UK drum scanning

[David Higgs]

any recommendations? I can find lots of people who will scan with a flextight, and lots of dead ends, where they have lost staff or don't have a scanner anymore.

Any UK versions of Lenny Eiger around?

[Aled Hughes]

I can highly recommend Tristran

http://www.tristancampbell.co.uk/drum-scanning/default.aspx

[Rod_B]

Hi David,

Try Tim Parkin (Leeds) at http://cheapdrumscanning.com

or

Ian Scovell (Isle of Wight) at http://www.ianscovell.com/isleofwight/filmscanningservice.html

Regards,

Rod.

[David Higgs]

cheers I'm going to try Tim out, will report back if anyone interested!

[Lenny Eiger]

cheers I'm going to try Tim out, will report back if anyone interested!

This fellow has been a frequent contributor to the Scan Hi-End list, and a good friend:

Richard Kenward <www.artisan-digital-services.co.uk>
phone +44(0)1873 890456

Lenny

[David Higgs]

thanks Lenny, I've sent some images off to Tim, but have a large back catalogue - so am just dipping my toe in the water at the moment - thanks again

[mortensen]

Thanks a LOT for the Tim Parkin link. Guess what, I will now try drum scanning :)
I remember his comparisons here at the forum, but I didn't know that he offered this great deal. sweet!

[aluncrockford]

As an alternative you might want to look here

http://www.isislondon.co.uk/

[Professional]

Those threads or topics killing me to get a drum scanner, our lab in my country charging a lot of drum scanning, so i will save up in the future and buy a new drum scanner that is available, the Hasselblad, then i will be so happy to shoot film forever.

[David Higgs]

I can confirm that Tims results and customer care are outstanding

my only problem now is all those images I thought looked pretty good scanned on my Epson...don't look as good anymore:)

[mortensen]

perfect... he'll get a busy summer :)

tell us a little - did you choose 2000dpi or 4000dpi? did you have the same image scanned at both resolutions...? only slide or also negative film?

[Noah A]

Those threads or topics killing me to get a drum scanner, our lab in my country charging a lot of drum scanning, so i will save up in the future and buy a new drum scanner that is available, the Hasselblad, then i will be so happy to shoot film forever.

Hasselblad doesn't make a drum scanner.

[Professional]

Hasselblad doesn't make a drum scanner.

And what about the Flextight, which company is it belong?

[mortensen]

Imacon/Hasselblad Flextights are 'virtual' (whatever that's supposed to mean) drumscanners, ie. not drum scanners. They use CCD's. They do deliver really good results, though - just not as good as drum scanners.

[Noah A]

And what about the Flextight, which company is it belong?

The Hasselblads and Imacons, as Mortensen said, are not drum scanners. They are ccd scanners that flex your film to keep it flat without mounting it on a drum.

They are very good for CCD scanners, but there is a difference. Don't believe the marketing hype.

I had some Imacon scans done at a local lab and they were most definitely NOT consistently sharp across the entire frame.

And the flextight scanners only reach their maximum resolution with small format film. With 4x5 they're limited to 2040dpi if I remember correctly.

A real drum scanner uses PMTs instead of CCDs and the film is fluid mounted on a drum which does result in perfectly focused grain across the whole piece of film.

[Professional]

Imacon/Hasselblad Flextights are 'virtual' (whatever that's supposed to mean) drumscanners, ie. not drum scanners. They use CCD's. They do deliver really good results, though - just not as good as drum scanners.


The Hasselblads and Imacons, as Mortensen said, are not drum scanners. They are ccd scanners that flex your film to keep it flat without mounting it on a drum.

They are very good for CCD scanners, but there is a difference. Don't believe the marketing hype.

I had some Imacon scans done at a local lab and they were most definitely NOT consistently sharp across the entire frame.

And the flextight scanners only reach their maximum resolution with small format film. With 4x5 they're limited to 2040dpi if I remember correctly.

A real drum scanner uses PMTs instead of CCDs and the film is fluid mounted on a drum which does result in perfectly focused grain across the whole piece of film.

OK, i thought when i have read virtual drum it means it is a drum scanner, but now i stand corrected.
Well, in this case i should look for a real drum scanner and not a virtual one, and why it is so pricey of that Imacon or say Flextight? If it is so expensive and don't give same quality as a true drum scanner then i better spend on a drum scanner, so that means i have to check which drum scanner i have to get, Howtek, Aztek, something else?

[Professional]

So if i use a fluid mount on my Epson V750, will i get better results than just dry scan? So if i use a fluid mount on any scanner that does film scan, will that give significantly better scan quality?

