Hi everyone,
just wondering if anybody has any experience with and could comment on the quality of scanning MF (6x7, 6x8) and 6x12 negs on the Imacon 343 Flextight scanner. I read that the software is quite good, and that they have added their verison of Digital Ice to the latest version. I have been using an Epson 4870 and any comparisons with that machine would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Roger
Give a look here
Last edited by Jean-Marie Solichon; 10-Sep-2006 at 10:10.
Hi Jean-Marie, thanks very, very much for directing me to your review.
-Roger
Hi Roger,
I have used the Hasselblad/Imacon 343 for over a year now. I use it to scan 6x7 and 612. It is a wonderful scanner and one of the best investments I have made in photography.
Can't comment on the 4990, but I have an older Epson 3200 for 4x5 which is low quality compared to the 343. For 4x5 I scan with my 612 holder in the 343 and stitch together in PS. This works surprisingly well for the low volume of 4x5 I do.
The holders for the Imacon line are really easy to work with. They use flexible magnetic strips (like fridge magnets) to hold the film in place.
I have scanned mostly positives up until this week (Velvia, Provia, Astia) and have made many prints up to 80inches wide from 612. These are detailed enough you can stick your nose close to the print and make out fine detail. Definately very high quality.
Last week I was in Europe and didn't want to deal with the hassle of chargers etc for my digital system so I took my Mamiya 7 and all the old color negative film in the fridge. I am really surprised at the quality I am getting from Reala and NPS160. I shot during mid day on very sunny days and have been able to extract detail from the deepest shadows. I am going to use more neg film in the future now that I have the settings figured out.
The software is easy to use. I mostly hit the automatic button and then tweak the shadows to taste. Finer adjustments are made in PS. The software has built in profiles to match negative films and you can download others from their website. Grain I deal with with a must have program - Noise Ninja.
I do not have Digital Ice and do all my spotting by hand. If you get clean negs from the lab and blow your negs prior to mounting dust is not a problem. I spend only a few minutes per 24x30" scan spotting the image. This is probably faster than letting Digital Ice slow the program down during scanning.
A 6x7 scan at highest resolution (3200 ppi 16bit resolution) takes 13 minutes. A 612 about 20. The 6x7 file is about 340MB at 16bit and the 612 ~500MB. Other file sizes and bit depth scans are correspondingly smaller.
I have included a file containing two examples from the 343. The original is a 6x7 scan of Fuji Reala (24"x28") reduced to 400pixels wide. The other is a 100% crop of the bricks to the left of the red church door.
Steve
I had the previous version, the Imacon Flextight (the one that retailed for about $5,000 and could scan medium format up to 6m x 18cm, but not large format), which I used for scanning 6cm x 9cm slides for about 3-4 years, and some negatives. I thought it was an excellent scanner, but in retrospect, it wasn't worth the investment of time and money. I sold it last year on EBAY for about $2,500, so I didn't do bad -- $2,500 for about 4 years of use. But if I did it again, I'd just buy 50 drum scans from Nancy Scans. Or I'd rather spend more and buy 100 drum scans from them. They're sharper (though the Imacons were sharp) and you spend no time spotting dust. Dust was a big problem, and I scanned clean slides, straight from the lab. I later added on the Imacon version of ICE, which was only software based and was decent but not great. . . When I sold the Imacon last year I also sold all of my 6cm x 9cm gear and bought a Canon 5D. The Canon has it's own limitations, but before investing in a medium format scanner in this price range, I'd advise you to look closely at a Canon 1DsII (or the soon to come replacement), the Canon tilt-shift lenses, and prime lenses, including Canons, and Leica, Zeiss or Olympus primes that can be adapted to the Canon. I haven't been convinced by the Canon zoom lenses yet, but using the Canon digital with primes is very close if not the equal of medium format. The tilt shift lenses are tremendous for panoramic format; it's very easy to take two side by side xposures and flat stitch them perfectly in Photoshop. It's like doing back shifts on a view camera, with the difference being that you have perfect pin registration from shot to shot assuming you have a stury tripod. I am doing that with the 45mm tilt shift, and getting images that can print nicely up to about 40" wide.
There is no doubt that the 343 will outperform the 4990 for MF but I still wonder if it is the best solution. You should 1) compare the output fromt he 343 with that from the Nikon 9000 and 2) consider the possibility of getting a high end flatbed or drum used at the same price as a new 343.
Hi everyone, appreciate your generous responses.
Steve, your detailed description of your experience with the 343 is excellent, and very helpful. I am shooting color negative, too, and I use Noise Ninja. Thanks very much!
Howard, thanks for your suggestion, and info on the Flextight Precision. My volume of scans is fairly decent, right now I have a project with almost 30 archive-quality scans needed. At drum scanning prices that is more than half the cost of a new Imacon 343, and I am not finished with my project yet. I did own a 5D, and while it is a wonderful tool, the performance with the Canon L glass is not that great at the edges with the full frame Canon SLR's...lots of chromatic aberration. The lenses do not hold up to the sensor, they need to introduce better glass. Using Leica glass on an adapter mount that essentially takes away all the electronic connection defeats one of the purposes of using the big file digitals, that is, speed. I am watching to see what they introduce next in the successor to the 1Ds MkII...that might change things.
Hi Ted, that is a good suggestion, perhaps a Creo or a drum scanner is another option. Unfortunately, the Nikon 9000 will not work, limited to 6x9. For MF I am shooting with a 6x12 Linhof Technorama and a 6x8 format camera.
Roger, FWIW I scan 6x12 & 6x17 on both a Microtek 1800f and a Screen Cezanne (same quality as Creo Supreme) and, while there is no question that I get a much superior scan from the Cezanne, I often use the 1800f just because it is more convenient and I know in advance tht the scan will never be used for prints larger than the capabilities of the scanner. I ma now moving into new darkroom and studio space and, as I get things setup, with more convenient access to the Cezanne scanner (across a room and on a network as opposed to in another room and on a dedicated computer) I find that I am using it more.
Ted, I did seriously consider the Microtek 1800f, and just yesterday was looking for it on the B&H site. Seems they no longer carry it...maybe it has finally been discontinued. I do feel that because my time is so limited, as most of us are these days, that when I do a scan then it should be archive-quality, and then the neg can be filed away. That is an argument for the Imacon. That said, the MT 1800f could be an interim scan until such time large prints are needed, then drum scanning could be done. If I can find an MT 1800F then it might be another option.
I don't know how much the Imacon 343, but Nancy scans will do 8 bit scans of up to 100MB for about $50, last time I checked. You don't need more than 100 MB for many purposes. You also don't need 16 bit scans (though they're nice). Every 8 bit scan I ever got from NancyScans was true to the original, and I could do a lot of manipulation in 8 bit without seeing any posterization or other problems. So at $50 per that means you can get 100 scans for $5,000. Plus, your time. I think it's unrealistic to think it will take less than 45 minutes per file to scan, including dust cleanup time. That assumes of course that you already know how to use the scanner and are excellent in using the software. That $50 starts looking real cheap to me.especially given that the quality is better than the Imacon at the end of the day, even if you get a larger file from the Imacon. Also, I'd bet that Nancy Scans would give you a price break if you ordered 30 scans at a time from them. I personally obviously don't care what you get, but am just passing information and my thinking a long.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks