Microtek M1 Scanner

[Ted Harris]

Kirk .... don't you mean given up on the consumer flatbeds?

[Kirk Gittings]

Yes sorry.

[audioexcels]

Alan, I have only scanned one transparency smaller than 4x5 on the M1 and have not discussed it in the review. I'll reserve judgement until I do a few more smaller format scans but don't expect it to perform as well as the 9000/8000.

Audioxcels, I think "tack sharp images" may be pushing it a bit for 16x20 from any of the prosumer scanners. Nice images, often (depending on the subject matter) but not tack sharp when compared to prints from scans done on a high end scanner.

I'm thinking of 8X10 film scanned with a consumer flatbed. Still no chance of tack sharp images at 16X20? I think I drifted way off course not considering 4X5 film and that people tend to feel 11X14 is about the limit for a sharp image with it and a consumer bed.

What is your take with 8X10 film or even 5X7 on the consumer bed?

[audioexcels]

What does tack sharp mean? Very close to an enlarged silver print on close inspection? Not on any of the prosumer flatbeds I have tested. With a proflatbed or drum scan? Absolutely, sometimes sharper.

See below comments...my brain was thinking 6.5X8.5-8X10 film scanned with the consumer bed...I also mention 5X7 which is almost 2X the size of 4X5 which "should" in theory give tack sharp images at 12X16...but if one cannot get a tack sharp image at only 2X the enlargement factor of an 8X10, I see one point and only one point of having one of these scanners=proof for sending off negs to Ted to have him do the work

OR

1) Get good looking images and create a website to sell your prints, though again, would want to have Ted quality scans on a website.

2) Print smaller sizes and try to achieve the equal of a contact print by using these new papers and larger film to decrease the amount of necessary enlargement.

3) For posting onto Flickr and getting more exposure...similar concept to making a website, but has further exposure with hopes of getting hired for jobs/work.


It's a tough one having to deal with a gap that is a Yugo to a Bugatti...literally...It's like having a 2MP camera phone vs. a Phase/Betterlight back on 6X6 or 4X5...that is, the gap between consumer flatbeds and pro flatbeds/drum scanners....

[Ted Harris]

See below comments...my brain was thinking 6.5X8.5-8X10 film scanned with the consumer bed...I also mention 5X7 which is almost 2X the size of 4X5 which "should" in theory give tack sharp images at 12X16...but if one cannot get a tack sharp image at only 2X the enlargement factor of an 8X10, I see one point and only one point of having one of these scanners=proof for sending off negs to Ted to have him do the work

OR

1) Get good looking images and create a website to sell your prints, though again, would want to have Ted quality scans on a website.

2) Print smaller sizes and try to achieve the equal of a contact print by using these new papers and larger film to decrease the amount of necessary enlargement.

3) For posting onto Flickr and getting more exposure...similar concept to making a website, but has further exposure with hopes of getting hired for jobs/work.


It's a tough one having to deal with a gap that is a Yugo to a Bugatti...literally...It's like having a 2MP camera phone vs. a Phase/Betterlight back on 6X6 or 4X5...that is, the gap between consumer flatbeds and pro flatbeds/drum scanners....

Mike, thanks for the flattering comments and always happy to have the work. However:

1) 5x7 and larger printed to 16x20 will look quite good but you will still see some significant difference in prints made from high end scans. Those difference will be evident even a few feet away and will likely manifest themselves in shadow and highlight detail. Keep in mind that when you use the term "tack sharp" what you are often talking about is sharpness or acutance rather than resolution and that acutance will be enhanced by better detail. See "Image Clarity" for lengthy discussion of this or just look at the very telling illustration in Strobel.

2) Same as in #1 above but the differences diminish as you print smaller and the total size of the print makes seeing the detail more difficult.

The span of a Yugo to a Bugatti is a bit harsh but the point is well made. You do have some other options in the under $1000 range that don't mean taking a chance on a used piece of equipment that was very expensive to start. They are the Microtek 2500, 2500f, 1800f (maybe) and Agfa Duoscan T2500 (rebadged Microtek) ... none of these will come close to the high end machines either but all of them will perform slightly better than the currently available crop of prosumer scanners .... that is assuming you get one which is in proper working order.

[Asher Kelman]

I'm thinking of 8X10 film scanned with a consumer flatbed. Still no chance of tack sharp images at 16X20? I think I drifted way off course not considering 4X5 film and that people tend to feel 11X14 is about the limit for a sharp image with it and a consumer bed.

What is your take with 8X10 film or even 5X7 on the consumer bed?

Audioexcels,

It's weird writing to someone through a trucker's call name. However.

The question is whether or not the M1 scanner can be used to produce prints of LF film that you can offer for sale and make some money.Let's not deal for the moment with the extent and urgency of your own needs or desires for more of the latter.

What are you trying to sell? If it's a B&W print of woods and a stream, one is competing with a cadre of obsessed photographers who deliver contact or properly enlarged prints of superb quaiity, some hardly known and others famous. At least, one should aim for that product class. However, if your marketing is brilliant, that might not matter.

If, however, one is able to do work in another class of LF photography, detail and accutance might not matter at all. I've seen pictures, ten feet tall, proudly offered in galleries for up to $85,000, that are considered fine art but are sold because of the orginality of the ideas, composition or social significance that are inherent to the work.

Where is your passion, originality and talent or are you trying to get money somehow? If it's the latter, what are your needs as there are many other easier options?

If your work sells as a contact print and you get orders, a larger print can be made by a good commercial house to match your contact print closely. If, OTOH, you embed artistic passion which puts your work into a different expressive field of art, even the M1 flatbed scanner might be beyond your needs. It's only you that knows what you're aiming for and knowing your target should define the position and weapons you choose.

Asher

[Greg_E]

Just to interject one thing... I've made some really nice inkjet prints from a "cheapo" Kodak DC290 (3.1MP interpolated 2.x MP nominal) digital camera up to 12x18. I wouldn't attempt the same ratio increase on anything 35mm or 645 I've scanned with my Epson 3200 flatbed.

But if you are scanning 4x5 or better 8x10 then this scanner might be worth having. By 8x10 you should be able to get enough pixels that huge prints can be made without all the problems that you encounter with the smaller formats.

But since I still shoot smaller formats, I've decided that this flatbed will not work for me, not even for my pinhole stuff as I can't afford a scanner for pinhole and a scanner for lensed work. So I am still fighting through what I want to buy, but it will probably end up in the $1500 to $2000 range, which is more than twice the price of this flatbed. In digital it mostly comes dow to the image is only as good as the cheapest tool in the chain.

[alanmcf]

Ted, finally my January ViewCamera arrived today with your M1 preview. I ask (beg) that you post your updated resolution test results so as to save me waiting till nearly April for that piece of the next installment. In particular you said the preliminary test results were done using the 8x10 glass holder... while the hype about this scanner is "glassless". Also a DMax would be great too .
Thanks so much, Alan

[Ted Harris]

Alan, sometime in the next two weeks .....

[Maximus]

I was waiting impatiently for this scanner to appear since it was first announced by Microtek since I never wanted to have anything like Epson 4990/V700/V750 that would, being priced three times lower compared to Nikon 9000, would allow me to scan MF and MF panoramas, not of course like Supercoolscan, but enough to suite my needs. But now I see that my expectations have broken into a large number of peaces. Test scans posted here show that M1 does not even come closer to Microtek 2500 and fall into the same category as those of V700/V750: soapy picture, lost shadow details, and, what is most annoying, COLOR FRINGING — the thing which I hate so much in Epsons! After a month of deep thoughts I decide to buy Nikon 9000 — when you want real quality from your scanner, expect to invest into it as much money as you invest in your photo equipment. Besides, Nikon 9000 now is sold under $2000, so the price difference is so huge as it could be, but you get from it quality without question. Pity for Microtek, with autofocus + EDIT + new film holders they could make a unit that would surpass Microtek 2500f, but what I see in M1 is a copy of V700, no more. So if scan MF and need really food scanner, buy Nikon, if you need a good scanner for LF, buy a used 2500f, it will be no question better than new M1