Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Enlarger or scanner?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    69

    Enlarger or scanner?

    Since I got back into LF (about 6 months now, I think), I've been thinking about enlargements. That is, I've been thinking about how I can make them, and most economically. I've come to some conclusions, and I would be interested in the opinions of the rest of the forum.
    I have a complete B&W darkroom, set up to handle 35mm and MF up to 6x6. My enlarger, however, is an Omega B-22, so it will only handle up to 6x6; my best chance of obtaining 4x5 enlarging ability is probably going to be a Beseler 23CII, which would mean selling the B-22 (probably for only about $100) and finding a decent used 23CII (probably over $200). This would leave me holding the bag for over $100, obviously. This is a major problem, however, since the budget is tight right now.
    I also have a good Epson printer, which prints completely satisfactory (for my tastes) images up to 8.5" wide. Now, the obvious problem is that I can't print larger than that-- while the 4x5 negs would certainly give me more in the (traditional) darkroom. But here's the fact-- I rarely print larger than 8x10 anyway. This is by choice, not by necessity; the MF stuff I do could easily print 11x14 and 16x20, but I simply prefer the 8x10 size most of the time.
    Beyond that, I do enough work on the pro end which requires digital retouching or a quick proof off of a negative that something that can handle 35mm and MF negatives in a scanner would be a great tool to have around. The problem is, the "closest" thing to a true film scanner with this range is $1000s more than I can afford. However, I have seen favorable things about some of the flatbeds that are set up to scan negatives also, like the Epson 3200, the Agfa Arcus, and the Agfa Duoscan. These, I could afford-- especially if I sold the flatbed I already have and replaced it with one of these.
    Finally, here come the questions: which way should I go? Should I go with the scanner, and keep the Omega in the darkroom for a while-- then upgrade to the 23CII down the line? Or should I forget the scanner altogether, and figure out how to get the enlarger I need?
    I guess what it really comes down to is this: are these scanners good enough to be worth it? Has anyone used the Arcus? Duoscan? I've seen them for reasonable prices on eBay. (Not so much the Epson...) What is the largest image I could expect from one of these Agfas from a 6x6 or 6x4.5? How about from 35mm? How about from 4x5?
    Any input you have is welcome. Thanks for letting me ramble.

  2. #2

    Enlarger or scanner?

    The Beseler 23C is a 6x9cm ( 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 inch) enlarger. You would need a Beseler 45. The really good news is that with patience, and a bit of luck, you will find that enlarger for sale in your local throw away newspaper for a give away price.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Kamnik, Slovenia
    Posts
    14

    Enlarger or scanner?

    I use the Epson 2450 flatbed, which is in the same category you are considering. I was scanning 35mm and 6x6 transparencies at the 2700 dpi optical resolution of the machine (per Epson specs, some believe it is efectively more like 1600 dpi). For my taste, resampling the scans down 30-40% gives quite OK results. I find original 2700 dpi scans quite fuzzy and sharpening seems only to worsen them (as a rule, I turn off USM sharpening in the TWAIN driver and do it myself in Photoshop). For digital printing I usually assume 250 dpi resolution so you can do the math to see what is possible to get from either 35mm, 6x6 or 4x5 - though this are just my personal preferences, your requirements might be different.

    Epson high-end flatbeds (the 2450 model and above) seem to have rather precise head positioning, thus enabling scanning software like VueScan or SilverFast to support multiple scaning passes of a single slide. This is useful to reduce noise in darker image areas, though I must admit I hardly notice the difference (IME much more obvious with Nikon Coolscans). Another trick, which I have not tried yet, is to scan a slide twice at different gamma settings and then combine the scans in Photoshop to increase dynamic range of the scan (this is where flatbeds are certainly lacking with respect to dedicated film scanners).

    If you plan on doing a lot of scanning, dust will be your big enemy. In that case the newly announced Epson with the ICE scratch and dust removal might be a better option. For my volume of work, I can afford to photoshop the dust out. Also, for high-volume 35mm work nothing beats a Nikon Coolscan with a slide feeder. Still, with the Epson you can scan 12 35mm slides at a time if you scan from the film strip (before mounting them in frames).

    For my taste, 35mm scans are acceptable, but not for showcase type of output. 6x6 ones are very good when resampled down. But for the few critical applications I would certainly take them to Imacon.

  4. #4

    Enlarger or scanner?

    Ed, This is really a personal preference... I will be printing until I fall face first into my developing trays or when my wife finally prys my Linhof out of my rigamorticed hands... I do alot of digital for work but my love, aside from my family (I had to say that) is wet darkroom. From a good scanner, a 20x24 is not a problem. I got some info off the web (sorry, I cannot remember where) about scanning and you will be better off scanning in 2 pass (I use Vuescan at home) and as for the other settings, I have them locked into my Scanmaker at home. Here at work, we have 2 Imacons and a Nikon 4000 ED that do a nice job but they are pricey for personal use... The Coolscan is a nice film scanner and you should have no problems with sharpness.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    St. Paul, MN
    Posts
    141

    Enlarger or scanner?

    Hi Ed,

    Like you I use all formats. I also usually make 8x10 or smaller prints on my Epson 820. For larger color prints I have a lab nearby that has Fuji and lightjet printers. I sold my darkroom stuff a couple years ago. Gasp! Yes, I enjoy making inkjet prints. For 4x5 and medium format I use the Epson 2450 with very acceptable results. For 35mm I went with the Minolta Scan Dual 3 (about $275). The flatbed Epson just wasn't up to par for 35mm. With the Minolta scanner I can make killer prints. So, I had to get two scanners to cover everything. Maybe the newer Epson flatbed scanners handle 35mm better and you could get by with one of those.

