Purchase drum Scanner or pay for scans

[Dave Jeffery]

"And this is a fine place to come and ask questions. Lots of nice and generous LF folks here; QT has created an excellent LF resource."

So True! It's a big part of the enjoyment of LF photography for me.

Thanks once again Bruce for all your help. You have taught me a lot.

I will concentrate on shooting and thanks for the great advice everyone! It's really easy for me to get sidetracked in technology battles which I somehow enjoy more than I probably should. My photography is still in need of much improvement.

" think what a small % of successful photographers do images that depend on ultimate sharpness." Thanks so much Ed.

So many good ideas and thanks everyone as I'm back on track again concentrating on taking photographs.

[pchome]

I was a professional scanner operator and it takes about 3 years to learn properly but there is some software out now that is called colourquartet and that takes a day to learn and gives really good results.

By the way if anyone in the UK wants to buy a Scanmate 5000 drum scanner then get in touch, buyer collects. phil@pchome.force9.co.uk

[riooso]

There has been a some discussion about how big the print is going to be and not about the tonal range that a drum scanner can obtain. I, for one, spend way to much time at the computer instead what I love to do, use film. I would appreciate in knowing what real world experience tell you guys about how high end flatbed scanners compare to the drum scans in tonal range picked up?

Thanks,
Richard

[Kirk Gittings]

FME, I am only serious about doing B&W art prints, I am able to get everything I need from a pro flatbed scan. I did not believe this until Ted did some scans for me. That includes getting deep shadow detail and highlight separation. Henceforth I bought my own.

[Ted Harris]

There has been a some discussion about how big the print is going to be and not about the tonal range that a drum scanner can obtain. I, for one, spend way to much time at the computer instead what I love to do, use film. I would appreciate in knowing what real world experience tell you guys about how high end flatbed scanners compare to the drum scans in tonal range picked up?

Thanks,
Richard

As discussed here and in other similar threads, I really believe it is more about the operator, how skilled he/she is and how well he/she understands your goals for the final print than it is about the machine itself.

As you have figured out I run a couple of high end flatbed scanners. I made that decision based on results I had seen from both the high end flatbeds and drums, both operated by qualified folks. I have also gone back and rescanned some of my own images that were originally scanned on a drum scanner on both the IQsmart3 and the Cezanne and in every instance I prefer the results from the two flatbeds. Now, YMMV but the only way you will know is to do a one-on-one test and remember that the results of that test will be more dependent on the human behind the machine than on the machine itself. Also remember that, unless you have the absolutely perfectly exposed negative, the more information give the scanner operator the better will be the results .... just like having prints done by a master printer ... the printer is going to use his own judgement unless you tell him what you want. When I am doing work for others I prefer to do it the same way I would with prints; discussing the outcome, providing proofs, etc.

[Kirk Gittings]

By the way, notice in this tape that Meyerowitz is using what looks like a Cre/Scitex Eversmart pro flatbed of some model.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lv_qE_J_mHg

[riooso]

FME, I am only serious about doing B&W art prints, I am able to get everything I need from a pro flatbed scan. I did not believe this until Ted did some scans for me. That includes getting deep shadow detail and highlight separation. Henceforth I bought my own.

Thanks for the feedback. I shoot color negatives and trans and I need something more than the present V750 that I now have. If you are getting the results that you like with B&W then I will not have problems with color. The drum scans that I have done are ok but lack the controlled output that only I can give my images. I am extremely picky but I know that both you and Ted are probably even more critical than I, so this is good!

Thanks,
Richard

[Ted Harris]

Richard,

We are very picky! Send me a PM or an email if you want more info on having scans done for you or on purchasing a high end scanner. I don't sell 'em but I can assist you in your purchase. I do scan for others .

[audioexcels]

I have just started in LF as well and am wrestling with the same sort of situation. My wife and I have a fine art digital printing business that we run part time and up to now have outsourced 4x5 scanning locally to a lab with an Imacon 848. Results vary depending on the operater. We have now identified who the best operater is and so insist on that same person for performing our scanning. The cost of the scan is then transferred to the customer. However, now that we ourselves are shooting 4x5, we have an interest in obtaining a scanner. But, as we still have a number of lenses to acquire we are going to defer purchasing until next year. The cost of the scanner would complete our lens arsenal and allow us to take a few trips which I feel is more important when just starting out. Having said that, I did have a chance to compare the Imacon 848 and Cezanne flatbed scanner using the same image, and I have to say the Cezanne furnished the higher quality scan in terms of resolution and shadow detail (both were 16-bit scans). The Imacon does a lot of default sharpening in the acquisition software, and unless the operater knows how much to decrease this sharpening, the scans can look a bit artifactual. I'm interested to also hear what the experts on this forum recommend.

I wish my wife was into it like yours is...Imacon is known for default sharpening and I'm sure many would argue the Imacon is quite inferior to a Cezanne. I haven't read the rest of the thread where I'm sure it is answered.

[Kirk Gittings]

On the 800 series no sharpening was -120 if I remember right, at which point they didn't look radically better than an unsharpened prosumer flatbed scan. However the Imacon has very sophisticated sharpening and less noise than the flatbeds of the time (4990). I don't remember what the sharpening structure is-we discussed it a couple of years ago here and somebody knew the answer. In any event it works very well though at the recommended settings it is more like a final sharpening rather than a capture sharpening. I rather liked mine set at numeric 0 for the capture sharpening followed by a good high pass sharpening before going to print. For my personal standards I could get a good 16x20 from a well done Imacon scan from a good negative. I found that the Imacon software had trouble dealing with dense b&w negatives that a drum scan or a proflatbed could easily handle, but maybe I was missing something and I never did try and work with the Imacon raw format.