards,
Aldwin and Hans




Ari sorry to say but that doesn't really sound like the way to go.. anyone disagree with that diagnosis?

I found these guys in the netherlands.

http://www.drumscanservice.nl/DRUMSCANSERVICE.html

This seems to be a pretty good deal, and seems like they've got their Sh-t together.

anyone have any experience with them?

[federico9001]

I make the scans and postproduction for Massimo Vitali.

Take a look:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/

[Noah A]

I've done a lot of scanning on both my Howtek drum scanner and on rental Hasselblad scanners. I was recently hoping to sell the drum scanner since I thought renting the hassy X1 would leave me with less overhead expenses. But upon close inspection there is a big difference between the scans so I'm hanging on tight to the Howtek.

There is a slight resolution advantage to the drum scans. I'm using an HR8000 and scanning at 4000dpi for a 1.5gb file. It's no surprise that the drum scan is sharper, the X1 maxes out at a claimed 2040 dpi for 4x5 film. But resolution is the easy part.

The drum scanner tends to minimize film grain. This is partially due to the wet mounting but has more to do with the fact that you can vary the scanning aperture. If you choose the correct aperture, it will make the grain less obvious while still maintaining sharpness and maintaining the character of the grain and the inherent look of the film.

Even more importantly, at least in my experience, the drum scanner is better at capturing a full range of tones and colors. As I said, resolution is the easy part, but getting a scan with good separation of tones throughout the range is more difficult.

A Hasselblad/Imacon scan is certainly good enough for a 40x50" if it's all you can afford. But after you consider the high costs of printing, mounting and framing a 40x50" print, it doesn't make sense to cheap out on the scans.

[false_Aesthetic]

Go call Walker at Black Point Editions. 312.491.8051
They're in Chicago.

If you doubt his tech skills google John Cone and Walker Blackwell. J.C. thinks highly of W.B. Walker's business partner, Nathan Baker repairs drum scanners. They're smart dudes that don't rip you off when it comes to pricing.


Get a drum scan . . . if you can't tell the difference at the very least you'll save an hour or two with dust-busting.

[joelio]

I make the scans and postproduction for Massimo Vitali.

Take a look:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/

These scans and prints look INCREDIBLE on Flickr. I would love to see the prints in real life - are they making their way to New York City any time soon?

Thanks.

[federico9001]

That dyptich has been bought by a collector. I don't know where it will fly....

Anyway, I can swear that the print was much sharper than a direct analogue print, superb detail, perfect image flatness border to border, very natural and smooth colors.

At Grieger Lab (Gursky's, Struth's etc. lab) they told us (to me and to Massimo) that they never saw before a higher quality file from negative, and they started asking me which scanner I used, my scan workflow etc...

It has been an impressive experience for them too.

[David Luttmann]

I just uploaded a series of test scans with my Epson V700 (http://www.tabblo.com/studio/stories/view/1771322/) of a 4x5 picture of a railroad bridge (http://www.tabblo.com/studio/stories/view/1769443/), taken with my Nikkor-SW 90/4.5 at f/16 or f/22, probably f/16. This is an exceptionally sharp lens. Hence, my tests might not be indicative, as the resolution of the 4x5 is so sharp. I've read that the 1/R formula underestimates final resolution when one component has much more resolution than another, and works best when both components of the system are of nearly the same resolution.

In any event, from my eye, at least when given a very sharp 4x5 to begin with, it seems from my scans that the V700 can produce very good 10x enlargements as seen on screen (this is about in line with estimates of the true optical resolution of the V700 being about 2400 dpi, which would suggest 8x enlargements at 300 dpi if you don't have much loss of image quality due to 1/R). But that's just from what I see; maybe those scans don't look nearly as good to you guys.

Given a negative that has exactly the same resolution as it seems the V700 has, about 2400 dpi (47 lp/mm), we can expect the final scan to be of a quality of about 23.5 lp/mm (1193.8 dpi, which can produce about a 4x enlargement, or 20x16 print). This is in line with what I've usually seen as suggested for the capabilities of the Epson V700.

Just a parenthetical note, I've seen Lenny Eiger claim that the V700 or V750 has a resolution of about 1100 dpi or something like that, and others argue that such is wrong, and the resolution is 2400 dpi. I think I remember Lenny saying he'd seen those estimates of 1100 dpi from prints made from a V750 or V700 scanner at an Aztek lab. The preceding paragraph would explain the discrepancy between 2400 dpi and 1000 or 1100 dpi. The actual resolution of the scanner component is 2400 dpi (47 lp/mm); however, when scanning in something that is also 47 lp/mm, the 1/R law is probably pretty accurate, so final resolution drops to 23.5 lp/mm (1194 dpi). If that's the case, it explains the discrepancy between Lenny's estimates of the V700 / V750's resolution, and estimates made by others.