    If you in fact enjoy darkroom work, I would not discourage you from getting a 4x5 enlarger. I all depends on what you like to do.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    San Joaquin Valley, California
    Posts
    9,597

    Enlarger or scanner?

    Ed,

    Why not just upgrade your Omega B-22 to a D-2(or D-II?) with patience, you can probably find one for close to $100.--------Cheers!
    "I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    90

    Enlarger or scanner?

    If I did only black and white and had a darkroom already, I'd probably upgrade my enlarger to 4x5. I don't have a darkroom and putting a decent one in my house would be costly. However, for color, I think digital is the way to go at the moment. I have an Epson 2450 (now two models back, I believe) and really like the color work it produces with medium and large format. For 35mm I don't find it up to par and, in fact, rely on my old HP PhotoSmart scanner for that format, unless I'm scanning something for a low resolution venue like the internet. (Someday I'll get a newer scanner, but since my more "serious" work is now LF, it does the job for family snaps and travel shots done with my SLR.)

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Location
    Baraboo, Wisconsin
    Posts
    7,697

    Enlarger or scanner?

    Maybe I missed something in your message but I don't understand just what you're doing at the moment since you say you have a good printer but don't have a scanner. How have you been using your printer if you don't have a scanner? I ask the question because if $100 is a major consideration for you at this time and you're not familiar with printing photographs on an ink jet printer then you will be in for an unpleasant surprise when you price ink jet cartridges and see how few 8x10 prints you can make with a set. Two sets of cartridges for an ink jet printer are going to cost about the same as the $100 that is concerning you and two sets don't produce a whole lot of prints even at 8x10 size. OTOH, if you're already somehow printing your photographs on your printer without a scanner you presumably already know that and have factored it in to your decision. In any event, if $100 is a major problem for you at this time I wouldn't suggest getting involved with digital work. Darkroom chemicals are much less expensive than ink jet cartridges and you should be able to pick up a 4x5 enlarger and lens for less than the cost of any scanner that will work well with 35mm and medium format, especially when you factor in the sales proceeds from your existing enlarger.
    Brian Ellis
    Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
    a mile away and you'll have their shoes.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    69

    Enlarger or scanner?

    Frank said... "The Beseler 23C is a 6x9cm ( 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 inch) enlarger. You would need a Beseler 45..."
    A friend of mine has a 23CII and enlarges 4x5s with it; I have watched him do it. Has he done some sort of retrofit, or installed a supplementary condenser?John said...
    "Why not just upgrade your Omega B-22 to a D-2(or D-II?) with patience, you can probably find one for close to $100"
    I've looked for such a bargain-- and I've been looking for over a month now. Where do you suggest I look besides that giant online auction conglomerate?Brian said...
    "Maybe I missed something in your message but I don't understand just what you're doing at the moment since you say you have a good printer but don't have a scanner..."
    Sorry about that, I guess I didn't give all of the info. I also have a digital camera, which we use mainly for snapshots of our 16-month old. I've been printing from those files for a while, usually not larger than 5x7. And, I have a flatbed scanner with which I have duplicated old prints, and repaired damaged ones-- output to printer.
    The printer I have is an Epson 820. Low-level, I know but two things make it great for my purposes: they released a driver update which gave it resolution comparable to the others (except the 2200), so it really does print fabulously; the other thing is that I can get ink for it fairly cheaply, since it is the low-level printer that it is. Black ink usually goes for $20, and the color cartridge only a dollar or two more. Now, I don't print a lot of 8x10s, so I don't have a sense of how much ink will be used, but I have done enough printing to recognize the costs.
    Let me give a little more clarification: the $100 is a concern if my money is going only toward my darkroom. If the broader horizon includes color scanning capability, there is more flexibility in spending. This is because of the practicality of being a full-time student who is a (very) part-time working photographer. I have to justify every dime spent on photography, and with the work I do, I have no market for B&W 4x5 work; thus, any investment in that direction is purely for personal pleasure. However, color capability, especially in MF, is justifiable to a certain extent (that is, a certain expense). I cannot afford a full-fledged film scanner that would handle MF; I can afford a flatbed that covers MF reasonably well, and if I can get the personal benefits of it handling 4x5 as well, that's great.
    Thanks for your input.

  10. #10

    Enlarger or scanner?

    I have no idea how your friend is enlarging Full Frame 4x5 negs in thie Beseler 2x3 enlarger. However, you state he is doing it. The Beseler 45 is for 4x5 negs, the 23 is for 2x3 negs. If you want to do full frame 4x5 negs, get the 4x5 enlarger or ask your friend to show you how he does this in a 2x3 enlarger. Then share the results with all of us.

Similar Threads

  1. Scanner comparison: Epson 4990 scanner added
    By Leigh Perry in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 28-Aug-2006, 05:35
  2. scanner...again
    By Percy in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 27-Mar-2006, 12:11
  3. Scanner
    By Yves Gauvreau in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 4-Jun-2004, 20:49
  4. Scanner
    By Leland Smith in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 23-Dec-2003, 18:00
  5. Can a scanner be mdified to work with an enlarger?
    By Emile J Schwarz in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 8-Nov-2001, 14:00

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •