Recommend a Good Flatbed Scanner?

[Ari]

Ladies and Gents,

I use an Epson v750 and I think it's an excellent scanner for the price.
Paired with the Epson wet-mount kit and one of Doug BetterScanning holders, it is a great set-up for scanning 4x5 and 8x10 film.
But it's a fussy system that requires a lot of constant calibrating (adjusting height of BS holders, for one).

So, given roughly $1000 budget, could you please recommend a capable, less-gadgety set-up for quality film scanning?

I have looked at the Microtek ArtixScan F2 (for Mac) and I like the idea of slipping film into a drawer and not going through a whole megillah to perfectly align this or level that, if you know what I mean.

I know scanning properly is work, but is there an easier method out there that will yield results that are just as good?

Thanks in advance.

[Ken Lee]

For your stated budget you won't find anything better: I'd be pleasantly surprised, let's put it that way. If you do, please let us know.

(I had a Microtek Artixscan 2500f and while it got a little better resolution, the Epson has better dynamic range and overall tonality. The holders which work below the glass were nice, but they cropped the negative a bit and light bounced off onto the edges of the film. The Epson is also cheaper, lighter, quieter and faster. I gave the Microtek away when it started producing large linear artifacts on 16-bit scans and I couldn't get support.)

I've never used wet-mounting and have never found a need or seen an example which was compelling enough to prompt an investment in the time and effort required. Whatever we get, with Large Format we're going to be doing a bit of fussing anyhow. :cool:

[Ari]

I appreciate that, Ken, but the v750 was introduced in 2006; I have to wonder if anything, even if a marginal improvement, has come out since then.

I'll modify my initial budget and say anything under $2K.

[IanG]

I've never used wet-mounting and have never found a need or seen an example which was compelling enough to prompt an investment in the time and effort required. Whatever we get, with Large Format we're going to be doing a bit of fussing anyhow. :cool:

It may well be the case that the major advantages of wet mounting is with smaller formats or with very high res LF scans. The technique is actually quite old I have an article in a 1927 BJPA (actually published late 1926) about wet mounting 35mm negatives to reduce the grain in prints.. Wet mounting overcomes artifacts on the surface of the glelatin of the emulsion (usually the supercoat) which cause increased graininess in prints and particularly scans. This was a huge problem with Kodak colour films and the first digital minilabs.

Ctein wet mounted negatives for optical printing.

Ian

[Light Guru]

Ladies and Gents,

I use an Epson v750 and I think it's an excellent scanner for the price.
Paired with the Epson wet-mount kit and one of Doug BetterScanning holders, it is a great set-up for scanning 4x5 and 8x10 film.
But it's a fussy system that requires a lot of constant calibrating (adjusting height of BS holders, for one).

So, given roughly $1000 budget, could you please recommend a capable, less-gadgety set-up for quality film scanning?

I have looked at the Microtek ArtixScan F2 (for Mac) and I like the idea of slipping film into a drawer and not going through a whole megillah to perfectly align this or level that, if you know what I mean.

I know scanning properly is work, but is there an easier method out there that will yield results that are just as good?

Thanks in advance.

You are NOT going to find a better scanning solution on your budget. You already have the best scanner in your prince range.

There is however alternatives to scanning.

http://petapixel.com/2012/12/23/why-you-should-digitize-your-film-using-a-camera-instead-of-a-scanner/
http://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/

[vinny]

My drum scanner was made in 1994 and I paid $100 for it a few years ago. It blows the v700/750 out of the water but does take a lot longer to make a scan. Sorry, I know this doesn't really help.

[jcoldslabs]

I currently use a Microtek i900 and I share Ken's assessment. I would get the v750 if I could, but right now I have no compelling reason to upgrade since my scans are only viewed online and not used for printing. Anything I wanted to print large I would pay for a decent scan.

Jonathan

[Tin Can]

How about all the ways we do use Epson 7xx? I just lay my 5x7 and 8x10 negs on top of a piece of 8x10 AN and I like what I get. 4x5 go in the holder. I use 4490 for lesser formats. And Vue Scan +1.

I know nobody does it that way, but what the heck. I'm happy...

[Lenny Eiger]

You are NOT going to find a better scanning solution on your budget. You already have the best scanner in your prince range.

There is however alternatives to scanning.

http://petapixel.com/2012/12/23/why-you-should-digitize-your-film-using-a-camera-instead-of-a-scanner/
http://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/


No offense to you Zak, but I wouldn't trust this info as far as I could throw it. Not anymore than info on Luminous or Gigapixel. It's all slanted and not very competent. (I'm being polite.)

