Howtek vs Imacon vs Epson

[Peter De Smidt]

<snip>

I ask because in my limited experience with drum scans the only place I've seen any real noticeable difference between them and my Epson 4990, with prints in the 16x20 range or smaller, has been in darkest shadow areas that contain detail. With the Epson I lose some or all that detail, with the drum scans I didn't.

<snip>.

And if you take that into account when exposing and developing your film, you should be able to get as much shadow detail as you'd like in your images, even using an Epson scan.

[Brian Ellis]

And if you take that into account when exposing and developing your film, you should be able to get as much shadow detail as you'd like in your images, even using an Epson scan.

Oh I can, absolutely. I can grossly overexpose (e.g. place the darkest important shadows on Zone V) to take the limitations of the scanner into account. That certainly will retain all detail in the darkest shadows. But then the brighter midtones (Zone VI) and highlights (Zone VII and VIII) become so bright and blown out that even N-2 development can't fix them. And areas that should have been shadows and darker midtones (e.g. Zone III and IV) cease to be shadows and become bright midtones in the negative instead. All of which results in a negative that's difficult if not impossible to print well.

[Kirk Gittings]

Does the type of photograph never enter into the equation, i.e. no matter what the image there's always this "abyss" between the Epson and a good drum scan?

I ask because in my limited experience with drum scans the only place I've seen any real noticeable difference between them and my Epson 4990, with prints in the 16x20 range or smaller, has been in darkest shadow areas that contain detail. With the Epson I lose some or all that detail, with the drum scans I didn't.

But there's been no other noticeable difference and unless that shadow detail is critical to the image, I don't care. It isn't worth it to me to pay $100 or more for a scan that's "better" than I can get from my Epson if the area in which it's better is unimportant to the image. But if you see this "abyss" throughout the scan, i.e. in all areas of the image, then maybe the person who did my drum scans (not Lenny) didn't know what he was doing.

Frankly most of my serious efforts with scanners and scans revolve around my B&W work. Of course I have, prior to digital, had thousands of my commercial color transparencies scanned for magazines, books, posters etc. but I was rarely involved in that. For a couple of years, just prior to digital, I did do allot of my own scanning for commercial publication because I was behind the times and everyone just wanted files. I never found that a scanner like an Epson (in my hands) could deliver what a commercial drum scan could deliver on transparencies for publication. They suffered in the shadow areas, highlight separation, color fidelity etc. I never had any complaints from clients, but I could see the difference.

It is certainly true IME that the major differences of home flatbeds and pro drum scans lies in resolution and in the renderings of the extremes of the tonal range. My 750 cannot pull detail out of deep shadows anywhere close to a good drum scan and I believe at the other end of the scale in the highlights that there is some flaring that takes place in home flatbeds that obscures fine detail in dense highlights.

And if you take that into account when exposing and developing your film, you should be able to get as much shadow detail as you'd like in your images, even using an Epson scan. Peter De Smidt

I believe this is part of the key to maximizing tonal control from the Epson scanners. Shoot and develop for the limitations of the scanner. With a drum scan I just shoot normally using basic ZS controls, but to maximize a scan on an Epson I would place the low values higher and develop the highlights lower.

BTW, I visited the printing service I use for large digital prints yesterday, who was working on a print of mine that I had never printed in silver or ink larger than 16x20 before (TRI-X in HC-110). I have never owned a printer that would print over 17" wide. This is a print 24x33-actually the largest art print I have ever made and is for an upcoming museum show. It was scanned by me on a well maintained Imacon at SAIC and looked superb at that size. The grain (or grain clumping I don't suppose that an Imacon can actually resolve grain) was sharp and tight and looked great even on close inspection with my reading glasses, requiring no additional sharpening than the original Imacon capture sharpening (I don't remember the setting). This was never a "look" that I could get on large prints with my Epson. As a backup I had Lenny do a drum scan of the same image in case it didn't hold up at that size. Lenny's scan pulled more deep shadow detail out of the negative, but I didn't need it-not a wasted expense anyway-I am archiving quality drum scans of all my best images from the past 30 years.



I know Lenny's drum scan has more deep shadow detail than the Imacon, but I tend to print this pretty deep anyway. There is a fair amount of work in the file and with a tight deadline looming, I was not wanting to start over with a new scan unless I had to. But in terms of resolution the Imacon could handle this size and on this image the tones were fine too.

