Scan the ULF neg

[sanking]

Your answer is almost always a flatbed scanner. Preferably the one you bought

Lenny Eiger

No, I recommend the right tool for the job, taking into consideration cost and final print size. When that means getting maximum potential from my Mamiya 7 negatives I recognize that a drum scan at 5000 ppi or more is needed. And I have said so many times on various forums.

When I need to make a 4'X8' print from a 12X20" negative, a scan from high end flatbed like the EverSmart or Screen Cezanne provides an excess of detail and sharpness.

With 4X5 or 5X7 negatives, one could make a case for a drum scan, a scan with a high end flatbed, or "God Forbid" even a scan with a lowly Epson. Depends on final print size. Ken Lee, and a number of other photographers, have shown beautiful prints in sizes up to 16X20 from 4X5 and 5X7 negatives scanned with the Epson 4990.

You, on the other hand, always recommend a drum scan. Regardless of negative size, regardless of final print size, regardless of intended us.


Sandy King

[Lenny Eiger]

You, on the other hand, always recommend a drum scan. Regardless of negative size, regardless of final print size, regardless of intended us.
Sandy King

Unlike yourself, I haven't seen prints I like at 20 inches made from an Epson, or similar scanner. I can't say its impossible, altho' maybe improbable. It's possible I am looking for different things in a print. I do have high standards, as I am sure do you. If someone has succeeded in creating a great result with an imperfect tool, then - if its real - we can all celebrate.

I have two general concerns. The first is that people should have good information. I think the Epson scanners come with coke bottle lenses. Epson wants you to believe they can scan at a real rez of 6500. That's obviously not true as you know and have stated. As you say, there is an appropriate tool for any job. I think people ought to know the limits of the tool they are buying, despite deceptive advertising. I think people should know that an Imacon is a CCD scanner, not a PMT, for instance, and that they could get one hell of a better scanner (in terms of quality) for 18K (or even half that), as one example. I also think its great when people know that despite the fact that they have a 35mm camera, they are aware if they want more print quality, that stepping up to medium format would make a big difference - that 35mm is not the end-all in print quality. They will then shoot what they do knowing they have choices. 35mm might be just the perfect balance for them and their chosen subject and print needs.

I also don't ascribe to the "scan for the job" philosophy. I think that digital cameras will get better over time and that one day most of us will be using them. Scanners will ultimately go the way of all things. How long that will take I have no idea.... but I think I am right about this. Given this, wouldn't it be nice if you had full size scans of the images that are your best, or your favorites. Not only should they be full size, but given that there is not any real scanning improvement coming along because of digital, shouldn't they be scanned with all the richness of the best technology available. This way, years from now you won't need a larger scan to do a larger print - or simply a better one. You will already have one. If you don't need the pixels, you can archive the master copy and downsize to what you need right now.

That might explain some of why I like drum scans so much. I also think they are a lot more within reach than many people think.

Lenny
EigerStudios

[Kirk Gittings]

95% of the people on this forum are amateurs and hobbyists who do not have the resources, time or interest to only pursue the "final [quality] option", ie a drum scanner for their day to day photography pursuits. It is one thing to suggest this as the best quality option. It is quite another to suggest all other possibilities are so inferior that they are without merit to anyone.

A few weeks back a contributer here took me to task for this very same error and he was right. I was not taking into account where people are at. I was looking at their scanning by my goals, based on my needs and resources.

As Sandy said. The plain fact is most people here could get what they want from a careful Epson 750 scan for small prints and an occasional drum scan for larger prints.

[sanking]

Lenny,

I don't disagree (ast least strongly) with anything you have said here, so I am going to close down this personal exchange, hopefully on a good note. I have sent you a personal pm and hope you consider the contents.

Regards,

Sandy King

Unlike yourself, I haven't seen prints I like at 20 inches made from an Epson, or similar scanner. I can't say its impossible, altho' maybe improbable. It's possible I am looking for different things in a print. I do have high standards, as I am sure do you. If someone has succeeded in creating a great result with an imperfect tool, then - if its real - we can all celebrate.

I have two general concerns. The first is that people should have good information. I think the Epson scanners come with coke bottle lenses. Epson wants you to believe they can scan at a real rez of 6500. That's obviously not true as you know and have stated. As you say, there is an appropriate tool for any job. I think people ought to know the limits of the tool they are buying, despite deceptive advertising. I think people should know that an Imacon is a CCD scanner, not a PMT, for instance, and that they could get one hell of a better scanner (in terms of quality) for 18K (or even half that), as one example. I also think its great when people know that despite the fact that they have a 35mm camera, they are aware if they want more print quality, that stepping up to medium format would make a big difference - that 35mm is not the end-all in print quality. They will then shoot what they do knowing they have choices. 35mm might be just the perfect balance for them and their chosen subject and print needs.

I also don't ascribe to the "scan for the job" philosophy. I think that digital cameras will get better over time and that one day most of us will be using them. Scanners will ultimately go the way of all things. How long that will take I have no idea.... but I think I am right about this. Given this, wouldn't it be nice if you had full size scans of the images that are your best, or your favorites. Not only should they be full size, but given that there is not any real scanning improvement coming along because of digital, shouldn't they be scanned with all the richness of the best technology available. This way, years from now you won't need a larger scan to do a larger print - or simply a better one. You will already have one. If you don't need the pixels, you can archive the master copy and downsize to what you need right now.

That might explain some of why I like drum scans so much. I also think they are a lot more within reach than many people think.

Lenny
EigerStudios

[sanking]

Just a brief epilogue.