If you increase from 1K to 2K you can pick up a nice Howtek 4500. You can wet mount and have a blast.... It does wonders with a med format, 4x5 or 8x10 piece of film... nice and sharp....

[Ari]

@Zak, I realize that quality and budget go hand in hand, much of the time; I'd be interested in seeing what, if any, improvements have been made since 2006, and what it would cost.
@Vinny, no, that helps, scouring the internet for a used drum scanner is part of my daily routine now, so thanks for giving me a little hope.
@Jonathan, my friend gets great scans from his Microtek i900, and he always gets gear that has the lowest possible fuss-factor, so I found myself asking if I could obtain similar results as from the v750 but without the constant tweaking and "foreplay".
@Lenny, thank you, I will have a look at the Howtek; I know very little about scanners outside of the v750's range, so thanks for the tip. My budget isn't fixed, so if something good comes along, I'd find the extra do-re-mi somehow.

[BarryS]

I have a Microtek Artixscan M1 and recommend you stick with your V750. The F2/M2 is an upgraded faster version of the the M1, but essentially the same scanner. The big advantages if the Microtek are autofocus and the 4x5 glassless carriers. The autofocus works, but slows down the scanning process. I think this has been improved with the F2/M2. The glassless carriers are great when they work, but they're finicky as far as getting the film to seat properly. For 8x10 film, you really need to wet mount because there is no glassless carrier. The quality of these prosumer flatbeds is maxed out for now, so I don't see that a switch would help as far as quality or usability.

[Ben Hopson]

I totally agree with Lenny that there are some very good scanners out there in your price range. Great deals do come along from time to time as well. A few years ago I picked up a Scitex Eversmart Supreme in perfect condition with fluid mounting assembly, transparency and fluid mounting masks, oXygen Scan software, calibration slide and some spare lamps at a local auction for $1000 and since then have not used my Epson except for a few document scans.

[jb7]

No offense to you Zak, but I wouldn't trust this info as far as I could throw it. Not anymore than info on Luminous or Gigapixel. It's all slanted and not very competent. (I'm being polite.)

If you increase from 1K to 2K you can pick up a nice Howtek 4500. You can wet mount and have a blast.... It does wonders with a med format, 4x5 or 8x10 piece of film... nice and sharp....

There has been rather a lot of research done here too, which would corroborate the findings in the posts you find to be slanted and not very competent. It's all been documented in the DIY forum, with shortcomings listed alongside successes. Perhaps you've missed it?

[DennisD]

Over the years, I've owned several Microtek Scanners largely used for graphics work and some negative scans. They are excellent scanners and we've been pleased with their performance. However, with Microtek, it may now be a question of how much aggravation you're willing to put up with when things go wrong.

Several years ago Microtek announced discontinuing tech support by phone - email only !
I believe the policy still stands. They promise a 24-48 hour response! For working professionals who need a responsive support, this is unacceptable - at best. And whether you are a professional or not, slow or unresponsive support is a killer, especially when you've spent hundreds of $$$ on a product you can't put to work..

There is a "customer service department" phone number, basically an answering service for repairs and non technical matters, but you will not receive LIVE tech support (no matter how hard you plead).

We experienced a problem several years ago when we purchased the M1 Pro to replace our Artixscan 1800F. (Microtek did not offer repair service on the old unit - i think there was a swap out at a high price, regardless of the problem. If you just need a replacement part, it can be an issue).

As luck would have it, when installing the software for the new scanner, the Microtek ICC profiler and Color Matching System repeatedly failed to install after numerous attempts on several different computers. This was an issue because the ScanWizard software couldn't be properly calibrated without the others being installed.

We attempted to contact Microtek support only to learn that phone support was a thing of the PAST and that TS was "email only".

Communicating with Microtek support was slow and took one week for 2 back and forth exchanges. They were not kidding about a possible 48 hour turnaround! Our problem stumped Microtek and the problem was never fully resolved. They claimed our networking software must have been interfering with the installation. We ultimately used the alternate Silverfast software. The scanner works fine, we just can't depend on Microtek.

Generally speaking, Tech Support by email can be a miserable way to go, especially if the support staff is weak. Email does not provide the responsiveness of a real person. Further, nuances and fine points about configuring software and equipment are much easier in real time discussion. Time lapses, as in our case, can be a terrible issue.

Although our situation arose several years ago, when Microtek seemed to be shrinking its US product line, Maybe it's better now. However, their website still indicates email only support and a phone number for limited (non-technical) customer service.

[Light Guru]

No offense to you Zak, but I wouldn't trust this info as far as I could throw it. Not anymore than info on Luminous or Gigapixel. It's all slanted and not very competent. (I'm being polite.)

If you increase from 1K to 2K you can pick up a nice Howtek 4500. You can wet mount and have a blast.... It does wonders with a med format, 4x5 or 8x10 piece of film... nice and sharp....

There are several threads on this forum abut people using DSLRs to digitize large format film. The clarity differences in the examples in the article are proof enough that photographing negatives can give really good results.

[jcoldslabs]

My primary issue with my Microtek i900 is that it produces terrible banding in shadow areas. Not just noise, but light and dark striations that appear to be different tonalities from each pass of the scanning head. Noise and dust are inherent to the scanning process, but you would think the out-of-the-box hardware could at least produce consistently even tonality. Maybe I got a lemon. The glassless carriers are easy to use, it's true, and the glass flatbed has worked well for large negatives.

Jonathan

[LF_rookie_to_be]

PFU (=Fujitsu) DL2400. Aka Qubyx Lynx A3 aka... drum roll... Heidelberg/Linotype Linoscan 2400XL. Same scanner. One I witnessed a few months ago in perfect condition working properly cost the guy a staggering $80. The scans looked fantastic and the machine is definitely built better than all Microteks I've used, half of which were lemons. He won't be selling it any time soon.
On the other end of the scale, a complete iQSmart3/Onyx/G4/Trinitron package from the original owner has been on sale for over two years in my neck of the woods - for a mere $4700. I guess it must be better than PFU.

[sanking]

One can find great bargains on used drum scanners and high end flatbeds with a bit of patience and willingness to travel to the location and check out and pick up the equipment.

No question but that scans from this type of equipment, if in good operating condition, are superior in absolute terms to those from an Epson V700/V750. Whether or not you will get better print quality depends on print size, and your skill in preparing the file for printing. But for less than $1k new the Epson V700/750 is the best out there for negatives of 4X5 to 8X10 IMO.

Bear in mind, however, that these type of professional scanners are very heavy and large, 130 lbs and up, and some won't work with contemporary operating systems. So don't buy something like this sight unseen and without knowing for sure that it works, and/or how much you will have to spend for a computer and software to run the scanner.

Sandy

[Lenny Eiger]

There has been rather a lot of research done here too, which would corroborate the findings in the posts you find to be slanted and not very competent. It's all been documented in the DIY forum, with shortcomings listed alongside successes. Perhaps you've missed it?

I don't really want to get into this. There are a lot of things one can do to compare to, or outdo, a consumer-level scanner (even things on a consumer-level scanner). However, I run a top-end drum scanner and those things are not in the running. I could go on an one about different tests done that were done incorrectly. Thankfully, we have Tim Parkin around to set some things straight in engineering-eze when it comes to Luminous Landscape. They have been the worst. I have nothing ill to suggest about anyone here to is trying to piece together a solution for themselves. I think its great they are trying to make something happen.

Lenny

[Light Guru]

I don't really want to get into this. There are a lot of things one can do to compare to, or outdo, a consumer-level scanner (even things on a consumer-level scanner). However, I run a top-end drum scanner and those things are not in the running. I could go on an one about different tests done that were done incorrectly. Thankfully, we have Tim Parkin around to set some things straight in engineering-eze when it comes to Luminous Landscape. They have been the worst. I have nothing ill to suggest about anyone here to is trying to piece together a solution for themselves. I think its great they are trying to make something happen.

Lenny

Nobody was clamming it would beet your drum scan. It was proposed as a alternative to a flatbed scanner.

[Peter De Smidt]

While a lot of progress has been made on the DIY scanner front, building a good system would be a lot of work, and it's easy to go wrong. In addition, many aspects have not been thoroughly tested, including stitching, color accuracy, dmax... If someone enjoys building and investigating this type of thing, then by all means give it a go. But if you just want to get to scanning, and especially if you don't have a good digital camera and macro lens, then finding a good scanner would probably be a better choice, although used scanners come with risks. I've bought two. The first, an Agfa T2500, would've required a $1000 repair to get working properly, which I decided against. The second, a pro flatbed, has been working fine, but if a hardware problem pops up, I doubt I'll be able to get it fixed. Even if repair is possible, it's unlikely that I'd be able to afford it.

I agree with Lenny (and others) that if you can find a Howtek 4500 in good working condition with the needed accessories for a reasonable price it would be worth serious consideration.

