Imacon and 4x5

[Daniel Stone]

The REAL problem that (I) see happening now is that the manufacturers/support companies that REALLY KNOW the machines in question are getting scarce(r) by the year. As reported above(I'll still be giving Evan @ Aztek a call myself to substantiate the claim) that no newly-made machines are being produced, we're looking at a finite timeline here w/ being able to get parts, service and support for these wonderful machines.

Stone/gmed:
Yes, as Lenny let onto, I have a DPL8000. It's the precursory model to the "current" Premier model. There were some changes made to the Premier(especially the most recent ones) from the DPL8000, but they're almost the same machine. Same optics/PMT's IIRC. Same software set(DPL). Anyhow, I love it. I haven't used it since Sept of last year, as I moved out of my apt, and right now it's sitting, waiting to go to my friends house while I move away for (at least) a few years. I might sell it, I don't want to see it just sit unused. It's a machine that needs to be used. IDK, I'm even with what I've got into it by a long shot, but I really have no hardcore affiliation/brand loyalty to one company vs. another. Karl Hudson(Hudson Grafik Services) was really helpful when I was researching the Heidelberg lineup of scanners, and he (almost) sold me an 8400 system(I guess Tim Parkin actually just bought, snake !). Such is life. So I "ended up" with a DPL8000. A much smaller machine size-wise than the Heidelberg, but since Karl still services these machines regularly, I know the Heidelbergs(heck, even an "ancient" Tango!) still deliver great scans. It all comes down to the operator. I'm no where near the operator skill-level of someone like Lenny, but he does it as a business. He HAS to deliver kick-a$$ results to his customers(many here on LFF!). I did the math, and it was more cost effective for me to buy a used scanner and do it myself than send out. My projected usage ended up being 3x what it turned out to actually be used for, oh well.
Since I still like to shoot "small" formats(now it's mostly a GX680 system, hardly small :P), a drum scan can really pull out EVERYTHING from the film. After I shot some of my first test rolls with the GX when I got it, I mounted the chromes(Provia) up on the drum, and scanned them. Holy s***, I almost decided to give up LF at that point and time. I was scanning 6x8 transparencies at 8000dpi and my files were(IIRC) approx 2gb. Nutso. Way bigger than anything I'd ever need. Long story short, I'm still shooting LF(5x7 mostly, some 4x5 when my 450 Fuji isn't long enough to "fill the frame")... And I no longer scan 6x8's @ 8000dpi, just 2666dpi or 4000dpi if it's a real "winner" of a shot. Hard drives are cheap these days, and it's easier to save files away in the archives than re-scan later if I need a larger starting file because I want to print bigger than the original scan will allow. I'm a fanatic for maximum quality. "Do it right the first time, or don't do it at all" is my philosophy. In everything actually. Saves time, energy and capital in the long run.

I'd highly recommend taking steps slowly when it comes to these machines. Heck, I've even seen you talking about "moving up" to 8x10, Stone. 8X10 is wonderful, but I found quite cumbersome, even when working close to the car. I didn't want to move all the way down to 4x5, as I felt I still wanted more film real estate to work with than 4x5 would allow. I settled on 5x7, and thus far, I've loved the format a great deal. Just as portable as a 4x5 camera, and the holders don't seem excessively large like an 8x10 does. I've assisted a photographer a few years back who shoots 8x20(Michael Smith), and he makes contact prints. He needs those large negatives for that purpose. Horses for courses, of course. I'm not deterring you from going up to 8x10, just really contemplate that move. "Make no small plans" a wise man once told me. I wish I'd have heeded that sage advice more closely in the past few years. I'm now learning after-the-fact.

An Epson V750 w/ the wetmount tray can do a good bit, probably enough for most people's needs on a day-to-day basis. Wet mounting is NEEDED(IMO) for maximizing quality. It also helps in reducing post time to a minimum(especially with dust spotting!). An IQSmart/Eversmart Supreme(I/II) is even better, and many say it would rival a drum scan. I can't compare them myself, as I've never used one. But I know that many really like them(no 'high speed spinning drum').
Drum scanners are still used regularly. Not as regularly as 'back in the day', but still on a regular basis in major markets. even if amateurs who demand the highest quality, and are willing to pay for it, are there as the primary basis. But operating one takes skill, technical know-how, and a good deal of knowledge on the craft to really make things shine. But when you're "in the groove" and have a system that works well consistently, there's nothing like the feeling of being TOTALLY IN CONTROL of the entire process. It just makes things much more enjoyable, repeatable, and in the end, more productive. Scanning is no longer a "chore", but even if challenging to get 'just right', it's much easier than dicking around with sliders and attempting to band-aid the original scan to get something usable. Opening that well-done scan in PS, and spending under 5mins dust-busting @ 100%, seeing the amazing level of detail captured, and knowing that you can make a killer hi-res print of that shot. But then you see what it'll cost to make all these "hi-res prints", and you'll just file the scan away for a rainy day, as I've done most of the time

But just an FYI: these machines can be MONEY PITS. Nothing is guaranteed to work for life, and as we all know, electronics can be fickle, fickle, fickle. Even if parts are "still available" and the manufacturer can be called up on the phone M-F,9-5, you can cook your wallet to a crisp in a single blow. Last time I asked Evan @ Aztek about the replacement cost on a main board for the Premier, it was ~$7k or so. Yeah.......

