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

[bsimison]

That's a BS excuse.

Quite literally, thanks for noticing my name. :-)

I have had years when I have shot more test film than actual photographs.

Kodak must love you.

As for the sharpest glass, there's a ton of great glass on e-ay that is priced very reasonably. You buy a used lens, shoot some test film, examine the film and if like the lens you keep it, otherwise you send it back. As for not having the best scanner, i didn't get an Imacon or Creo until a year and a half ago, for the 16 prior years i sent my important work out for a drum scan. Bottom line is that if you do care about the quality of your work it's not as much a money issue as a time and effort issue.

Yes, you're correct. You test film and developers, find the best glass you can, and hone your technique -- both the craft and the art. It's the way you grow your skills. However, these internet discussion forum debates often degenerate into name-calling, straw man arguments, and faulty information. Reading these meandering rants, the new photographer gets it into his or her head that to get acceptable results, they must have the most expensive lens, enlarger, scanner, macguffin...otherwise, why even bother shooting?

It should come as no surprise that a $10,000 scanner outperforms a $500 one. I don't think anyone here who was seen the comparative results firsthand will argue against that. The question is if the scanner you want it good enough to produce quality scans in the size you need.

At some point, you have to understand that your technique and equipment are "good enough" and start shooting.

[Brian K]

Yes, you're correct. You test film and developers, find the best glass you can, and hone your technique -- both the craft and the art. It's the way you grow your skills. However, these internet discussion forum debates often degenerate into name-calling, straw man arguments, and faulty information. Reading these meandering rants, the new photographer gets it into his or her head that to get acceptable results, they must have the most expensive lens, enlarger, scanner, macguffin...otherwise, why even bother shooting?

It should come as no surprise that a $10,000 scanner outperforms a $500 one. I don't think anyone here who was seen the comparative results firsthand will argue against that. The question is if the scanner you want it good enough to produce quality scans in the size you need.

At some point, you have to understand that your technique and equipment are "good enough" and start shooting.

Over time you learn who on a forum is knowledgeable and in what areas.

While you think it comes as no surprise that a $10K scanner is better than a $500 scanner some do not consider that a given. Hence the length and breadth of this thread.

[Kirk Gittings]

The OP asked a very specific question which in my experience and to my standards was an unqualified no:

"I know that for very large, exhibition quality prints I am going to have to get my LF negs drum scanned. My question (phew!) is:

For prints to 24 x 36" can I get very high quality (subjective I know, so let's say, quality that YOU would happily exhibit in a professional context) from a flatbed?

My proposed workflow is to get the film developed by a third party, then scan for proofing purposes myself using a yet-to-be-purchased Epson V750 or Microtek M1/F1. Which of these is likely to give the best results for my needs? And will either give good enough results for my exhibition purposes?"

As a teacher of photography since 1974, I have to ask.....wouldn't an answer like "At some point, you have to understand that your technique and equipment are "good enough" and start shooting." be a cop out? I remember when I was learning photography, I saw and was blown away by the vision and technique in a Wynn Bullock exhibit. Naively I asked one of my professors how I could get that kind of quality from my Mamiya 35mm camera. Luckily that professor pointed me in the direction of LF photography and though it was many years before I could afford the equipment, because of him, I knew what was necessary to achieve that kind of quality and it became a goal. Not having the LF equipment in no way slowed down my productivity but the desire for the technical excellence I saw in the Bullock prints raised my standards for anything photographic that I was involved in. For instance I learned that to approach the LF quality I desired from my 35 & 6x6 cameras that I had to print small. Many of these lessons have not changed with digital prints. My goal is to make digital prints that approach the resolution, dynamic range, gradation etc of enlarged silver prints. My recommendations are based on my extensive and continuing experiments with that comparison as my goal and I am satisfied that with my current prints are reaching that goal (collectors of my work agree to). At 16x20 or larger that print quality can only be achieved with a professional flatbed or drum scan. I would be shirking my responsibility as a teacher to suggest anything else.

[bsimison]

Kirk, regarding the question posed by the OP, agreed.

As for my statement being a cop out? We differ. Scores of internet users will land on this thread, searching for advice on what scanner to buy. Many will then spend the next few weeks scouring the Bay for used Creos and Cezannes, thinking it will make their photos better.

