Best scanner for 11x14 B&W negative scans for 1:1 enlargement

[AutumnJazz]

Does Kodak still make the Creo scanners? If so, does that mean they'll keep the software up to date?

[venchka]

So, with a modestly priced new Epson scanner and a contact frame, you could have the best of both worlds. I knew I was wrong.

[Adam Verver]

This is probably a silly question (im sure you have a reason), but ill ask anyway: If you are going to print it 11x14, why not just make contact prints in the darkroom?

I've long given up on my darkroom (lack of time and intolerance to chemical vapors) and I am now looking at reviving my 11x14 view camera photography with a "digital darkroom".

[Adam Verver]

I have zero experience with any of the hardware and film mentioned. It seems to me that an 11x14 negative is begging to be contact printed. Maybe I'm wrong.

Indeed, that's what I did for years but I a few years back I have gotten rid of my vacuum frame, threw away my chemicals and turned my darkroom into a storage room. Since then digital came a long way and I would like to see how close I can match my old 11x14 contact prints using a good scanner, photoshop and Chromira prints.

[Adam Verver]

You can get a new Epson 10000XL with transparency adapter for well under $3000. It's unlikely to be in the same league as the high-end professional flatbeds, though the performance differences may not matter for your application. But it's much smaller and lighter (unlike the pro flatbeds, you can easily fit it on a desk and move it around yourself), it will run from virtually any late-model computer, and you get a new one with a warranty for your money.

Thank you for the valuable advice. I looked into the Epson 10000XL but I got a bit worried after I read a bad review at:
http://reviews.cnet.com/scanners/eps...l?tag=mncol;uo
in which the reviewer lamented "...Scanning 4x5 transparencies revealed an inability to match sharpness and dynamic range with a Scitex Eversmart even though the Scitex specs were not as good as the Epson. Interesting also was the inability to scan for shadow detail despite the higher reported Dmax of the Epson (3.8 vs 3.7)"

Since the ability to scan for good shadow detail with little noise is what I am looking for (not so much the resolution) this is making me think twice before going with 10000XL.

[Jon Shiu]

Note that that review was of film transparency scanning rather than B&W negatives. Dynamic range is usually not much of a scanning problem with black and white negatives, unless they are severely overexposed and/or over developed.

Jon

[Oren Grad]

"...Scanning 4x5 transparencies revealed an inability to match sharpness and dynamic range with a Scitex Eversmart even though the Scitex specs were not as good as the Epson. Interesting also was the inability to scan for shadow detail despite the higher reported Dmax of the Epson (3.8 vs 3.7)"

The first thing to bear in mind when shopping for a scanner is that the specifications for both resolution and Dmax are largely fictional. A professional-grade machine may well produce better results than a consumer-grade machine with more optimistic specifications.

FWIW, my friend Carl Weese uses a Microtek 9800XL - a relatively inexpensive consumer-grade tabloid flatbed - for scanning 8x10 and 7x17 B&W negatives for inkjet printing up to 2x enlargement, with results that range from quite presentable to very fine indeed. I'm not recommending the 9800XL in particular - Microtek has essentially pulled out of the US market now. But you may find that a relatively modest machine is all that you need for 1:1 reproduction.

It really depends on what you're hoping to achieve. To my eye, it's sometimes possible to achieve a reasonably convincing simulation of a Pt/Pd or other alt process print with inkjet, but if the look you're trying to mimic is that of a good contact print on commercial silver gelatin paper, using either inkjet or one of the big laser machines, forget it. Either way, I think you're likely to find this new approach most satisfying if you forget about trying to match your old darkroom results, and think about it as a new medium with its own distinctive attributes that you need to learn how to optimize.

[8x10 user]

Does Kodak still make the Creo scanners? If so, does that mean they'll keep the software up to date?

They do update the software. I have oxygen scan 2.6 and it supports mac OSx 10.3 and possibly 10.4.

New scanners are still being manufactured in isreal just as they were for Creo. I believe that right now they are mostly selling new scanners to schools, institutions, and various governments for archival purposes and scientific research.

IMO, I think that there are enough users of Scitex/Creo/Kodak scanners that kodak will at least update the software for new operating systems.

[Adam Verver]

.... Either way, I think you're likely to find this new approach most satisfying if you forget about trying to match your old darkroom results, and think about it as a new medium with its own distinctive attributes that you need to learn how to optimize.

That is a very helpful advice. Would there big differences between a darkroom contact print and a 1:1 scan + printing on a continuous tone printer such as the Chromira?

I am indeed looking forward to exploring the "new medium," as you stated, after giving up on the hassles of 11x14 contact printing in the darkroom. An admittedly tough question to answer is: what would be the most evident difference between a darkroom contact print and one produced through a scan and an a 1:1 print on a professional inkjet printer (such as the Epson Sylus Pro with K3 ink and UltraSmooth Fine Art Paper)? I know that the best way to know is to produce such prints, compare to my contact prints, and see such subjective things myself, but I am curious if people have come up with ways to express the difference.

I suspect that the main difference would be related to the fact that inkjet prints would have more the look of artwork with pigments absorbed in the paper fiber as opposed to the "glassy" (for lack of a better epithet) look of a photographic print surface.

Obviously I am still at the threshold of digital photography. Thank you for your exhortation to step in.

[Adam Verver]

Note that that review was of film transparency scanning rather than B&W negatives. Dynamic range is usually not much of a scanning problem with black and white negatives, unless they are severely overexposed and/or over developed.

Jon

Thank you Jon. That is reassuring but I do not understand the reason behind this difference. Could you (or someone else) please elaborate on this difference?