DMax for scanners?

[Brian Ellis]

Just curious - what's putting you off about the 750? I own its immediate predecessor, the 4990, and have been very pleased with it when my prints are in the 16x20 range or smaller.

[jetcode]

if a scanner requires 3 passes to get the dynamic range of a piece of film I would carefully consider how much time it takes per image times the number of images you have to scan. Asher's approach sounds like a LOT of work.

I paid a lot for my scanner ($6k reconditioned) but I get great dynamic range from film the first time. In fact I just printed an image where you can see shadow detail across a range of shades 2-5 in the zone system (daylight sun), in fact some shadow detail might considered zone 1 as the values are near 0 but not zero and you can see detail in the print.

If I were going to do it again I would either send out for scans or take the plunge but I wouldn't buy a mediocre scanner and expect great results.

[Rob_5419]

Am I being taken in by all of the pleasant sales talk about the Microteks:

http://www.camera-shop.co.uk/acatalo..._Scanners.html

See what they say about the Artixscan - it just sounds great.

Brian - the scans from the Epson v750 which I've seen (and I've only seen two) are okay. I suppose I'm thinking that if I am going to get a scanner, I will either get a proper one or stay with my fax copier/scanner.

The grand ideas about getting a scanner may probably all fall flat. I've seen drum scanns of 5x4" which are very different from traditional optical printing. I'm not sure I've acquired the taste of scanned negatives and slides yet. I'm still thinking..

[jetcode]

Am I being taken in by all of the pleasant sales talk about the Microteks:

http://www.camera-shop.co.uk/acatalo..._Scanners.html

See what they say about the Artixscan - it just sounds great.

Brian - the scans from the Epson v750 which I've seen (and I've only seen two) are okay. I suppose I'm thinking that if I am going to get a scanner, I will either get a proper one or stay with my fax copier/scanner.

The grand ideas about getting a scanner may probably all fall flat. I've seen drum scanns of 5x4" which are very different from traditional optical printing. I'm not sure I've acquired the taste of scanned negatives and slides yet. I'm still thinking..

lots of numbers like 9600x4800dpi optical resolution (on a $300 scanner) - yeah, like that's possible - marketing is designed to move product, the buyer has to live with the product - big difference

of course you could always buy one and see for yourself

[Rob_5419]

Asher -

thanks for your thoughts. I think I understand what you're saying now.

The angle from which I'm approaching a scanner for my wishes (not needs), is based on the optical print.

That's unfortunate, but it's how I'm guaging the purposes of a scanner. I've seen drum scans, and I quite like the look of colour Velvia slides printed on drum scans, although it isn't Ilfochrome. I still like R types and C types, but I can't find a lab that can be bothered doing anything other than Fuji Crystal Archive.

The Epson v750 scans aren't anywhere as good as the Imacon scans I've seen, although the Imacon scans still don't match the drum scans.

How do we all live with a scanner, knowing that another machine could scan it better?

I don't really have that issue with my optical enlarger. My optical enlarger set-up, is a constant, and if I needed another apo-rodagon s lens, then I would just add it on. I guess I'm the limiting factor in the optical printing method.

With digital scanning, knowing that I'm the limiting factor again, is less reassuring when I think of how much better a dynamic range my images could produce just by a hardware upgrade (not that I'd ever want a drumscanner to sit in the patio).

Over 20 years, I've kept the same enlarger, same camera and lenses. Added a little baby Leica to it. And suddenly, thinking about going digital, I might have to 'upgrade' scanners each year to produce ideal quality, rather than just being able to accept that the hardware is a constant which can churn out images as I improve my printing..

Don't know if that makes any sense, but it makes me reluctant to but a scanner at all!

I wouldn't buy a mediocre scanner and expect great results.

Pretty much sums up what I think, except that I'm not in the know, to know what 'mediocre' is when it comes to scanners. I think I know what great results are, and I'm still expecting to get them from a scanner which doesn't require me to send out and pay a fortune, just because I fancy printing a 40x50" print for fun. I don't earn from photography anymore being retired, so maybe a scanner just isn't for me?

In my somewhat simplistic way of approaching scanners, any scanner I would settle on, would have to produce 'great' results and be affordable and hold up against wet prints in terms of quality: namely, to reveal something extraordinary about the print, which the digital scanning medium yields, which optical methods cannot. Maybe this is 'magic silver bullet' chasing, but why compromise on image quality, after going to effort of shooting large format if the scanner is limited in this way?

Not sure if that makes sense...if not, forget it since I'm just working this out for myself and thinking out aloud...