4x5: LF Print quality from epson V750 scans

[Sevo]

All those scanners have one system. They should focus on the glass or else everything on the glass, 8x10s for instance, are out of focus. The cheap flatbeds are like that.

"Those" Epson scanners are all dual mode, with low-res paper mode on the glass and high-res transparency in holders. Period.

Sevo

[Bruce Watson]

Bruce,

You make an interesting point here. Could you please elaborate on this.

For example, I'm thinking about dynamic range, texture in shadows, in highlights, etc. What else would you include?

All parts of tonality, from separation of tones to proper rendition of textures, particularly smoothness. Much of this lacks vocabulary to adequately describe it, which is perhaps another reason to latch hold of resolution. But it's all part of getting the scanner to make an accurate representation of the film.

There's also something I call clarity for lack of a better word. It's one of the things I find when I scan the same piece of film on different scanners. When you compare prints from the different scans, sometimes you can see that one print has more clarity than the others. It's like the others have a thin veil between your eyes and the print. I suspect it's a local contrast effect, but I don't really know. A fluid mount tends to increase clarity, but it won't cure a veiled scanner completely in my experience.

Edit: I see below that Frank says this quality is "presence". I'll buy that. And there's a depth to a better scan that you don't see in a lesser scan. I don't know how to adequately describe it.

[Frank Petronio]

From my experience, the difference between the flatbeds and the high-end scans are kind of like the difference between 120 versus 4x5 (scanned on your flatbed). You can get a pleasing full range images from the 120 but you get that much more depth and presence from the larger format. And in my experience, I've seen properly scanned 120 on a good scanner blow away my 4x5 scans from my Epson.

You still have to manage with what you can afford. If you only shoot a dozen decent images per year, then by all means, you can rationalize spending the time and money on drum scans. But I think that quantity equals quality myself. Nothing beats shooting and while the post work is important, it is still secondary to finding/making good photos to start with.

Probably half the images I see people do seem to have "errors" to my eye. A lot of people fail to even hit a black and white point and put the mid-tones in some pleasing area... so just try to keep things in perspective, you can do respectable work with a flatbed.

[Ken Lee]

By analogy...

You don't have to go to an expensive drum scanner to improve on consumer flatbed scans. When scanning medium format, the difference between a dedicated film scanner and a consumer flatbed is plain to see. As others have said, what looks like a blob in one scan, is an object in the other. I presume that drum scanners, on Large Format, would show an analogous result. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

My old Microtek 2500f scanned without any glass, and had autofocus. Nevertheless, it paled in comparison to my old Minolta Dimage Multi Pro. If I were using Medium Format on a regular basis, I would go out and get a Nikon scanner immediately - because any enlargement greater than 3 or 4x, would demonstrate a distinct difference in quality.

Here is a small section of a 6x7 color slide:

Microtek Scan: 2500 spi



Minolta Scan: 2400 spi

[Jim Michael]

I thought Keith Walklet did a great job of demonstrating its capability in this thread.

Please yourself. That was probably harsh and overly personal.

What I mean is, and I have said this too many times, I have never seen a comparison between the V700/V750 and a drum scanner where the flatbed was in focus.

[sanking]

There's also something I call clarity for lack of a better word. It's one of the things I find when I scan the same piece of film on different scanners. When you compare prints from the different scans, sometimes you can see that one print has more clarity than the others. It's like the others have a thin veil between your eyes and the print. I suspect it's a local contrast effect, but I don't really know. A fluid mount tends to increase clarity, but it won't cure a veiled scanner completely in my experience.

I think the veil you describe is due to the fact that the lenses in consumer type flatbeds cover a wide area of film and are used at apertures that are diffraction limited, or close to it it. What this means is that in practice there is an area of 2-3mm above and below the plane of best focus that looks reasonably sharp, and that even when you locate the plane of best focus its clarity is still reduced by the results of diffraction and having to cover such a large area of film. Recovery sharpening regains some of the clarity but introduces sharpening artifcacts that degrade smoothness.

Sandy King

[Bruce Watson]

I think the veil you describe is due to the fact that the lenses in consumer type flatbeds cover a wide area of film and are used at apertures that are diffraction limited, or close to it it. What this means is that in practice there is an area of 2-3mm above and below the plane of best focus that looks reasonably sharp, and that even when you locate the plane of best focus its clarity is still reduced by the results of diffraction and having to cover such a large area of film. Recovery sharpening regains some of the clarity but introduces sharpening artifcacts that degrade smoothness.

Sandy King

That might be some of it. Some of it might come from the different ways scanners handle light -- and people have been arguing the best way to do that since the old diffusion vs. condenser (and more recently, vs. cold light) enlarger arguments.

And some of it may come from the electronics and firmware/software that handles the A/D.

There are many potential sources. I don't know how to adequately describe the effects, let alone propose any solutions.

[rdenney]

All this discussion has been enlightening, and my own experience comparing sensel-level results from my V750 with results from my Nikon 8000ED show a similar difference to what Ken Lee showed above.

But we have to keep things in perspective, too. One person described that only 8x10 negatives scanned with a drum scanner met his quality standards. That, to me, does not result from a process intended to provide good or even excellent image quality, but rather from a process intended to obtain the best possible image quality at any price. Of course, that motivation drives people who chase larger and larger formats.

And the use of the term "presence" is also enlightening. It exactly describes the difference between small and large formats even with low-power enlargements that should be well in hand for either format. I'm not sure it's micro-contrast as much as the smoothness of the tonal gradient at small as well as large scales within the print.

The print that I used as an example (a 20x40" print from a 6x12 negative) does not have all of that smoothness. But it does have the ability to draw the viewer into the image, and having done so, does not disappoint the viewer with unreadable mush at close range. So, yes, it is possible to do better, but in this case it met the photographer's expectations, and it met mine, too.

The improvement from 35mm to 4x5 is vast, and much greater than the improvement between 4x5 and 8x10. Of course both improvements are absolutely not subtle, but the first overcomes so many limitations and represents such a leap in quality and "presence" that people need to get used to it a bit before even contemplating the next step. Jumping from 35mm to 8x10 in one step will likely result in sensory overload, and seeking the appearance of quality (by buying a high-end capability) rather than finding quality in the images themselves. As the old amateur telescope maker's aphorism goes, if you want to grind a 12" mirror, it's faster in the long run to grind a 6" mirror first.

4x5 to Epson V700 or 750 to Epson printer is such a quality leap from 35mm or small-format digital (no matter how it's printed) that it represents a good place for a new large-format photographer to pause a while and catch up with the required technique. That will create a foundation for further improvements, so that the results drive the process and not the process driving itself. And the cost is commensurate with that level of development.

For 6x9 and smaller, though, it's not much more costly to use a Nikon film scanner (used 8000's are still completely usable now and sell for little more than a new 750). That film scanner is a better match for the medium and small format images. And the price is still within a range that is reasonable for someone starting out on the adventure.

Those of you who are insisting on the difference between a flatbed and a drum scan must know that if the image fails because of the flatbed scan it will also fail with a drum scan. That extra bit that the drum scan adds is not subtle, but it's also not what defines a compelling image. It may do no more than further expose the limitations in one's technique. Starting small and working up to one's own level of technique and desired result seems ultimately the cheapest path to that result.

Rick "quoting another aphorism: the great can be the enemy of the good" Denney