[sanking]

This is a print 24x33-actually the largest art print I have ever made and is for an upcoming museum show. It was scanned by me on a well maintained Imacon at SAIC and looked superb at that size. The grain (or grain clumping I don't suppose that an Imacon can actually resolve grain) was sharp and tight and looked great even on close inspection with my reading glasses, requiring no additional sharpening than the original Imacon capture sharpening (I don't remember the setting). This was never a "look" that I could get on large prints with my Epson. As a backup I had Lenny do a drum scan of the same image in case it didn't hold up at that size. Lenny's scan pulled more deep shadow detail out of the negative, but I didn't need it-not a wasted expense anyway-I am archiving quality drum scans of all my best images from the past 30 years.

Kirk,

Regardless of how it was scanned that is a very nice image. The balance between the open window and the light on the wings of the angel is striking.

Sandy King

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks Sandy.

[Peter De Smidt]

Oh I can, absolutely. I can grossly overexpose (e.g. place the darkest important shadows on Zone V) to take the limitations of the scanner into account. That certainly will retain all detail in the darkest shadows. But then the brighter midtones (Zone VI) and highlights (Zone VII and VIII) become so bright and blown out that even N-2 development can't fix them. And areas that should have been shadows and darker midtones (e.g. Zone III and IV) cease to be shadows and become bright midtones in the negative instead. All of which results in a negative that's difficult if not impossible to print well.

Wow. My guess is that there's an issue with your scanner or technique. I've not had an Epson flatbed, but I did own a Canon 9950F, another consumer scanner. With it I could get better info from the toe of a film than I could with wet printing. I could safely double my exposure index with no trouble. My guess is that you're clipping shadow detail somehow. Consumer scanners, in my experience, are challenged by high densities but not low ones.

[Lenny Eiger]

As a backup I had Lenny do a drum scan of the same image in case it didn't hold up at that size. Lenny's scan pulled more deep shadow detail out of the negative, but I didn't need it-not a wasted expense anyway-I am archiving quality drum scans of all my best images from the past 30 years.

Thanks, Kirk. I have always held that certain printing styles needed different kinds of scanning. If you peruse Kirk's site, a worthwhile investment of time, you will see that he has a fairly contrasty printing style. He may need some good scanning for his highlights... depending on the neg, but he doesn't need it for the shadows, which he treats differently.

It will depend on what you how you like to print whether or not you need the extra detail....

Lenny

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks, Kirk. I have always held that certain printing styles needed different kinds of scanning. If you peruse Kirk's site, a worthwhile investment of time, you will see that he has a fairly contrasty printing style. He may need some good scanning for his highlights... depending on the neg, but he doesn't need it for the shadows, which he treats differently.

It will depend on what you how you like to print whether or not you need the extra detail....

Lenny

Like you supply me, I prefer to start with a full information scan. From there I can print down the blacks if I want to, but at least I have that choice from a good scan!

[onnect17]

First, Howtek is a great scanner, no doubt about it. But my Eversmart Pro is just as good with B&W and color negatives as the Howtek 45. And more versatile since you can scan a negative up to 12X17" with full resolution, and also reflective material of the same size. For color transparency material the Howtek will do a better job.

Color negative film of the same ASA usually has higher resolution than slide film. There are exceptions but my experience is that this is usually the case. Also, the dynamic range of color negative film is much longer than that of slide film, at least three or four stops and perhaps much longer if you scan.

I have personally exposed Kodak Portra 160 in conditions where the SBR was greater than 15 and was able to capture the entire range with a scan. Typically the curve of color negative film levels off at a certain point and all highlight values beyond this point are compressed on the same line. You could not print this in the wet darkroom but if you scan it is possible to adjust the curve to increase contrast in this area. Pretty remarkable what you can achieve, especially if you adjust the colors in the conversion from RGB to B&W in PS. This kind of range is not even remotely possible with transparency film.

Have you tried Ektar 100? Way more dynamic range than any slide film, virtually grainless in any size print, and sharpness is way up there.

Sandy King

Hi Sandy,
Thanks for recommending the Ektar. I got a couple of shots with the 6x17 of the foliage in NH and I'm really happy with the results (even with the holder being some kind of a POS, more than 1mm off).
I printed one of the negatives at 40"x120" on canvas and looks great.
Regarding the Imacon vs Howtek, I can compare only the 343 to the d4000. I don't think the wet mounting is worth it for B&W in the Howtek. Now, IMHO the howtek have the advantage of a cleaner light source and individual paths for R, G, and B; so the color quality is a lot better in the Howtek.
My two cents.
Armando