I was too abrupt, and perhaps rude, in my response to Lenny regarding his suggestion that the OP have his 12X20 negative scanned on a Howtek 7500. I should have simply remarked that the suggestion was one that would give optimum print quality, but that IMO doing a drum scan was overkill given the projected print size of the OP.

Although I have some fundamental differences of opinion with Lenny, I respect his commitment to quality, and on the whole we probably agree about more things than we disagree. I apologize for any lack of respect toward Lenny in my exchange on this subject.

Sandy King

[Lenny Eiger]

95% of the people on this forum are amateurs and hobbyists who do not have the resources, time or interest to only pursue the "final [quality] option", ie a drum scanner for their day to day photography pursuits. It is one thing to suggest this as the best quality option. It is quite another to suggest all other possibilities are so inferior that they are without merit to anyone.

As Sandy said. The plain fact is most people here could get what they want from a careful Epson 750 scan for small prints and an occasional drum scan for larger prints.

Kirk,
Point taken.
I know there is a large hobbyist presence. At the same time, some of them become pros, or want to get pro-level results. I think its very important to have a few pros around who can explain how to get these results. A number of folks lately have asked questions as a preparation for printing an exhibition. They have also asked whether there will be any difference in certain products, or results from those products.

We all know that there isn't going to be any difference (given no wind) if someone goes out shooting with a cardboard camera with a great lens vs the latest Ebony with the same lens. But there will be a difference if they are using a piece of tin foil with a hole in it. It will still produce a photograph, but its important to note that there will be a difference. I only get riled up when people suggest there won't be.

I don't mean to suggest that all else is useless, and if it comes across that way, I apologize to everyone. I'm just trying to set the record straight.

Lenny

[Kirk Gittings]

I suspect that anyone who takes the time, energy and resources to make a ULF negative will soon opt for a scanning means that will hold the detail of the original.

[Ted Harris]

Boy am I glad I was at Photo LA and in Monterey while most of this was going on .

Three small points:

1) Sandy you are right about the support model and it is part of something I have stressed in every article I have written about purchasing high end scanners (flatbed or drum) in the used market; simply that when you do so you are purchasing a highly sophisticated industrial machine for something in the range of 5 cents on the dollar. Having done that you have to pray that you don't need much in the way of support or replacement parts because you can expect to pay for those parts and that service just as if you were one of the original industrial users. The folks that buy these machines new and even those that buy some of the used ones from brokers are used to the world of service contracts. I have always found that paying for service contracts is a wise investment for equipment I need to earn a living. Alternatively, doing the cost tradeoff of living without and perhaps just replacing something when a machine goes down and fixing it is too expensive. Same holds with software tech support.

2) Lenny, no one here or in other threads where these these issues have come up, has been comparing drum scanners. They have been comparing them to high end flatbed scanners for use with 4x5 and up film sizes. My point is and always has been that they perform the same for normal enlargement sizes .... say up to 8x. This is born out by the only objective comparative test ever made of a large group of high end scanners, the Seybold tests which I have referenced frequently. It's really not a question of "mine is better than yours" all of these machines do what they are manufactured to do. If I were making a print that was 5' on its smaller side I might look at results from a drum v. those from an IQsmart 3 or Howtek or Screen flatbed and only after seeing that test would I make the final decision. When a client wants a final print that size we are talking about a commission that warrants such a comparison. Frankly I don't thin a 40x50 does. Finally, I am not at all convinced that the results at the huge size would be that different but I won't know nor am I willing to speculate until I have the need for such a large print. Kirk's post above says it all.

3) Kirk slightly underestimated the size of my scanning bed. No stitching required for a 12x20. Either scanner goes to 12 x 23.

[QT Luong]

With all respects due to Sandy, this thread started on the wrong footing with his answer.

Unless you anticipate having the need to do a lot of scans, it doesn't make sense to purchase your own scanner. Many drum scanners and a few high-end flatbeds can do your negative size.

You are looking at a RGB file size of about 800GB if printing at 240dpi (double that if you want 360dpi printing). The cost of such a scan is in general in the $200-$300 range, regardless of the scanner used. I would email the participants in this forum (in particular those who have replied to you in this thread) for a custom quote. I think they will have better pricing for such large scans than the usual labs.

[sanking]

With all respects due to Sandy, this thread started on the wrong footing with his answer.

Unless you anticipate having the need to do a lot of scans, it doesn't make sense to purchase your own scanner. Many drum scanners and a few high-end flatbeds can do your negative size.

You are looking at a RGB file size of about 800GB if printing at 240dpi (double that if you want 360dpi printing). The cost of such a scan is in general in the $200-$300 range, regardless of the scanner used. I would email the participants in this forum (in particular those who have replied to you in this thread) for a custom quote. I think they will have better pricing for such large scans than the usual labs.

My thinking on this is that many people will want to do their own scanning for both artistic control and for reasons pertaining to work flow. Since the issue here is scanning a 12X20" negative for output at 4' X 8' one can get by, with no loss of quality IMO, with a fairly inexpensive scanner. In fact, although the conversation got diverted to high end flatbed versus drum scanner, one can get very high quality from 12X20" negatives in 4'X8' size from much less expensive scanners such as the Epson 10000XL or the Microtek 1000XL, both of which can be had for around or under $3k. If you were to scan at maximum resolution with these scanners you would have 600 ppi or 800 ppi at output size of 4' X 8'.

If the going rate for such a such is indeed $200-300, one would only need to do 10-12 scans to recoup investment. If I were in the position of Tri I would consider having one scan made with a very high end flatbed or drum scanner, and another with the Microtek 1000XL or Epson 10000XL. Make 4'X8' prints from the two files, evaluate, and draw conclusions.

Sandy King