Direction is good, and your professor did well to introduce you to the tools of LF...but had you got hung up on acquiring the gear first, like so many new photographers do, hopefully he would have given you the encouraging kick in the pants to get out and shoot.

[Brian K]

Kirk, regarding the question posed by the OP, agreed.

As for my statement being a cop out? We differ. Scores of internet users will land on this thread, searching for advice on what scanner to buy. Many will then spend the next few weeks scouring the Bay for used Creos and Cezannes, thinking it will make their photos better.

Direction is good, and your professor did well to introduce you to the tools of LF...but had you got hung up on acquiring the gear first, like so many new photographers do, hopefully he would have given you the encouraging kick in the pants to get out and shoot.

Brett do you actually know of ANY photographers who didn't take photos until they had their dream set up? You work with what you have and you get better stuff when you can afford it. Even those of us who have the better gear did not start out at day one with this type of gear. It took most of us many years to acquire better stuff, but that did not stop any of us from still doing photography. Do you really think that someone with a serious interest in photography is not going to shoot until they get a gold plated hassy or a drum scanner?

Scores of internet users will land on this thread and if they can afford a new or used pro scanner and can justify it's purchase they'll buy it, if they can't justify or afford it they'll compromise and buy a pro-sumer scanner. It's really that simple.

So many of these arguments are so absurd that i really have to think that for some people it's more of a personal issue, "If I can't have that, it can't be any good." Kirk, Ted, Sandy and I, among others in this thread use these tools as part of our livelihoods. There's little compromise on your tools when it's your profession. Maybe the problem here is that the professional perspective is butting heads with the amateur perspective?

[sanking]

As for my statement being a cop out? We differ. Scores of internet users will land on this thread, searching for advice on what scanner to buy. Many will then spend the next few weeks scouring the Bay for used Creos and Cezannes, thinking it will make their photos better.

Too much effort has been expended in an effort to paint people as elitists. I am not an elitist but I do want to understand for myself the limits of the medium with any given film/scanner/print size. I would personally advise any beginner to start with one of the consumer flatbeds and hone his/her skills on it, working within its limits, and the V700, V750 or Microtek M1 would be good choices. I would probably choose the M1 because of the auto-focus capability. Most of us agree that good results can be had with these scanners up to 4X. And frankly, there is too much obsession with large prints so I don't see that a limitation of 16X20 from a 4X5 negative is all that limiting. And if the beginner is satisfied with prints larger than 16X20 from his/her consumer flatbed, that is just fine with me. People are free to make prints using whatever standards they want.

With regard to the comparison prints you showed from IQSmart3 and 4990 scans, I want to point out that the pepper grain you observe in the print made from the IQSmart3 is not an essential characteristic of that scanner. Rather, it results from the use of one of several different sharpening options and in this case the operator did not, IMO, choose the correct one. I am very familiar with this pattern because it is almost identical to what I get with the EverSmart Pro if the default sharpening option is selected. In the case of your scan I am certain that I could have completely eliminated the pepper grain with no loss of sharpness by the use of other sharpening options, or by scanning at a different resolution.

Sandy King

[sanking]

On the other hand, if you only do 11x14 or smaller prints, neither the 4x5 or pro scanner is needed. This is exactly the category most amateurs fall into. In fact, I do not understand why many in here get into 4x5, spend all that money on top lenses, time learning how to use 4x5, and then do not realize the weakest link is the scanner (it is like having a pop bottle for a lens). If you do not want to pay for pro scans, or buy a pro scanner, then your better off with medium format and a Nikon 9000, and it will be far more convenient to use.

This is a good point, and one that I believe was mentioned earlier by Don Hutton. You can get much better quality from a high quality scan of a good MF negative than from a scan of a 4X5 negative with a consumer flatbed.

I mentioned in another thread that not long ago I was in Toronto at one of the top printing studios in North America. While I was there a fellow was picking up some large color prints, I believe they were 30X40" in size. One of the top printers at the studio, who had not been involved in the production work, looked at the prints and asked, 8X10 format? The fellow replied, no, Mamiya 7III drum scanned. A drum scan, or one with a high end flatbed, of a Mamiya 711 negative will drub a consumer flatbed scan of a 4X5 negative.

