Page 14 of 27 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 270

Thread: Professional flatbed scanners?

  1. #131

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    674

    Re: Professional flatbed scanners?

    Quote Originally Posted by sanking View Post
    Asher,

    First, there is indeed a world of difference between a high end flatbed like the Scitex EverSmart and the Epson and Microtek consumer flatbeds. For example, the Epson 4990 is advertised to be 4800 spi resolution, but you will be very lucky to get effective resolution of 2000 ppi, even when the position of the material to be scanned is placed the optimal position relative to the lens. By contrast, my EverSmart Pro, which has optical resolution of 3175 spi, will actually deliver over 3100 spi in effective resolution.


    Sandy
    So what's the point in anyone buying a low end flatbed when the difference is world's apart? I don't quite understand the logic here of "not" buying a Nikon 9000 that is supposed to rival drum scans and shoot medium format film VS. shooting sheet film and having it processed through something that is world's apart from these expensive flatbeds you are talking about?

    In other words, one can pickup the 9000 w/glass carrier on a good day for $1200USD. Add in a nice 6X7 kit for $1000.

    OR

    One can shoot sheet film and put it through an Epson and achieve results world's apart from what the Nikon 9000 equivalent can do in the LF world. Since LF is about enlarging, and given what is said about the digitization of LF sheet film having "zero" options aside from spending 3K on a lucky day, and more like 5-6K on an average day...what is the point in doing anything but b/w contact prints w/careful study and learning about what all can be done with a contact print, and shooting everything else with an MF camera and using the Nikon 9000 for the digital process/enlargement potential???

    After reading through this thread, it's as if the Epson/Microtek/etc. brew of scanners is the Yugo and these higher end scanners are the Bugattie (sp).

  2. #132

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    NY area
    Posts
    1,029

    Re: Professional flatbed scanners?

    Quote Originally Posted by audioexcels View Post
    So what's the point in anyone buying a low end flatbed when the difference is world's apart? I don't quite understand the logic here of "not" buying a Nikon 9000 that is supposed to rival drum scans and shoot medium format film VS. shooting sheet film and having it processed through something that is world's apart from these expensive flatbeds you are talking about?

    In other words, one can pickup the 9000 w/glass carrier on a good day for $1200USD. Add in a nice 6X7 kit for $1000.

    OR

    One can shoot sheet film and put it through an Epson and achieve results world's apart from what the Nikon 9000 equivalent can do in the LF world. Since LF is about enlarging, and given what is said about the digitization of LF sheet film having "zero" options aside from spending 3K on a lucky day, and more like 5-6K on an average day...what is the point in doing anything but b/w contact prints w/careful study and learning about what all can be done with a contact print, and shooting everything else with an MF camera and using the Nikon 9000 for the digital process/enlargement potential???

    After reading through this thread, it's as if the Epson/Microtek/etc. brew of scanners is the Yugo and these higher end scanners are the Bugattie (sp).
    The Epsons and Microteks are very good for their very modest prices. And they will do an acceptable job on LF because little if any magnification is required. But compared to a high end flat bed they are more akin to Saturns versus Mercedes. The nikon 9000 is not in the same league as a drum scanner or high end flat bed. I bought a 9000, bought an Imacon, and did a head to head comparison and the Imacon blew it away. My IQ3 then surpassed my Imacon.

    As for why bothering to buy an Epson or Microtek, it's all a matter of need, just how good does your work need to be scanned? Are you selling a fair number of prints at prices that require a high degree of professional quality? Or are you just doing work for yourself? And the other factor is what you can afford and if the price jumps, which increase rapidly but yet yield diminishing returns, are worth it to you.

    LF forum has a mix of professionals and amateurs. Just because professionals may be discussing very high end equipment doesn't mean that it is a required piece of gear for an amateur. For most people that Nikon 9000 or the Epson/Microtek will do a more than satisfactory job.

  3. #133

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    674

    Re: Professional flatbed scanners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian K View Post
    The Epsons and Microteks are very good for their very modest prices. And they will do an acceptable job on LF because little if any magnification is required. But compared to a high end flat bed they are more akin to Saturns versus Mercedes. The nikon 9000 is not in the same league as a drum scanner or high end flat bed. I bought a 9000, bought an Imacon, and did a head to head comparison and the Imacon blew it away. My IQ3 then surpassed my Imacon.

    As for why bothering to buy an Epson or Microtek, it's all a matter of need, just how good does your work need to be scanned? Are you selling a fair number of prints at prices that require a high degree of professional quality? Or are you just doing work for yourself? And the other factor is what you can afford and if the price jumps, which increase rapidly but yet yield diminishing returns, are worth it to you.