I will be sending another copy of the 4x5 that I scanned in to Lenny to scan in at the beginning of December (after I find out if it was accepted in a photo-show). Then I will upload a crop of the same section. If I make a print for the show, of course I'll print from the drum-scan.

While I respect Lenny greatly, 1100ppi of real info from the V700 is plain wrong. I've tested mine out to around 2200ppi with 35mm and MF. I've never done a test sheet with 4x5...but I know 1100ppi is not correct, nor does it match what others have tested the V700 at either.

[Lenny Eiger]

As long as everyone is quoting me, let me correct a couple of things. I did have a 750 at one time and returned it because I didn't like the quality. I have Premier now but my early scans of film were done with a Howtek 4500. The number of 1100 was a round number off the top of my head that expressed more the frustration I had with the device than actual fact - and it was a long time ago. It's may not be that far off, 30-50%, that is, unless you align the scanner, possibly wet mount and are generally very careful, which are all things one should do. In that case, I will happily defer to Sandy, who is quite knowledgeable, and was quite right to correct me when I quoted those numbers earlier. I think the 700-750, properly tuned, is probably capable of 2000-2300, as Sandy says. Aztek's tests on the scannerforum site were done long before the 7xx series. I think it was a 1640.

For comparison, and in this case quoting Aztek's numbers, the Premier is capable of 7264. It's quite a difference. Scans come out sharp, and usually don't require any sharpening at all. The thing sucks the marrow out of a piece of film.

Overall, I think PMT technology is unquestionably better in general than the CCD technology, a little in resolution, more in range and number of colors reproduced. I know they can be expensive and I appreciate that not everyone can afford one of these. If I was going to do a 50 inch print, however, I would use one myself... and it probably wouldn't be the cheapest one either. We all know that the operator is a major factor in the scans, and they need time to do their job well.

I just did a whole series for someone at a deep discount. When he makes a little money from his efforts, he will move up to a more reasonable price, so I can eat, too. We are all in this together...

I hope this clears a few things up...

Lenny

[Peter De Smidt]

Nice post, Lenny.

[Nathan Potter]

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6171/6154033421_f5c72e4169_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/argiolus/6154033421/)
EPSONcont-web-1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/argiolus/6154033421/) by hypolimnas (http://www.flickr.com/people/argiolus/), on Flickr

I checked out an Epson V750 several months back using a glass plate resolution target. I wanted to get some idea of contrast at a particular resolution. After carefully getting the best focus point (3.37 mm. above the platen) I scanned an arrayed chrome target on glass with the emulsion facing down. I used a flat scan, linear tone scale with no adjustments to collect a full tonal range. No sharpening. B&W Negative Film setting. 2400 dpi.

Moved the file to PS and viewed at 1600% then density measured each pixel across the line pairs. Probably rather unconventional but it gave me the info I wanted in order to understand how my images were being converted to digital. The resulting plot is above.

Actually I think Lennys comment of 1100 spi has merit. The contrast I see at about 1100 spi in is about 80% and crisp enough in detail and tone discrimination to call this near maximum performance for this scanner. 50% contrast occurs at about 1500 spi also a very useful setting. 2000 spi approaches a lower limit for using the full tonal range and it is about gone at say 2250 spi. I assume the non linearity at the toe and shoulder of the curve represents a saturation due to scattered light within the device and possibly other factors I haven't contemplated about - and can't worry about.

This is far short of the finest drum scans but OTOH it takes remarkable film images to make use of the best drum scans.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[rdenney]

2000 spi approaches a lower limit for using the full tonal range and it is about gone at say 2250 spi.

I suspect that 20% MTF at 2000 could be improved using sharpening, though doing so may create false detail and other sharpening artifacts. But with reasonable sharpening, 2000 may be good enough. Had you sharpened your scan, the line pixels would have been darkened with respect to the space pixels, assuming appropriate radius settings.

Rick "an illusion that works" Denney

[Frank Petronio]

....We all know that the operator is a major factor in the scans, and they need time to do their job well....

+1

I'd look at the budget and work backwards with what you have... maybe you can't afford to do such large prints well, in which case you should modify the parameters.

It would make a lot of sense to run some tests, do one image with high-end everything, do another with a less expensive workflow... do your best effort with both and hang them up, get some opinions from people you respect.

Test and Verify....

Overall on the RFF the idiots are saying the Epson is comparable to a film scanner, etc. and then another guy will gripe about $2 scans from Costco... so I would take all this internet banter with a grain of salt.

[Lenny Eiger]

Overall on the RFF the idiots are saying the Epson is comparable to a film scanner, etc. and then another guy will gripe about $2 scans from Costco... so I would take all this internet banter with a grain of salt.