Sandy King

[Kirk Gittings]

Direction is good, and your professor did well to introduce you to the tools of LF...but had you got hung up on acquiring the gear first, like so many new photographers do, hopefully he would have given you the encouraging kick in the pants to get out and shoot.

I didn't need a kick in the pants, at that point as a junior in college, I had been actively photographing already since the 6th grade. BTW, I give students motivational kicks in the pants all the time, but I fail to see how that is in any way a contradiction to demonstrating the highest levels of technique, craftsmanship and the equipment necessary to achieve those standards.

[rugenius]

Wow, this thread just keeps on going.
And it all started with a desire for "very high" or "exhibition quality" enlargement via scanner with the caveat that the largest prints would be drum scanned and the 24 x 36 via flatbed. At least that's what he asked about...
I know that for very large, exhibition quality prints I am going to have to get my LF negs drum scanned. My question (phew!) is:

For prints to 24 x 36" can I get very high quality (subjective I know, so let's say, quality that YOU would happily exhibit in a professional context) from a flatbed?

When the thread started... I'm thinking to myself... Well, I was able to get reasonable (oh the subjectiveness!) results even with Med Format on a consumer flatbed, so perhaps this guy could apply the the same to 4 x 5 and get "high quality"...
But many people dissagreed with this approach.
And that's what the forum is all about I guess...
I find it very interesting to see a gammet of different attitudes and knowledge.

Exhibition quality print in B&W smacks of resolution and infinite tone.
An interesting issue is the limits of the film media compared to the digital image sensor and optics on the scanners mentioned in this forum.
Also consider maybe that the optical density observed in the highest perfomance scanner may exceed what is possible to be percieved by the human eye while viewing 24 x 36 from a distance of 12 inches to 5 feet.

It is easy for me to understand why the camera perfectionist would prescribe a general rule of thumb for 3X to 4X to flatbeds.
It is more difficult to understand what a person's exhibition quality concerns are in contrast to my own ideas of what I want out of the same media.

Lastly, I have noticed that even though many people appear to be knowledgable about the layman use and end result of scanner technology, I doubt many people have actually engineered an imaging platform. After 12 years of development specific to electron and light optics microscopes for metrology, review, and defect analysis I can tell you that everything is fair game when it comes to image manipulation. Scanner technology is no different. And obviously we have different understandings of things like sharpening algorithms, sampling rates, filters, native resolution, etc,...
If people think un-sharp mask OR smoothing is a cheat, I would ask you to reconsider the evidence. It's how we get things done.
That said, and all things considered, a particular issue I take is manufacturer specification. And Microtek, Epson, etc,.. often tout 4800 dpi, or 6400 dpi but how often do you see the evidence indicate anything beyond 2400 to 3000 dpi actual. Ditto that for the optical density of 4.X!!! I wish somone like Nikon would make a competing flatbed because at least they appear to have valid specification.
Ahh but that would cost $3K not $800...

[rugenius]

Here's another example to position my original point which several people have argued against:
VERY large enlargements
david vatovec, Mar 13, 2003; 06:15 a.m.

In the next year or so i plan to have an exhibition of 120x140cm (47x55 inch) size prints. The source is a 6x7 cm BW negative that must be scanned at 6000dpi (if i`m correct) to have an output file of 47x55 inch @ 300 dpi am i correct? That means that a color file that size would be approx. 700MB - for using Photoshop to color some parts of the prints i need at least twice as much RAM as the size of the file i`m working with - am i correct (that means a pc with 1,4 GB RAM!!!). One file barely goes on one CD - cca. 750 MB! Are there any other journeys to the desired final prints or i have to buy a 10.000 USD graphic station and put all my earnings in digital scanning?

Answers

Justin Winokur, Mar 13, 2003; 07:11 a.m.
Response to VERY large enlargments from digital files
Hello

I don't know how much help I could give but it appears to me (using Photoshop) the file will be 670mb. You are about correct for the dpi (6000).

I want to make one point. If you are printing at this size you do not need 300dpi prints. The viewing distance is 184 cm (diagonal). At this much lower DPIs are sufficient. I don't have the exact number but I’m sure that 200dpi would be great.

I would love to hear where you buy your CD's because the most I have ever found was 700mb which is still better than the old 650mb. I hope this helps