    LF forum has a mix of professionals and amateurs. Just because professionals may be discussing very high end equipment doesn't mean that it is a required piece of gear for an amateur. For most people that Nikon 9000 or the Epson/Microtek will do a more than satisfactory job.
    Right,

    But regardless of how a photographer is classified, don't you think that "any" photographer that does this as a passion of life, even if considered an "amateur", would want to see a print that looks "world's better" than one done on an "amateur" based machine? Take a different "hobby" as an example...electric guitar...an amateur has to live with playing directly through the distortion button on his/her amp. Wouldn't this guitarist want to use pedals or a single box for "effects" since "every" band out there uses some sort of effects, even those playing live acoustic music? Or is the distortion straight from the amp going to do the job? No artist out there, commercial, amateur, just started playing a couple of weeks ago is "ever" going to play without effects. So why do the "amateur" photographers have to live with an amp that produces great clean distortion, but can't do anything further?

    It makes me question how an Epson V750 can retail for what, $799??? It should retail for $299 with a street price of $199. I can find cameras that are 1/20th the price of others that can do the same functions. Why does it cost me 6X the price of the Epson just to get to that 5K barrier when it should be 20X the price, or $299 for the Epson.

    Sorry...just seems to me that it makes "zero" sense for someone trying to achieve the very best to even shoot color film until they know that $7-$15 shot will count...with your own scanner, you can blow off $1000's in film...for that person that has to pay $150 average? for it to be drum scanned and hope it is done as well as what Ted Harris is able to do, they will be shaking everytime they put just one holder in the back praying to whatever that that shot comes out perfectly.

    It's late and I'm hitting the irrational side of my brain, but it really makes no sense to me that the fastest cars on the road can be beaten by "stealth" turbo'd rides that cost them $15K when their 80K rides that are built for speed only cannot keep up. Same with in the Audio world where you have a million dollar system get spanked by a 5K system...

    And yes...I'm P'od that I would have to sell this 5K stereo system that I would put up to "anything" out there, just to have a scanner in the "base range" of price expectations per scan quality...

  4. #134
    Greg Lockrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Temperance, MI
    Posts
    1,980

    Re: Professional flatbed scanners?

    I'm going ask a seemingly stupid question so bare with me. What is it about these "high end" scanners are you buying? Better lens, ok. Dpi....I don't see it. Better color....how? Durability...for sure. I raise this question because I get clients every day who have had reflective scans made at the BGSU lab (you know the world renowned FLAAR institution) at $100 per and the dpi is only 270 rgb/8 . What in the hell are they paying for? Sure the scanner is a Creo (I think) 17x25" and cost $55k. I use an Epson 10000xl 12x17" at 360 dpi rgb/16. The machine is capable for 2400x4800 if I want to do slides or negatives. My prints are better when compared side by side to BGSU's and I don't need a loop to tell either. What gives? With all that power that they supposedly have why are they scanning at only 270 dpi rgb/8? When I decided to buy my scanner from the dealer I told him what I was primarily going to do with it and I asked him what was the difference really. His comment was that higher end had slightly better lens and much more durable. Where mine could easily hold up for 3-4 scans per day for a couple of years, the high end could run 24 hours a day for years. But unless I was doing that kind of volume, 98% of my clients wouldn't be able to see any difference. I've been very happy with my choice. 95% of my work is reflective copy and I can see some improvement when you are talking about 35mm film but 2 1/4 film on up looks pretty good to me. I also have the Epson 750 but it doesn't have the motorized focus but the 35mm I can get better dpi and some whistles and bells.
    Greg Lockrey

    Wealth is a state of mind.
    Money is just a tool.
    Happiness is pedaling +25mph on a smooth road.



  5. #135

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,487

    Re: Professional flatbed scanners?

    I have free access to an Imacon on the other side of town and a Epson right on my desk. Used with a modicum of skill, the Epson scans of my 4x5 look just lovely printed 20 x 30, in my print portfolio, repro'd in magazines up to spread sizes, and certainly online.

    Now, if I had a windfall and maybe an assistant, I would love to get an EverSmart and redo all my best work starting with even better scans. And maybe someday, when I'm rich and famous I'll get a chance to go back and re-mix a few of the very best pieces...

    But I'm not going to let the lack of having a high end scanner (or an XL lens or any other gadget) keep me from making good pictures and neither should you.

    Learn to use the Epson and rock it, use it to 100% of it's capability. The skills you learn will make you all the better when you get a chance to get the ultimate scanner.

    Many of the labs and studios that have visited that have a drum scanner also have a cheap Epson next to it. Nothing better for quick proofing and tests before investing in setting up and investing the time into a big scan.

  6. #136
    Rio Oso shooter
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    203

    Re: Professional flatbed scanners?

