A few questions about film scanners

[Ballpointpenner]

Dear film scanners,

Recently, I started a thread in which I was trying to decide whether a larger format film camera or a DSLR was the better purchase for me. One of the points that came up in that thread was that I was wrong in my assumption that film was a dark-room only medium which could not be transferred to 'the digital dark room'. It came out that, as evidenced by this forum, many people scan their negatives to edit them digitally.

I have a few basic questions about this.

As I see it, the whole point of shooting larger format film is the higher quality visible in larger prints. Have consumer-priced scanners come to the point where they can take a medium or large format negative and create a digital file, without a substantial loss of quality to be seen in the final poster-sized print?

If so, which models are to be looked at, and what is their price-range? [personally, I would feel very strange paying over a few hundred dollars for a scanner, though I can guess that this attitude might need to be revised, should I choose to pursue this seriously...]
If not, what are the normal prices that labs charge for high quality scans?

Thank you for your time,

- Bpp

[DrPablo]

Hi Bpp,

Admittedly my experience pales in comparison to others here.

But I shoot 4x5, scan it on a $350 scanner (Microtek i800), and I've printed some magnificent 24x30" prints from it. To print a 24x30 at 300 dpi, you only need to scan a 4x5 at 1800 dpi. I scan at 4800 dpi, clone out dust, reduce noise (I run a 2 pixel median filter and fade it to ~15%), then downsample in 10% increments to the print size/resolution.

If you go MF instead of LF, at these scan resolutions I'm sure you could get great results out of 6x6 or 6x7 on a flatbed.

[Leonard Metcalf]

I scan my 4 x 5 negs and trannies and am very satisfied with the results. I scan with a cheap desktop scanner, (from 4 years ago, an Epson 3200) and have been very happy with my results. I print 24 x 30 inches onto cotton rag paper. Last week I used a friends scanner (Epson V700) and was stunned by the improvements over my older scanner. On 100% enlargement of my scans I was looking at the film grain clearly. The thing that really sold me on the scanner was the 2 & 1/4 inch scans from my medium format camera. Stunning results from a desktop scanner. IMHO

I packed up my darkroom two years ago, because I had to move house. Yes I miss the darkroom, but I must admit I am printing better photographs from my inkjet printer than I could ever get in the darkroom.

[Ted Harris]

Bpp, several comments:

1) While the vast majority of folks here do have scanners in the 350-900 range you raise an interesting point about not wanting to spend more than a few hundred dollars for a scanner, especially when a new 4x5 or larger enlarger and top quality lens will cost you much more. Even a used solid 4x5 enlarger and top quality lens in today's dramatically soft market can still cost you more than 500 for a good used one.

2) Depending on the model and your subject matter there is absolutely no question that today's "consumer class" scanners can easily produce a scan that will enable a stunning 8x10 to 16x20 print. As noted above there are many who find them quite adequate for 24x30 prints as well. A lot depends on the level of skill in the scanning, digital image editing and printing, not to mention the printer and paper chosen. Finally, one man's definition of "stunning" is not necessarily the same as another's.

3) Labs charge any where from 25 to 100 for a "high quality" scan and their definition of same varies from lab to lab. Generally the larger the file size you request the higher the charge from the lab. I am just now starting to take on scanning for others as my time permits, one of the reasons being tht I find the commercial pricing structure to be a bit silly. I am now in the final stages of working out my pricing which will be in the range of 50 for a master full resolution scan of your image, that means a file of anywhere from 500MB up and usually more likely in the 1 GB range for a scan from a 4x5 negative or transparency. Such a file should enbale large prints tht will satisfy the most critical. I go into this detail because the conventionalwisdom employed by most labs is to give you a scan that only meets yoru needs for a particular size print assuming an output requirement of 300-360 dpi.

[George Stewart]

When I had comparison scans done, years ago, the differences were obvious. At first, a scan from the consumer level flatbed looked good-why spend more? Then a scan from a commercial level unit, and the differences were obvious. Why shoot LF when one dumbs down the image during the workflow.

There are many opinions on the web, including mine. I'd suggest that you find out for yourself. Spend a few hundred dollars on some scans from different machines and see for yourself.

[Steven Barall]

There is a huge big giant amount of knowledge about scanners on this site. I used the Epson 2450 for four years and I scanned quite a bit of 4x5 and 6cm film and it was fine for it's time. This year I bought the Microtek 1800f and all I can say is that I now know what the " f " stands for but I won't say exactly on this forum in defference to the more genteel members.

I would go for the current best Epson scanner. The Epson scanners have a higher optical resolution than the 1800f regardless of what the folks at Mircotek like to say at every possible opportunity which is needed if you ever have to scan medium of small format films for fun or profit. Also the Epson 4990 and even the new V700 scanner are each much less expensive than the 1800f and Epson is a better company to deal with of you ever have a problem.