I'm off to bed, I've got to hit Wally-world @6am, hopefully some .22 ammo will be left for me this time ! Shooting this weekend(guns; and cameras! Gotta feed both addictions!)

-Dan

[StoneNYC]

Don't worry Dan,

I won't be changing from the 750 anytime soon, it's good enough for what I need, I'll just go up in format size hah!

[koh303]

you can load whatever you want into the holders, sheet film or roll film

I've done it, but frankly I'd rather work with a drum scan(hence why I bought one) in the end when working with high(er) dpi settings. The Imacon/Flextights just didn't cut it vs a well done, wet-mounted drum scan(especially on transparencies, with their deep shadow details that got really muddy on the Imacons, in my experience)

-Dan

You can load anything, but the amount of work to stitch, IMO, does not equal the amount of extra "real estate" earned, as in most cases printers, especially when printing large use a lower DPI count, and today's modern RIPs offer such amazing and seamless interpolating and spooling that you can go from relatively small files to huge prints and not see the difference (we have been testing this in the real world with various applications, form epson scanners, to imacon, from light jet to HP and Epson printers).

I dont know about drum scanners, but as for Imacons not having parts - the entire machine (save the housing and cosmetic trims) is made of fully generic and readily available parts: the electronics, the boards, the relays, the bulbs, the motors and pullies as well as the belts and drive units. There is a guy who is now making low cost carriers (we have a few and they are actually a bit better then the original under heavy use), so i would not put an expiration date on this technology quite yet.

[onnect17]

As many expressed it here in the forum, each scanner has pros and cons but allow me to get my two cents in.

Instead of comparing them in resolving power I prefer to look in both components, luminance and chroma, because that's how you see the biggest difference.

I spent some time using an Imacon 343. Great, reliable scanner. Still a CCD scanner. It does not scan pixel by pixel so, and like any digital camera a significant amount of lot of light ends up in the nearby cells (that's why you image from the digital camera looks better with a simple touch in the gamma). The luminance, great. Color, not as pure as the drum scanner. Also because the lamp is not "loop regulated" the temperature changes the output of the lamp over time, enough to notice it with a 3200 dpi scan of the two sections of the 4x5. Also, the lens (magnagon) as expected, introduces a little bit of distortion near the edges, also to be considered during stitching operations.

The other side of the coin, let's say a basic drum scanner as the D4000. Luminance wise, I think I would get more from the Imacon from BW negatives. However I would keep the rich chroma output of color film out of the drum scanner every time.

At the end is, like mentioned in previous posts, more about what can we afford, at what time, maintenance costs, productivity, etc. Technology and capabilities becomes secondary.

[Lenny Eiger]

I have only owned a 4500 and a Premier. I've also compared a lot of other scanners' files. I've never had any issue getting down into the really dense areas, or getting every last bit out of the really light areas of a b&w negative. I have looked at Imacon scans and they aren't bad. However, taking one sample at at time, as you say, is the best method, for a lot of reasons.

Imacon has always overstated its range. They chose to use a theoretical value vs a real one and got everyone in the scanner world pissed off. Then came the rest claiming they had x amount of resolution, with Epson even claiming 6400 optical rez, which is ridiculous. In the absence of real independent testing, we are all on our own. That said, I wouldn't imagine that Imacon's luminance would be better than even a 4000. Of course, I don't own a 4000 so this is my guess... and not to be taken as established fact.

Once one gets in the drum scanner range, or lets say optical resolution above consumer level, say, perhaps 4000, then one looks to the ability of the scanner to make a "good" scan. What the heck is that!? I define a good scan in two ways. 1) It has to have smooth transitions from one tone to the next, and 2) each level of tonality has to separate out from the one next to it, so that the person printing the image can grab these tones and manipulate them to an expressive print, in the style that is desired. Of course, this is where the operator comes in, experience using the scanner and seeing results, etc. It's not any different from tuning one's development times for best results, its an iterative process.

There is a lot of talk about sharpness. We all have cameras with swings and tilts, and do our best to choose our lenses with care. However, only small percentage of us have an aesthetic that speaks to absolute sharpness. (Maybe the tabletop folks.) Certainly not the landscape crowd where leaves move in the breeze, or portraits where people have the audacity to breathe... I was looking just yesterday at my comparisons between f22 and f45 and I couldn't see one drop of difference. However, I also noticed that the images were a little too sharp, not particularly pleasant to look at. For most of us (not all) the difference between 100% sharp and 98 or 99% wouldn't make any difference. It's the composition, the sense of atmosphere, or the tonalities in the mid tones, that make the image for us, among a lot of other things, or using a lot of different words for these concerns.

Scanning is certainly an art vs a science. There are a lot of decisions that get made. It's my opinion that one will be more successful is one is clear about the goal.

Lenny

[Deepak Kumar]

I am using X5 and right now I am trying to see if this is possible. If you try to scan 4X5 end to end using 120 holder, some part of 4X5 negative is over lapping on the edge of holder that is meant to
go under roller to insert and drive the holder. This may also get the 4x5 film tangled in scanner and damage it as far as I understand. I would not put my precious films in such situation.

Secondly Since X5 is built like a tank, its holder drive mechanism is pretty strong and if films get stuck, it would be really difficult to retrieve it.

[Bernice Loui]

IMO, there is an over obsession with Sharpness among too many photographers with the belief that shaper, higher contrast is what makes a better image. On the other end, there is extreme pictorialism where image of formless mush rule.

I'm not convinced either extremes alone are going to result in truly great expressive images. Great expressive images requires much more with sharpness, contrast range, and many other factors contributing to the finished result.

Every step, item, tool in the image making process from film or image sensor, lens, camera, scanning, chemistry, print paper, print mounting and more are all mere tools in the process to the creation of that finished print. No one single factor alone is going to make the finished print great. With this in mind, much of what the finished print becomes depends much on the individual making the print, their skills at using these tools, their creativity, their vision and who they are all become embossed into the end result


Bernice

There is a lot of talk about sharpness. We all have cameras with swings and tilts, and do our best to choose our lenses with care. However, only small percentage of us have an aesthetic that speaks to absolute sharpness. (Maybe the tabletop folks.) Certainly not the landscape crowd where leaves move in the breeze, or portraits where people have the audacity to breathe... I was looking just yesterday at my comparisons between f22 and f45 and I couldn't see one drop of difference. However, I also noticed that the images were a little too sharp, not particularly pleasant to look at. For most of us (not all) the difference between 100% sharp and 98 or 99% wouldn't make any difference. It's the composition, the sense of atmosphere, or the tonalities in the mid tones, that make the image for us, among a lot of other things, or using a lot of different words for these concerns.

Scanning is certainly an art vs a science. There are a lot of decisions that get made. It's my opinion that one will be more successful is one is clear about the goal.

Lenny

[ScottPhotoCo]

IMO, there is an over obsession with Sharpness among too many photographers with the belief that shaper, higher contrast is what makes a better image. On the other end, there is extreme pictorialism where image of formless mush rule.

I'm not convinced either extremes alone are going to result in truly great expressive images. Great expressive images requires much more with sharpness, contrast range, and many other factors contributing to the finished result.

Every step, item, tool in the image making process from film or image sensor, lens, camera, scanning, chemistry, print paper, print mounting and more are all mere tools in the process to the creation of that finished print. No one single factor alone is going to make the finished print great. With this in mind, much of what the finished print becomes depends much on the individual making the print, their skills at using these tools, their creativity, their vision and who they are all become embossed into the end result


Bernice

Amen.

[StoneNYC]

I think, to me, and maybe subconsciously to others, really the whole sharpish issue really has to just do with the fact that...

If you have an image that is supposed to start sharp and then move increasingly into an unsharp image, giving you some depth etc., that with that particular kind of image you would want something to be sharp at the sharp part and unsharp at the unsharp part, if you have an image that is supposed to be completely sharp all the way through, for example a large landscape where you want everything to be in focus and sharp, then you would want the whole image to be sharp, this isn't as important when you're talking about smaller images, but when you're talking about blowing something up to a very large size, and you're not using a traditional and larger and instead you're using a scanner, the scanners quality comes into play, perhaps you May currently only need to blow things up to 11 x 14 which is easily done with a very sharp results with any normal scanner, but in the future you may want to sell 20 x 24 prints or larger, and in preparation for that would put for two do scanning once rather than have to do it again and additional time later on.

So having a sharp image to begin with is important, also, if image sharpness weren't important then, film makers would not have ever worked on find her grained images and we would all be shooting on superfast 3200 speed film most of the time and be able to handled everything, because it wouldn't matter how sharp the image was, so obviously sharpness is important to the majority. Is only one aspect of photography, there are many others that are also important, but this one is certainly a concern when it comes to non-traditional methods of printing, I also think it's a valid one that should be discussed from time to time as new or machines come out, or older machines of higher-quality become more financially accessible to those of us who could not afford them at the original price.

That's all I've got

[Lenny Eiger]

I don't ever want to go from sharp to unsharp, I'm a depth of field guy. There is sharp, and there is super sharp. When you see a tabletop image, the super contrasty condensation drops on the coke can, that is super sharp. The image is about sharpness, and appropriate techniques should be used to accomplish the desired effect.

However, this is the difference that we are talking about. We all want sharp to be sharp. It just doesn't need to look like a image shot with a flash - if one isn't using one.

Lenny