    There is a good value in the lower end scanners. I personally use mine to "cull" out the sheets that are not keepers and also get a good look at negative film that one has taken and I would bet there a lot of people like me out there. I can send my keepers to a professional scanner where I do get excellent results. It would take a lot of trips to spend $10K.

    Richard

  7. #137

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    674

    Thumbs up Re: Professional flatbed scanners?

    Now that I've calmed a bit, I hope the board doesn't think I'm too crazy here. I just got and still have the impression that these mega buck machines, being "world's apart" should go into a blindfold competition with the same negative. Take a properly processed excellent negative and let Ted Harris do his work with it. Then have it sent to Sandy for his work with it. Send it to one more competent worker that owns a high end scanner (any type). Then send it to a few (say 5 others) that have the Epson or Microteks. Have each person send their final print of say 20X30 and/or even 30X40 (just to stretch the limits to eliminate the inferior from the superior), and have a get together with all 8 prints on the wall, mixed up so that maybe the three high dollar scanned images are even right next to each other, though mixing all 8 up and placed along the walls would be best I presume, etc. All paper must be the same, though the printer does not have to be the same. It would be fairest to have in the minimum, the exact same paper type, and the same printer would be ideal, but not necessary...just high end "amateur" printers such as the B9180 or "anything" else that is at least as good as the B9180. Have as many viewers, primarily shooters, but also their guests, come along for this get-together.

    I think this would be the best way to show a number of things:

    1) An "opinion" of which ones the viewer sees as being the best to their own eyes.

    2) How many are the most appealing to the viewer. I.E. Does the viewer find one in particular that stands out amongst the rest? Does the viewer find that three (the drum scanned ones) stand out the best? Does the viewer have a difficult time saying any one is the best as each has some sort of merit in their own way?

    3) Have the viewers with their paper in hand mark down in the order the best ones, and even for whatever reason they felt they chose which and why, etc.

    4) Last and not least, it gives the audience a very sophisticated LF image to view. It brings people together and gives them the opportunity to not just be the critics for a session, but to talk about different things, both photographically and life speaking. It also brings to the table just what can be achieved with LF and the use of film in a world dominated by the digital, and what is now becoming mostly an "exotic" artform. It seems to be almost a sin for LF photographers to post their images on Flickr, the largest photo database in the online world. Flickr is filtered with 35mm-medium format, all with film/polaroid/and of course, dominantly digital. But you find extreme "few" images of LF shooters on there. And when you do a google search for ULF galleries, it's an exhausting search. One LF image per 1000000 other format image is quite something I feel.

    I don't know if this is something that can be done and how we can involve the very best post-processing people out there as I feel "a lot" has to do not only with nailing down the scanning technique, but also post-processing the image very carefully. I've said this before, but if you look at the digital images on Flickr/photo.net/etc. you will see a TON of point and shoot and quite a number of "budget" based DSLR shooters have the most interesting images...because they are "world's better" at CS2/3 than the more "professional" shooters. If only those tiny sensor digi-cams could print a large print of what is on the web, it would be truly something. I'd love to see someone that has possibly discovered further points in the scanning technique with the Epson, along with a post-processing wizard be in this challenge.

    Too much to ask for? I'm sure those that have packed it with their ULF cams and their crew have done a lot more than doing what I am proposing should be done.

  8. #138

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    NY area
    Posts
    1,029

    Re: Professional flatbed scanners?

    I bought my first scanner in 1991, I forget the brand name, it was japanese I think,might have been panasonic or toshiba, it cost me $3000.

    Then I bought an Agfa duoscan 2500, which I still have and it cost me $4000. It was a far better scanner than the previous one, sharper, higher resolving, lower noise, more accurate color more even tonality.

    Then I bought and still own, a Microtek 9800xl,( $1400 if I recall correctly) it had a better dynamic range than the Agfa and for my rather subtle prints (a lot of white on white) it gave me better print scans and was a little less noisy.

    Then I bought a Nikon coolscan 9000 and an Imacon 646. The nikon was vastly superior to the Microtek for scanning MF negatives, vastly sharper and far less noise. However the Imacon had even less noise, was sharper overall, and was much sharper at the edges of the film.

    I had reliability and service issues with the Imacon so I got rid of it and tested the IQSmart2 and eventually bought the IQSmart 3. The IQ had better edge to edge sharpness than the Imacon and I found that the imacon would sometimes blur and stretch the pixels at the end of the negative (6x17cm film) due to unevenness of movement during the scan, if you wanted to stitch images or do a shadow scan on top of a highlight scan it was problematic. This was not a factor with either IQSmart as the negative never moves. With the IqSmart 3 I got higher optical res and higher density range than any of the other scanners I've owned. As my prints may go as large as 40" I needed to have at least 12,000 pixels of width, with smaller MF negs none of the other flatbeds or the Imacons could do so. My IQ3 gives me 5500ppi optical over the entire bed. I also have the advantage to wet mount which is significant.

    Bottomline, from personal ownership and usage the current crop of professional high end flat bed scanners are far better in sharpness, resolution, density range, evenness, edge to edge sharpness, color fidelity, etc than the consumer flat beds. If you scan ULF negs and out put them to an 11x14 digital print you might not see much difference. If you scan a 6x6 negative, out put it as an 8x10" lvt negative and then make a 40" silver gelatin print you will see a huge difference.

    Now there is another factor, some people just can't see qualitative differences. It's hard to see through the eyes of others, but not everyone out there has the same standards, or even the same ability to detect subtle differences. Some people can notice the slightest flaws, some can not. If you are one of those people who has a hard time discerning qualitative differences, and that the only real audience for your work is yourself or friends/family, then a 5 figure scanner is absurd to buy. On the other hand if you make your living with your photographs, and those photographs are judged and or bought by a large and discerning audience, and any flaws have a direct affect on your career and your ability to put food on the table, then you might be best served by making the investment in a high end scanner.

    If you want to see how a variety of flatbed, drum and consumer scanners compare head to head check out this interactive link:
    http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

    I suggest comparing the scanners in this review with the added sharpening turned off

  9. #139

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    NY area
    Posts
    1,029

    Re: Professional flatbed scanners?

    Quote Originally Posted by audioexcels View Post
    Right,

    Same with in the Audio world where you have a million dollar system get spanked by a 5K system...
    If both systems were properly set up and in a typical room
    then I rather doubt it.....

  10. #140

    Re: Professional flatbed scanners?

    Quote Originally Posted by audioexcels View Post
    And yes...I'm P'od that I would have to sell this 5K stereo system that I would put up to "anything" out there, just to have a scanner in the "base range" of price expectations per scan quality...
    Some of this comes down to your ability to see/hear the difference.

    Since you think your $5000 stereo system can match up to "anything" out there, I presume you have listened to much of what is out there? Have you listened to a $50,000 system? How about a $250,000 system? While the $5000 system meets your needs, someone with a much looser wallet may find particular faults with it, and feel that a $50,000 system meets their needs better.

    The same goes for scanners. Especially when people can justify the demands of the scanner with business expenses.

    My tests have shown that you can get approximately a 4x enlargement out of the Epson scanners before differences begin to show in a print between them and a drum scanner. I haven't formally tested the V700/750, so that may be a little higher for them, but not much. I'm talking about sharpness, here, not DMAX. The tests were specifically done with B&W film, using the best method to produce the best results on the Epson scanner (single channel scanning with the green channel, single pass). Whether the differences become significant enough to be a problem for you is somewhat determined by your preferences and needs. Very careful sharpening can mitigate this somewhat, and possibly bring it up to 4.5x or 5x.

    I'm not talking about 'which image do you like better'. I 'm talking about there being a perceptible difference in the sharpness or structure of the image due to the performance of the scanner. So this is not a preference debate, but purely a measure of output capability.

    If you are shooting 4x5, that's a pretty large image; much larger than most people print on a regular basis. However, if you shoot a lot of MF or 35mm, then you will probably discover some issues while using the Epson.

    However, let me say that at 4x or so, you are barely even testing a high end scanner, while you are at about the limits of the Epson. So, the differences start to rapidly become more apparent as the size increases. This has to do with the sharpness of the output device (in this case, an Epson 4800 printer was used for the tests). Once you meet the requisite output device parameters, extra sharpness is of no benefit. But as you begin to fall under the output device specs, the difference becomes apparent.

    So while the drum scanner can deliver much more to a print at 4x than the Epson, it's also much more than the output device can deliver, so the overhead is of no value. At 4x, the Epson scanner is slightly under the output device capabilities, and so the differences are beginning to be visible.

    It is possible to go to 8x or 10x with many drum scanners before you start to slip below the capabilities of the printer. Some may be as high as about 12x or so. For higher end flatbeds, the values are a little lower, but in the same ballpark, probably 6x to 10x, depending on the model.


    ---Michael

Similar Threads

  1. Plane of Best Focus of Flatbed Scanners
    By sanking in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-Oct-2006, 12:24
  2. Home Testing Flatbed Scanners
    By Kirk Gittings in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 18-Jan-2006, 11:42
  3. Flatbed Scanners -- or "Am I an Idiot?"
    By Jack Flesher in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 5-Dec-2005, 15:05
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 27-Sep-2004, 08:59
  5. Any flatbed scanners avail for 8 x 10
    By jesskramer in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 29-May-2004, 15:25

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •