Noob question... scanner for 4 x 5...

[Rob Landry]

"Your argument about the dialog box divided into 2 zones is interesting. You argue there are NO INCHES, but then why is the value for RESOLUTION entered as ppi (in the Image Size dialog box in PS)?.

Okay, I've included 2 screen shots of Photoshops Image Size Dialogue below

Notice the top zone is labelled "pixel dimensions" and the bottom is labelled "document size". Notice how in both screen shots, the pixel dimensions are the same, yet the document sizes below are different? The kicker here is (and what confuses soooo many people) is that the actual image on screen has not changed in either case. Why is that? Because when an image is on screen, or in your digital camera, it has NO physical dimensions. When you choose an "image size" in your DSLR, you choose it based on pixel dimensions. If I want to shoot at high quality with a D2x, I select 4288 x 2848 pixels in the menu, not "12 x 15 @ 300 ppi". The camera has no concept, nor does your monitor, how many "inches" it has. It's only on output that you need to concern yourself with "inches". You monitor is simply trying to display pixels values in a 1:1 relationship as they're described in the file and it will do so as accurately as it can based on the display technology (CRT vs LCD).

Don't believe me, read here and here and here (there's hundreds more):

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LDT4

http://www.nicholsonprints.com/Articles/dpi.htm

http://www.scantips.com/no72dpi.html

http://www.technicallyeasy.net/2007/...eb-images.html

http://www.just-stuart.com/photogs/DPI_Confusion

[Rob Landry]

Rob, you recently made the following comment on another thread …"For example, the 35mm crops posted, I know from experience with my Minolta 5400 that the M1 scan ISN'T VERY GOOD. I'm sure someone who's used a Nikon 9000 would be able to form a similar opinion from the MF crops in that review." ………. http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=33132 . So, you just admitted here that there are significant differences. The differences would be even bigger with high end pro scanners. Make up your mind!

Yes and I was referring to the 35mm crops, not 4x5. It's not really surprising I guess that an unsharpened crop from 35mm at 4800 ppi from a flatbed isn't going to be all that spectacular. I guess I was just stating the obvious.

[Brian K]

I would have thought that Sandy's resolution samples would have put an end to this but no. So this is just becoming a dog chasing his tail type thread. Rob's mind is set. I'm sure he feels that his limited experience is more than enough to justify his POV. Whereas the rest of us who may have done head to head testing and comparisons of drum, pro flatbed and amateur flatbed scanners over the course of years must be wrong and were foolish to spend so much money.

Check this out if you want to see a few dozen scanners compared head to head;
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

[sanking]

Anyway, I'm not going to say much more on this, I've pretty much expressed any points I wanted to make. Like I said, I don't doubt that there's a difference between a "consumer flatbed" and a "professional" machine, I just question the level of difference at relatively small (16 x 20) print sizes from 4x5. That and continuously telling newbies that they can't achieve anything worthwile unless they're willing to fork out big bucks just gets me annoyed.

You may be annoyed because you don’t really listen to what others have been saying. And if you do, you really misrepresent it. I am not aware of anyone here who is continuously telling newbies they cannot achieve anything worthwhile unless they are willing to spend big bucks.

Over the years I have consistently stated that good works can be done with Epson flatbed scanners so long as you stay within the limits of their capability. I have owned Epson 2450, 4870 and 4990 scanners and work hard to get the most out of them by optimizing height and fluid mounting. And I have made many carbon transfer prints in the 2X - 3X range from scans with the 4870 and 4990 that I consider to be of very high quality. In fact, one of the posters in this thread, who uses a drum scanner, on viewing some of these prints remarked that they were as sharp as any he had ever seen. These were prints up to 12X17" size from original 5X7" negatives. From some cropping, say where detail is not especially important, I would feel comfortable going up to 4X, or even slightly larger.

What I have said, and will continue to say, even if it annoys you, is that it is not possible to get very high quality from a flatbed scanner in magnifications of greater than 3X-4X. I am going to continue to say this because it is true by my standards and by those of many experienced digital workers.

Is very high quality a subjective term? Of course, if used with no sense of criteria whatsoever, but for me “very high quality” is when a print made with an inkjet printer, or with wet processing via a digital negative, equals (more or less) the quality that one would get in wet processing with an enlarger and high quality lens, using the same negative and printing at the same size. I have made a few color prints up to 5X-7X magnification from Epson 4870 and 4990 scans of 6X9cm negative that look OK if there is no comparison, but when compared to wet processed prints of the same size made with an enlarger it is easy to see that the quality sucks.

Sandy King

[tashley]

I see that the OP is mostly silent, wondering at what he started! The best thing for him would be to send the same negative/transparency to advocates of both camps, and print both files at the same lab, or print them himself and see if there is a difference that matters to him. That's the only thing that counts.

Cheers,
Kumar

Kumar, you hit that nail fair and square on the head! I wish I'd never started this since it seems only to be causing grief.

Tim

[Rob Landry]

What I have said, and will continue to say, even if it annoys you, is that it is not possible to get very high quality from a flatbed scanner in magnifications of greater than 3X-4X. I am going to continue to say this because it is true by my standards and by those of many experienced digital workers.

Sandy,

As I said, I'm perfectly happy with the results I'm getting (or will be getting when I have time) so I'll graciously concede that my standards of quality are obviously not as high as yours. Luckily I'm perfectly fine knowing that. I trust that you're happy knowing that as well.

[sanking]

Sandy,

As I said, I'm perfectly happy with the results I'm getting (or will be getting when I have time) so I'll graciously concede that my standards of quality are obviously not as high as yours. Luckily I'm perfectly fine knowing that. I trust that you're happy knowing that as well.

Rob,

Yes, I am just as happy as I can be. Could not be happier had I just finished a nice desert of key lime cheese cake followed by a glass of good coñac.

Best,

Sandy

[Rob Landry]

Sweet. Now I'm jealous, I'm stuck at work.

[ditkoofseppala]

Well, I've waded through this entire thread. And I must say it does not increase my respect for anyone involved, apart from the OP who had the guts to ask the question. The title clearly categorises the issue in the first two words: "Noob question." I'm a noob myself, almost, to scanning; okay, I bought a Microtek Scanmaker III ten years ago, and quickly found out that it was of little use in scanning negatives and transparencies, despite its having a separate scanning stage for the purpose. (It gets quite a lot out of a 4"x6" commercial colour snapshot print, though -- more than I ever thought was there.) So I read this thread in hopes of learning something that would help me sort out the sheep from the goats, scanner-wise. No such luck. This discussion was completely unedifying in that respect.

All I have learnt here was that people on this forum appear not to be in substantive agreement respecting objective standards of image quality. Elsewhere someone quoted "when artists gather, they don't discuss which brushes are best."

The problem isn't unique to this forum. I followed some Google links to research the Epson Perfection V-750M Pro flatbed scanner, about which its manufacturer trills, "Enjoy unparalleled performance when scanning negatives, slides or prints." One reviewer (sorry, lost the URL for that one and can't seem to relocate it) made it sound absolutely stupendous. Another found it a big disappointment and claimed he would be returning his to the firm from which he bought it. The Shutterbug reviewer thought it was pretty good, making dedicated film-scanners (for 35mm and MF) pointless except for perhaps faster-ISO, grainy 35mm instances. Ovidiu Predescu -- the one who's returning his -- took a Schneider test slide and pretty well proved the Epson vastly inferior to a Nikon Coolscan 5000. This means something to me, because I have a large backlog of 35mm record shots on colour-neg film that need to be scanned for permanent storage. (Moderators please excuse the slight OT reference.) I'd rather buy a single machine than a flatbed plus a stripfilm/transparency scanner, especially when I think about using my Bronica. (Again, permission O ye blessed ones!)

I'm a multimedia, multiformat person. Not a purist. And it's the extreme-purist positions here that are starting to get a little bit up my nose. A camera is a tool for making images. Images are meant to be viewed, not smelt with a 20x loupe. And when one is trying to absorb information concerning a high-tech field that has blossomed into a confusing plethora of models with less than clear distinctions between "consumer" and "pro" applications, forgive me, but one seeks CLARITY rather than purism. One hopes for demonstrations of objective standards, in hopes of being thereby enabled to make reasonably good buying decisions without having to spend months of intensive research on each single equipment purchase.

I don't give a tinker's damn who paid $500, or $5000, or $20,000 for his scanner. I'll tell you right now that I'm in the $500-700 bracket and will never be anywhere else. (Nor am I likely ever to pay $100 a pop for "professional" bureau scans, not after some of the stuff I've read here.) I doubt that the OP on this thread was prepared for a $20K purchase. Like myself, he sought clarity. Did he find it in this discussion? I doubt that. I couldn't find it on the other web-reviews either. I wonder why the photographic community cannot come up with some easily demonstrated and interpreted OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, instead of endlessly quarreling over "which brushes."

(Now I'd better quickly don my asbestos suit! )

[Brian K]

J. Jeffrey, I've heard painters talk about brushes and sculptors talk about chisels, of course these kinds of discussions tend to occur within their field as the average person doesn't give a rat's ass about paint brushes. But the tools one chooses to use are important for one's art. Photography is the most technical and technology dependent of the arts. The equipment we use has a direct affect on the outcome of our work.

Not to say that poor photographs are not done with great gear, and great photos not done with poor gear, but in most cases the photographer has chosen gear that is best suited to what they do. And those choices are often made on a variety of qualitative, ergonomic, cost effectiveness and practical criteria.

As many people come to these forums seeking useful information, and may act on, spend money or time based on that information, it is incumbent on it's participants to provide accurate, factual and firsthand information about the subject being discussed or lacking that to keep their conjecture and assumptions to themselves. When someone makes statements that are not accurate and when there are those with extensive firsthand experience with the topic, they are obligated to point out the inaccuracies or at least discuss and make the person posting potentially inaccurate information explain how they got their conclusion.

Granted there is a level of subjectivity when you ask. "how good does good need to be?" And what some consider acceptable may be totally unacceptable on the professional level. In this discussion i think there was an excellent exchange of information, and many resources were listed for others to further investigate and act on or draw their own conclusions from. Sometimes this process ain't pretty.