Scan experts! How much is enough?

[Peter Lewitt]

I use drum and Imacon scans of 4x5 film for lightjet and inkjet prints, and once created, for everything requiring less resolution.

Proofs and web/email images get scanned on an Epson 3200. Right now I rent time on the Imacon whenever digital files are needed for magazine or brochure reproduction. Is this overkill? I don't want to lose the quality of the large original, but I'm not sure if it shows up for these types of print jobs. I've always tried to err on the side of greater image quality, but as a result there are some gaps in my experience. Needless to say there are many tiimes when it would be useful to skip the trip to the Imacon.

I have avoided upgrading from the 3200, but I wonder if that is now required?

Thanks in advance for all the generous advice offered on this forum. I's a tremendous resource.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Although I've never used a 3200, my experience with the 4990 is that the quality is easily good enough for the uses you describe, and not distinguishable from higher quality scans (drum) until at least a 3-4X linear enlargement.

[JW Dewdney]

I wouldn't agree. Why is everyone so crazy resolution-obsessed? As if that's all there is to a scan - I would say it's an important aspect - but hasn't got much to do with image QUALITY. I would say a good drum scan has a HUGE leg up on an imacon - and the difference will even show up on web images- easily! It's all about capturing a large (and accurate) gamut. Just my 2 cents.

[Ted Harris]

JW has part of it correct, the second part is capturing the full tonal range of the film, not losing any of the highlight or shadow detail. Example, I just did some scans for Kirk Gittings on the Creo IQSmart 3. These were scans of 4x5 negatives that are among his favorites. The centerpiece of one image is a small adobe church. he and I both agreed that there was detail visible in the scan (and now the print) in the texture of the adobe on the walls and in the cross on top of the church. This, to me, is the most important reason for using high end scanners.

[Henry Ambrose]

The original question:

"Right now I rent time on the Imacon whenever digital files are needed for magazine or brochure reproduction. Is this overkill?"

When thrown into the "great leveler" of everyday offset print reproduction lots of the fineness of a high end scan is lost. If you can't make a file that exceeds consumer magazine printing requirements from good 4x5 film on an Epson 4990 you likely won't make one after you buy a $50,000 scanner.

I can't precisely address your 3200 since I never owned one. I think I skipped that model maybe owning all the other Epsons.

[Ron Marshall]

I had a neg scanned on drum and Creo, and on my 4990 to have an idea of how much I was loosing with the 4990. From the comparison I agree with the general consensus that a three times linear enlargement is about the limit using the 4990.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

I wouldn't agree. Why is everyone so crazy resolution-obsessed? As if that's all there is to a scan - I would say it's an important aspect - but hasn't got much to do with image QUALITY. I would say a good drum scan has a HUGE leg up on an imacon - and the difference will even show up on web images- easily! It's all about capturing a large (and accurate) gamut. Just my 2 cents.

I find it hard to believe that the differences would show up in a small brochure photo, let alone in a small photo on a website.

[Brian K]

I believe in always going for the best you can as you never know where an image might end up appearing. I've done ads that were supposed to run as single pages, and then see them end up as spreads, posters, even bill boards.

I am in the process of converting my entire portfolio into 8x10 LVT negatives. Partly because it's easier and cleaner for me to print from an 8x10 neg and partly because it's also a means to archive and protect my images for the long term. I end up with a super high res digital file, the original neg, and 2 8x10" digital copies. When I started doing this I was not intending to produce silver prints larger than 24", I have since added a 40" size to my edition and am damn glad that I worked at a resolution large enough to accommodate this bigger size.

Why spend the time and effort to produce files that you're just going to want to toss out and rescan in a year or two when you get a better scanner? I can't tell you how many people I've spoken to who after the purchase of a new and better scanner, tell me that they are re-scanning everything.

I purchased the IQSmart3 with the intention that this was going to be the last scanner I might ever buy. Even if a scanner comes out in 5 years with better density range and resolution I would not switch because the IQ3 already retreives all the information that is available on my film.

Ted, Why did you scan Kirk's work on the IQ3 instead of the Cezanne? Does that indicate a preference for the IQ3?

[Henry Ambrose]

"Why spend the time and effort to produce files that you're just going to want to toss out and rescan in a year or two when you get a better scanner?"

For the jobs that are commercial "fish wrap" my reason is the $10,000.00 you'll save by not buying an expensive scanner. Outsourcing a couple of dozen drum scans a year won't get you close to the price of the mega-scanner. A large part of this decision is about what kind of work you will really do with the machine. Or maybe that you have loads of cash laying around.

I'm not saying that if you -need- one you shouldn't buy it but just think about it first. And like I wrote before in particular response to the original question I don't see a reason for drum scanning everything you do (on sheet film) for typical offset print reproduction. If your business is selling big prints or you're rolling in dough then its an entirely different situation.

[JW Dewdney]

I find it hard to believe that the differences would show up in a small brochure photo, let alone in a small photo on a website.

Well - I'm sure you're not going to see resolution differences on a website - especially sub-100k jpeg files...(!) but your colour gamut is pretty healthily resolution-independent. There's a FAR greater 'clarity' and 'pop' to images scanned on better machines than you'd get on the epsons, etc.. (sorry - but i'm just not sold on those - even though the newer ones might have improved). But also, to my mind - a huge scanner running photomultiplier tubes and totally discrete electronics for each channel is going to blow away smaller CCD machines nearly every time (there ARE exceptions, I'm sure). You'll definitely see alot of the differences by looking in the individual channels.

As for resolution - well- resolution is great and all - but it totally depends on the application. Sometimes you need it - sometimes you don't. But resolution alone is, to me, a completely independent parameter. Best is to use the scanner that pulls the best gamut, has the best channel separation and can provide the max resolution that you'll need (which, IMO - is commonly overestimated).