I think there is a lot of good advice given out here. Many times, I think the answer comes too quickly. For example, the answer to "which film is best" requires an examination of what the goal is, and that is often not clarified before folks go off on their opinions. Overall, however, I think we have a pretty good group with experts on many different subjects that keep people in check (sometimes even me).

When I go out to photo.net and luminous landscape I find the most awful advice being given by some of the most non-knowledgeable people. It's often just so far off the mark its ridiculous. It makes it very difficult to participate... and I just leave...

Is it just me?

Lenny

[rdenney]

Is it just me?

No.

People often come into large format with limited photographic experience, thinking that with the right big box they can make huge prints like those they see in Peter Lik's galleries (sorry, that was a bit too editorial). It's like they want to arrive at the destination without having traveled the road. For any form of art that requires high levels of technique, the road has to provide its own satisfactions, because the destination is glimpsed all too infrequently. With large format, there is more journey than destination, and lots of us have been taking baby steps on that road for decades. And the road has many branches, crossings, and parallel paths, all of which can be explored, but some of which come to a dead end and require backtracking.

So, they jump into large format thinking it's the magic bullet, only to discover that they still can't get that tack-sharp 40x50" print because nothing seems to be sharp printed that large. They think they must need a better scanner. So, they pay guys like you lots to work your magic, and guess what? It's still fuzzy. Maybe they stopped down too far, or not far enough. Or everything in the photo was blowing in the wind throughout the exposure. Or they used a tiny aperture instead of a careful choice of where the focal plane should be, resulting in too long an exposure and lots of diffraction. Or maybe they used a sub-optimal film and developer combination, or the negative is too thick, or whatever. It takes a little while for them to realize that large format is a sort of quality catechism, where every link in the chain is equally important and has to be learned deeply, starting with knowing what times, places, and conditions are even conducive to making that quality possible.

To me, the scanning is one of the last links in the chain, and in many ways the least important. If I produce a photograph worthy of being printed 40x50, and anything important is riding on doing so, then I'll get the negative drum-scanned, because at that size, quality has to be a religious pursuit. I have no place to hang 16x20 prints, and most of those prints I've made even that size sit in a map case or are leaned up against the wall behind a closet door. But I can make 16x20 prints that please me using stuff I can (barely) afford to buy and maintain in my home. Even if my prints are never seen by anyone but me, I know I made them and they are milestones on that road. I may never reach a destination, but that's okay--we learn a catechism because the purity of travel is as meaningful to us as the destination.

Back in my triathlon days, there was a pearl of wisdom that floated around among runners: Running a fast 5K takes as much training and dedication (and talent) as running a fast marathon. Greg Lemond: "It doesn't hurt any less, you just go faster." Those who want to jump from their DSLR to making good 40x50 prints should learn to make good 16x20's first, and that can be done with Epson stuff. I've heard people on this forum say that at that size, 4x5 is no better than 6x7 or a high-end DSLR, but that's not the point. It is harder to make a good 16x20 with a 4x5 camera than it is to make a good 16x20 with, say, a Pentax 6x7. But once they have learned the catechism well enough to produce real quality at 16x20, the 40x50 prints will be a lot easier to approach, and they'll know the answer to questions like these without having to ask a bunch of strangers.

Rick "right there with you" Denney

[David Luttmann]

As long as everyone is quoting me, let me correct a couple of things. I did have a 750 at one time and returned it because I didn't like the quality. I have Premier now but my early scans of film were done with a Howtek 4500. The number of 1100 was a round number off the top of my head that expressed more the frustration I had with the device than actual fact - and it was a long time ago. It's may not be that far off, 30-50%, that is, unless you align the scanner, possibly wet mount and are generally very careful, which are all things one should do. In that case, I will happily defer to Sandy, who is quite knowledgeable, and was quite right to correct me when I quoted those numbers earlier. I think the 700-750, properly tuned, is probably capable of 2000-2300, as Sandy says. Aztek's tests on the scannerforum site were done long before the 7xx series. I think it was a 1640.

For comparison, and in this case quoting Aztek's numbers, the Premier is capable of 7264. It's quite a difference. Scans come out sharp, and usually don't require any sharpening at all. The thing sucks the marrow out of a piece of film.

Overall, I think PMT technology is unquestionably better in general than the CCD technology, a little in resolution, more in range and number of colors reproduced. I know they can be expensive and I appreciate that not everyone can afford one of these. If I was going to do a 50 inch print, however, I would use one myself... and it probably wouldn't be the cheapest one either. We all know that the operator is a major factor in the scans, and they need time to do their job well.

I just did a whole series for someone at a deep discount. When he makes a little money from his efforts, he will move up to a more reasonable price, so I can eat, too. We are all in this together...

I hope this clears a few things up...

Lenny

Thanks Lenny.