[mortensen]

Well, I can't really answer these questions, but there are LOTS and LOTS of threads here on the forum addressing all your questions. Spend some time searching in here.
As for the Imacons and their pricetags, I would mention two aspects:
- I have had consistently good (well, why not say excellent) results from them for one and a half years and 2040 ppi is the same resolution Tim Parkins suggests for drum scanning. If your negative is sharp, you get a file that can take a 10 times enlargement and still produce sharp 200dpi at 40x50" in print.
- Imacons are FAST. Really fast. One 2040ppi 4x5 scan takes around 4mins and no need for flluid mounting etc etc.

I'm certainly no expert in these fields, but if you look at a time/quality ratio, Imacons do a very good job imo.

[Professional]

Well, I can't really answer these questions, but there are LOTS and LOTS of threads here on the forum addressing all your questions. Spend some time searching in here.
As for the Imacons and their pricetags, I would mention two aspects:
- I have had consistently good (well, why not say excellent) results from them for one and a half years and 2040 ppi is the same resolution Tim Parkins suggests for drum scanning. If your negative is sharp, you get a file that can take a 10 times enlargement and still produce sharp 200dpi at 40x50" in print.
- Imacons are FAST. Really fast. One 2040ppi 4x5 scan takes around 4mins and no need for flluid mounting etc etc.

I'm certainly no expert in these fields, but if you look at a time/quality ratio, Imacons do a very good job imo.

I sure care about the quality, but the time is not an issue for me, i mean how long that a drum scanner will take over Imacons, 1 hour or 2?
I just want to be sure if i will see a big difference between virtual drum scanner and a true drum scanner if i want to print up to 40x60" [17-24" wide are minimum, even A3 i consider as a standard small].

[Noah A]

My Howtek 8000 takes about 20 minutes to do a 4000dpi 16-bit scan on a 4x5 negative. I've never done imacon/hasselblad scans myself so I don't know how long they take. Time isn't a concern for me. The nice thing is that I can set up four negs then walk away for a while while the scanner does its work. The batch workflow is great.

Of course it takes a bit longer to mount the negs on the drum. I'd say about five minutes to fill a drum with 4-4x5 negs.

The resulting file is 1.6gb and prints very well, even at huge sizes up to 60x75in.

[mortensen]

Time has been an issue for me, since I've had only renting acces to Imacons (I sure don't have $20k to buy one). So being able to scan 10 4x5" negs an hour has given me an opportunity to scan relatively large amounts of images in a comparatively good quality at a bargain price.

@ professional: If quality is the major concern (which it of course is for most LF-photographers), one could also consider moving up in format to 8x10...? Four times the area.

@ Noah: How was the learning curve when you bought the Howtek? Just curious... most people say it is immensely complicated, but I somehow suspect it not to be :)

[Professional]

My Howtek 8000 takes about 20 minutes to do a 4000dpi 16-bit scan on a 4x5 negative. I've never done imacon/hasselblad scans myself so I don't know how long they take. Time isn't a concern for me. The nice thing is that I can set up four negs then walk away for a while while the scanner does its work. The batch workflow is great.

Of course it takes a bit longer to mount the negs on the drum. I'd say about five minutes to fill a drum with 4-4x5 negs.

The resulting file is 1.6gb and prints very well, even at huge sizes up to 60x75in.

Now where i can find that Howtek 8000 :( Even i was thinking about Heidelberg drum scanner, but i will have long time to find one out there over ebay or somewhere else.

[Professional]

Time has been an issue for me, since I've had only renting acces to Imacons (I sure don't have $20k to buy one). So being able to scan 10 4x5" negs an hour has given me an opportunity to scan relatively large amounts of images in a comparatively good quality at a bargain price.

@ professional: If quality is the major concern (which it of course is for most LF-photographers), one could also consider moving up in format to 8x10...? Four times the area.

@ Noah: How was the learning curve when you bought the Howtek? Just curious... most people say it is immensely complicated, but I somehow suspect it not to be :)

@ mortensen: No rush, i will move to 8x10 later in the future, i still plan to get one, just i have to understand how to use 4x5 and enjoy it a bit more then i will be ready to go larger, just i hope there will be film 8x10 that time i move up, then i don't know which scanner i need to scan 8x10 if i want a drum scanner, i think my V750 will be excellent for 8x10 over 4x5 and smaller formats.

[Noah A]

Mortensen--The learning curve wasn't too bad. Mounting is a bit of an acquired skill but I was getting usable scans basically right away. Having said that, after doing it for a while I now get less dust and no more bubbles. (I also switched from Prazio supplies to Kami supplies, and I think the Kami fluid is much better).

