Yet another MF/LF scanner comparison question

[Oren Grad]

I have a very specific question for anyone out there who has experience with both of the alternatives I'm going to raise. There has been plenty of discussion here around this general comparison, but nothing that addresses this particular take on it.

If the objective is an 8x10" color inkjet print that will be subjected to outrageously critical, grain-sniffing (dot-sniffing?) inspection, what would you choose to create the source file for printing? Medium format scanned with a Nikon 9000, or 4x5 scanned with an Epson V750 (or Microtek M1)? Assume that the film will be either Portra 160NC or Portra 400NC, and that the pictures would be taken using an appropriately sized view camera on a tripod and first-rate modern glass optimized for the respective format. Also, assume a relatively sharp printing paper, such as the new Harman glossy FB.

Just to get these out of the way: Yes, I've used both 6x9 and 4x5 view cameras in the field and I'm very familiar with the logistical considerations pro and con in either case. No, I'm not asking about larger prints, just about 8x10 prints that will be subjected to unreasonably critical inspection. Also, "use a 12MP FF DSLR", "get a drum scan", and "make contact prints from 8x10 color neg" are interesting alternatives to discuss some other time, but they're not what I'm after here.

Thanks for any thoughts on this.

EDIT: I should add, if the answer turns out to be, "nobody knows because nobody else has been silly enough to worry about a question like that", that's OK too.

[Gordon Moat]

Just for 8x10 prints, if you do not need the movements (swing/tilt/shift), then whatever camera you feel comfortable using should work. I don't consider that a 6x9 view camera would be that much lighter than a 4x5 view camera, though there are exceptions.

Convenience might dictate using a rollfilm back, which would dictate a medium format scanner. The Nikon 9000 has better colour depth (real not theoretical) than either the Epson or the Microtek, so yet another reason to use rollfilm.

Also, you loose a bit of an edge doing inkjet prints, so some of the resolution might be less than you expected after the scan. This is why I suggest using a scanner with better colour ability, since that will be a more critical and more noticeable aspect of the final printed results.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[Lenny Eiger]

If the objective is an 8x10" color inkjet print that will be subjected to outrageously critical, grain-sniffing (dot-sniffing?) inspection, what would you choose to create the source file for printing? Medium format scanned with a Nikon 9000, or 4x5 scanned with an Epson V750 (or Microtek M1)? Assume that the film will be either Portra 160NC or Portra 400NC, and that the pictures would be taken using an appropriately sized view camera on a tripod and first-rate modern glass optimized for the respective format. Also, assume a relatively sharp printing paper, such as the new Harman glossy FB.

EDIT: I should add, if the answer turns out to be, "nobody knows because nobody else has been silly enough to worry about a question like that", that's OK too.

I think you're asking some of the wrong questions, but to answer it nonetheless, I would go with the film scanner. 4x5 film is fabulous, but the Epson is not, in my opinion. A film scanner may not be a drum scanner, but it is a lot tighter than the Epson.

Lenny

[Oren Grad]

Thanks, guys, those are very helpful responses. I'm glad I asked - the answer may turn out to be clearer than I expected. It will be interesting to see if that's the consensus.

Gordon, I have two reasons for specifying a view camera for medium format. The first is so I can use my favorite medium format lens, which is the 90mm Apo-Sironar-Digital. The second is that once I put the camera on a tripod, I'm happier having movements available.

Lenny - what questions should I be asking?

[Sheldon N]

I believe that both options would be well within their respective capabilities regarding resolution at an 8x10 print. It is highly doubtful that you could see a true difference in resolution. Since the question is not one of resolution (toss print sniffing out the window) you should look at color/highlight/shadow/tonality differences between the two systems.

I think the Nikon 9000 would do better at pulling highlight and shadow detail from color negative film, so you would probably come out ahead shooting 6x9 with contrasty subject matter. Tonality/smoothness is probably a wash given the larger film size vs. better scanner tradeoff.

Overall, probably a question of splitting hairs. Which gear do you own? I'd use whatever you currently have.

[Oren Grad]

Thanks, Sheldon. Although I mentioned dot-sniffing, dynamic range and tonal character are certainly important parts of the equation for me.

I already own the cameras and lenses I would need to go either way, so the question is purely about which approach would better meet my objective.

[Cesar Barreto]

Oren, I also believe that the Nikon scanner would deliver a better result once you get glass masks, using or not wet-mounting. Sharper images to start with, less color fringes and less artifacts due to better stepping motor (I've tested Epson 4890 and have been using Microtek i900 and Nikon 9000).
But I wouldn't be surprised if you could find some slight graininess with 400 ISO film, wich I've never tried myself.
As about software, I think one can achieve equivalent results on either way.

[Frank Petronio]

I don't think the format or scanner will matter as much as how you process the files and how carefully you sharpen them.

I bet you could make either one look better than the other with proper post-processing and I also bet the raw file quality between the 6x9/9000 and the 4x5/750 are nearly the same.

For that matter, I've got some 8x10 inkjets from 12mp dslrs that don't give anything up compared to the 4x5 film based 8x10 inkjets. Of course the digital needs to be more carefully lit or of a lower contrast scene for that to happen.

It's not a silly question at all. I've been thinking about getting a Nikon 9000 and using medium format again for years.

[Oren Grad]

I don't think the format or scanner will matter as much as how you process the files and how carefully you sharpen them.

I bet you could make either one look better than the other with proper post-processing and I also bet the raw file quality between the 6x9/9000 and the 4x5/750 are nearly the same.

Ah, glad you mentioned it. So here's another criterion: for my taste, the less sharpening required by the file out of the scanner, the better. Under most circumstances, the effects of small-radius sharpening start to bother me long before you can see haloes.

So if the raw file quality out of the scanners is the same, that's cool. But if the idea is that you can fix one to look as good as the other through post-processing, that will be a very hard sell for me.

[Don Hutton]

Oren

I've been scanning MF film with a good MF film scanner (a minolta scan multi pro for many years) and scanning LF film on flatbeds for about 5 years. While I don't have a V750, I do own a 4990 Epson and have done comparisons of MF film on the minolta compared to 4x5 on the Epson. For a final print of 8x10, I'd pick the medium format film scanned on a good film scanner every time. Resolution is not going to be an issue on such small print size, but there will be differences in microcontrast and the dedicated film scanner will win the day.