Also... There are certainly many reasons to use a view camera. To name a few, there is the physical aspect of it, the toil of having to lug the stuff around, this "work" which many people find so satisfying. There is the connection to history and the way that it allows you to share an experience from another time the way that indeed looking at an old photo does. Then there are the technical aspects of view camera photography that have nothing to do with the size of the film, meaning the camera movements which acknowledge that the world is infact a three dimensional place.

This is certainly not meant as a dig at your reason for using large format film, meaning for the production of clear large prints because it certainly is itself a reason just like the ones I just mentioned. Photography, conceptually and physically, is just a tool and any use of it is valid and worthwhile.

Good luck and have fun.

[photographs42]

I think you are correct in evaluating your options, but don’t overlook the issue of why you are doing whatever it is you decide to do. The way I look at it is there are three parts to the equation.

The first is; which tool do I want to use to make images? I have chosen a 5x7 film camera because the experience of working with that kind of camera is enjoyable to me. I don’t get the same kind of pleasure working with my Nikon D200 or with MF.

The second is; do I want to work in the darkroom or in front of a computer? I process RAW D200 Architectural images every day at my job and it is a totally different experience from working on an image in the darkroom. I prefer the darkroom experience.

Last is; what kind of art do I want to produce? I have produced some really nice digital prints from my scanned negatives. They aren’t like my silver prints but they are striking in there own right. But I prefer the silver images. Perhaps it is because of my connection to them or maybe it’s my mindset that the digital prints are a form of mechanical reproduction, but whatever the reason, I don’t get the same satisfaction from digital prints that I get from a well printed silver image.

You are getting some pretty good advice about scanners. Keep in mind that operating a scanner is an art by itself. Like any other tool, you must learn how to get the most out of it. A quality scan from a decent flat bed scanner done by a proficient operator can be better than a drum scan by an incompetent operator. Given equally skilled operators, there is no doubt that drum scanners are better, but you may not need that level of scan depending on your output. I can show you a 1200 dpi scan from a 5x7 negative done on my ageing Umax Powerlook III (flatbed) that has more detail than you would ever need. No doubt the newer flatbeds can top that.

Whichever path you take, consider your goals before deciding on the means. I photograph using LF and film for me. I do it the way I do because I enjoy it. If other people like it, that’s wonderful, but it isn’t why I do it.

Jerome

[Ken Lee]

A friend of mine just had her computer sent in for repairs. She forgot to back up her image files. The repair service reformatted her hard drive. She lost several years worth of photos.

I do all my "serious" work in B&W film, which should last a while. No need for storage media. Yes, my house could burn down, but the odds are slim.

Beware of the juggernaut of the digital photography industry. Next thing you know, they'll start paying people to convince you to buy their stuff. :-)

[Michael Heald]

Hello! I had four reasons for choosing scanning 4x5 instead of printing - space limitations, time limitations, possible future color work, and available equipment.
Space limitations - Since I move every 2 to 3 years, creating a 4x5 darkroom for B&W becomes problematic. I never know what kind of quarters I will have. I may not even have space to set up equipment for B&W, or at least, the space may be difficult to use.
Time limitations - Since I can adjust a slider and see the results immediately, as opposed to developing a new print to see the results, it seemed to me that the time needed to become competent in digital would be less than traditional darkroom work for me. Since I am new to photograpy, not just LF, I can spend the time savings on developing me "eye." Having said that, traditional darkroom work does have an appeal for me. To satisfy that urge, I think I'll try contact printing and alternative processes in the future, such as cyanotype.
Color work - Most folks I've talked with feel that color digital is better than color traditional darkroom work. I'd like to try my hand at color in the future. My experience in B&W digital should be useful with that.
Finally, I had the equipment to get into digital easily - computer, Microtek Scanmaker 5900. I purchased an inexpensive Epson R220 with MIS inks and the 8x10 B&W prints look good.
During the months of using this equipment, picking people's brains, reading posts, etc., I think I've got a better idea of what I want to photograph and the equipment I need to pursue that, including digital.
I've upgraded my LF kit - going from Pacemaker Graphic, to Orbit, to Tachihara with 90mm SuperAngulon and 210mm Sironar N. Scanner upgrade is next (wife willing!). I'll grab a 4990 if Epson still makes them (they've been out on their on-line store for a while). If not, V7xx series. Best regards.

Mike

[Greg Miller]

A friend of mine just had her computer sent in for repairs. She forgot to back up her image files. The repair service reformatted her hard drive. She lost several years worth of photos.

I do all my "serious" work in B&W film, which should last a while. No need for storage media. Yes, my house could burn down, but the odds are slim.

Beware of the juggernaut of the digital photography industry. Next thing you know, they'll start paying people to convince you to buy their stuff. :-)

Anecdotal evidence of one person losing their digital files is a poor argument. It takes just a bit of effort to learn how to properly protect a digitial file (and making last minute backups before sending in a PC for repair does not cut it), just like it takes a bit of effort to learn how to properly protect images on film. Both methods can work well, and both take just a bit of effort to learn how to do them properly. And both take a bit of investment in hardware - be it external hard drives or filing cabinets, hanging folders, archival holders, and silica gel desicant.