It's not as hard as some people will have you think. The key, as Lenny always says, is controlling the tonal range and making sure you have good separation of tones so you can make a good print. This is no different with a drum than with any other scanner, but most drum scanning software is a bit more powerful than consumer scan software. I bought my scanner on Ebay from a local photographer who gave me an afternoon of training when I picked it up. And by the way, I spent less than the price of a used Imacon.

Professional--If you plan to go 8x10 definitely don't go for an Imacon, since they can't scan that large. And if you're going to switch to 8x10 for quality reasons, you'll really need to drum scan. In my opinion, drum scanned 4x5 looks better than epson scanned 8x10. I would say imacon scanned 4x5 is also better than 8x10 on the epson.

When I shot 8x10 I only used my Epson scans for prints under 16x20in. Epsons don't cut it for large prints in my opinion.

Now that I have the drum scanner, I considered giving 8x10 a try again since I could scan it easily. But honestly, the hassles with getting enough DOF, the large camera and large everything else aren't worth dealing with considering how good the quality is from 4x5.

Drum scanned 4x5 can look really good. I routinely print 40x50 with great results. And I've done some test prints at 60x75in and they look really amazing considering the size. Frankly, I don't see the point in shooting a larger format since I can't afford to print that big anyway.

[Professional]

Mortensen--The learning curve wasn't too bad. Mounting is a bit of an acquired skill but I was getting usable scans basically right away. Having said that, after doing it for a while I now get less dust and no more bubbles. (I also switched from Prazio supplies to Kami supplies, and I think the Kami fluid is much better).

It's not as hard as some people will have you think. The key, as Lenny always says, is controlling the tonal range and making sure you have good separation of tones so you can make a good print. This is no different with a drum than with any other scanner, but most drum scanning software is a bit more powerful than consumer scan software. I bought my scanner on Ebay from a local photographer who gave me an afternoon of training when I picked it up. And by the way, I spent less than the price of a used Imacon.

Professional--If you plan to go 8x10 definitely don't go for an Imacon, since they can't scan that large. And if you're going to switch to 8x10 for quality reasons, you'll really need to drum scan. In my opinion, drum scanned 4x5 looks better than epson scanned 8x10. I would say imacon scanned 4x5 is also better than 8x10 on the epson.

When I shot 8x10 I only used my Epson scans for prints under 16x20in. Epsons don't cut it for large prints in my opinion.

Now that I have the drum scanner, I considered giving 8x10 a try again since I could scan it easily. But honestly, the hassles with getting enough DOF, the large camera and large everything else aren't worth dealing with considering how good the quality is from 4x5.

Drum scanned 4x5 can look really good. I routinely print 40x50 with great results. And I've done some test prints at 60x75in and they look really amazing considering the size. Frankly, I don't see the point in shooting a larger format since I can't afford to print that big anyway.

Thank you very much!

I will have a big difficult time to find one drum scanner to be shipped to my country, here i can't find any drum scanner, even the lab i use for processing my films they have only Imacons, but i heard the guy said that they can scan 8x10, i heard him said we have another Imacon for 8x10 or maybe 8x10 drum scanner, so which drum scanner they have for 8x10? if there is no Imacon can scan 8x10 then definitely they have a true drum scanner, too bad i don't have 8x10 film or camera to try them, but i wish if they can sell that 8x10 drum scanner so i will take it in no time :(

[Karl Hudson]

I agree with Lenny and can totally recommend Richard Kenward too. He has two Heidelberg Primescans. I visited his place back in February and he's a perfectionist in everything he does! Nothing against Tim though! Haven't been to his place and I don't know what he's running for a drum scanner...

[timparkin]

I agree with Lenny and can totally recommend Richard Kenward too. He has two Heidelberg Primescans. I visited his place back in February and he's a perfectionist in everything he does! Nothing against Tim though! Haven't been to his place and I don't know what he's running for a drum scanner...

Hi Karl,

I'm using a Howtek 4500 which produces very good results - probably not as good as Richard's Primescans but the price is very different too. I don't bother offering different prices for lots of different image sizes. Flat £15 for a 4x5 2000dpi and £25 for a 4000dpi (£12 for a medium format 4000dpi).

I run a landscape photography magazine, photography and web development business and so the scanner gets a free home and my only costs are scanner maintenance, consumables and time. Normally I wouldn't recommend someone who operates a drum scanner as a part time job but I put the same effort into scanning customers as I do my own (and I'm quite fussy).

David Whistance does a very good job too, and for Imacon scans, Ian Scovell's are good (most Imacon's aren't set up particularly well - Ian's are an exception).

Tim