Shadow detail & flatbeds

[Al Seyle]

I've seen references suggesting one of the shortcomings of consumer-level flatbed scanners is their inability to dig out shadow detail from transparencies (compared to drum scanners). Conversely, does that mean they also have trouble getting highlight detail from color neg? Seems logical--but what is your experience?

[tim atherton]

I think, not necessarily, because the density range of neg film is less than that of transparency (I think I've said that the right way round...) for one thing?

I get comparatively good highlight detail from negative film on my flatbed.

[Ted Harris]

Tim is right, the issue is with shadow detail from trannies. OTOH you should see for yourself if the loss of shadow detail is significant enough to matter to you. A lot will depend onhow large you print. That said I absolutely see the difference but I am hyper picky.

[Al Seyle]

To put put it more to the point, would shooting color neg and scanning on a 4990 produce a scan with more tonal range than shooting chrome?

[Ted Harris]

Maybe and maybe not. All depends on the negative in question, the way the film was shot and scanned, etc. There really are no magic bullets here. The DMax of the 4990 is 2.25 which is significantly less than the tonal range of most olor neative film and definitely less than that of most transparency film. You may 'see' more apparent range but if you re dealing with a full range negative then something will be lost. It may not be noticable in smaller prints, that was my point above. It may also not be noticable depending on how you manipulate the colors.

The diference between the 4990 at 2.25 or even the Microtek 1800f at a bit over 2.5 is still no comparison to the drum scanners and high end flatbeds that deliver in the range of an honest 4 which equals or exceeds the range of all films I can think of. There is no getting around that you will see the difference in the final print. In smaller prints it will be subtle but will become more and more obvious as you print larger.

[Michael Heald]

Hello! I'm confused by the scan to paper transition and the importance of Dmin and Dmax. From The Print by Ansel Adams, most papers seem to have a density range of about 2.1 (Dmin to Dmax range). Does this corresond to density ranges on digital prints?

I would think that digital prints have much less Dmin to Dmax range than the 4.0 that one can obtain from drum scans of negatives. In such cases, is there an advantage to such a high density range from a drum scan?

I know that the better the density range obtained, the more image editing that can be performed, but presuming a reasonably good negative that does not require much editing, how much difference would be seen on larger prints, say 16x20, with good scans made on a drum scanner with a Dmax of say 4 and a consumer flatbed that has a Dmax of 2.2? I don't mean sharpness or detail, but purely from density range?

Thank you and best regards.

Mike

[JW Dewdney]

Michael,
There is always a compression of DR from film to print - it's just the nature of the material. Anything transparent, generally speaking is going to have a higher DR - whereas reflective surfaces are limited by the substrate.

But generally speaking - no, most consumer flatbeds are very poor (IMO) in the tonal accuracy and DR dept. You'd generally see a HUGE difference between, say, an epson flatbed and a drum scanner. I recall getting some Imacon scans done and having to throw them out and get everything re-scanned on a drum. They just didn't compare.

However, that being said, there are certain photographs which will easily bear being scanned with an epson, say, and look just superb - maybe even better, when printed out. You really have to experiment for yourself.

[Jon Shiu]

Can the scanning experts comment on noise in tranny shadows, or in neg highlights?

Jon Shiu
Elk, CA

[Brian Ellis]

Michael,
But generally speaking - no, most consumer flatbeds are very poor (IMO) in the tonal accuracy and DR dept. You'd generally see a HUGE difference between, say, an epson flatbed and a drum scanner.

What's "tonal accuracy" of a scan mean in this context? Are you saying that if I meter something and place it on Zone VII for example that I can't get a Zone VII density out of my consumer level scanner? Or if I meter something that reads as a Zone V that it won't scan as a Zone V? Hopefully that isn't what you mean but if it isn't then what do you mean?

Apart from that, the problem with statements like the above is they take no account of several variables, including size of print, type of photograph (primarily whether there is a lot of important shadow detail in the film or not), and most importantly, skill of operator. John Sexton made better prints using his Saunders enlarger than I made with my Beseler. That didn't mean Beseler enlargers were inferior, it meant I wasn't as talented a printer as John Sexton. Similarly, some people are better at scanning than others. Talented people often can make better scans using inferior equipment than no-talent people will make using the best equipment (or, at a minimum, can cut the difference down to minimal rather than HUGE). So condemning an entire type of scanner without qualification as to size of print, type of photograph, and skill of operator is IMHO wrong.

[Bruce Watson]

To put put it more to the point, would shooting color neg and scanning on a 4990 produce a scan with more tonal range than shooting chrome?

No, it wouldn't. Scanners only scan what's there. They will take the density range of the film in question, be it 3.0 or 0.3, and fit it to their output digital range (0-255 for 8 bit, 1-4095 for 12 bit, etc.). This mapping from analog to digital doesn't create tone, but it may stretch it or compress it to fill the output digital range.

The result is a digital file that runs from approx. black to white, and is a perfect match to the output medium, assuming that the printer is linearized (B&W) and/or has a good ICC profile (color). I'm doing a lot less dodging and burning with inkjet than I did in the darkroom. This is why.