I would be very surprised if a DIY approach could equal the scan quality of a top flight drum scanner run by an accomplished operator, such as Lenny.

[Light Guru]

I would be very surprised if a DIY approach could equal the scan quality of a top flight drum scanner run by an accomplished operator, such as Lenny.

Again nobody is saying it would beat a drum scan.

[Peter De Smidt]

Again nobody is saying it would beat a drum scan.

Gianluca Bevacqua does suggest this in the links you provided. He said, "...I discovered that the file I was absolutely sure was of the Dainippon drum scanner (because it was obviously superior) was in fact the one shot with the Canon!"

[Noah A]

I use both an Epson V750 and a Howtek HR8000 drum scanner. Obviously the drum scanner is superior in several ways, but the Epson is a nice little scanner and It seems to be the best thing around for under 1K.

I use the drum scanner for my final scans, but it's nice to have the Epson on hand for preview scans and scans for small prints or when I'm on a deadline. Maybe I got lucky with a good copy, but I get pretty good results with the stock holders after a quick test to determine the right height for the adjustable feet on the holder. If I were really going for ultimate quality more work would be involved, as you say using better holders, wet mounting, etc. But the whole point of the Epson for me is speed and convenience. You could use your stock epson holders for quick and easy scans then deal with the other more complicated stuff for exhibition scans.

I'm a big fan of the drum scanner, and you can probably find a Howtek 4500 for 2k, but I doubt it will be less work than your Epson. Replacement parts may also be difficult to find and/or expensive. It will, however, produce more accurate and repeatable results.

[Brian Ellis]

1. You asked whether any new and improved (relative to the 700/750) scanners have been introduced since 2006. None that I know of. A few years ago there were many rumors about Epson bringing out a successor or supplement to the 700/750 but I don't think anything came of it. I'd be surprised if the market for film scanners is a growing market.

2. I think you're doing a lot more "fiddling" with your current scanner than you need to do. I've never found a need to wet mount, constantly adjust focus and calibrate my Epson 4990 with 4x5 and 8x10 negatives (99% b&w).

3. Somebody mentioned the Heidelberg/Linotype Linoscan 2400 scanner. My first scanner was a Linoscan. I had constant problems with it. Heidelberg at first had a very helpful customer service center here in the U.S. But then they shifted customer service to some independent outfit that was next to useless. Not too long after that Heidelberg got out of the "prosumer" scanner market in the U.S. at least. Others may have had better experiences but based on mine I wouldn't recommend this scanner.

4. If I was as serious about scanning film as I used to be I'd go the drum scanner route. But I'd spend a whole lot of time learning about the need for ancillary equipment, things to watch out for, etc. etc. Buying and using a drum scanner for the first time these days has never struck me as something to blindly wade into.

In any event, good luck with your search.

[Ari]

Thank you, everyone, for your responses.
I appreciate the product recommendations as well as the usual caveats about rushing into something like this.
I am researching this a lot, and this thread is part of the research.

Getting a drum scanner is a meduim-term goal; in the short term, it may be more cost-efficient to have the few important images I own drum-scanned by a third party, and put up with the v750.
My beef with it is that the stock holders plain suck, and the BS holder's height needs to be calibrated often, despite my attempts to keep some kind of consistency in their adjustment.
Fiddling is a part of scanning, I know, but having to re-set the equipment often is an added pain.
I'm no fan of wet mounting, I find it drags too many particles in along with the liquid, but I find it to be a faster workflow sometimes.

[Andrew O'Neill]

and put up with the v750.

I just picked up a V750 and so far it's doing a great job with my 4x5 and 8x10 negatives. I don't wet mount. I just lay the negative emulsion side down on the scanner glass, and a piece of A/N glass on top. Scans are pretty sharp to me.

[Tin Can]

I agree. My scans are fine. There could be good and bad V7XX with inferior manufacturing tolerance stack-up.

Somebody with more time than I, needs to figure out how to trick them into using the high rez lens, which is for roll film, into working for 8x10.

Hackers needed. Always.


I just picked up a V750 and so far it's doing a great job with my 4x5 and 8x10 negatives. I don't wet mount. I just lay the negative emulsion side down on the scanner glass, and a piece of A/N glass on top. Scans are pretty sharp to me.

[pasiasty]

You may also consider buying some old, professional flat-bed, e.g. Topaz. I know about one, that is for sale for much over a year, in the Czech Rep., Europe (where everything but beer and wine is more expensive), for some $6k; so I guess it can be found tor $4k-5k. The seller claims it's way superior to V700/750, but who knows. Disadvantage is, that you'd buy something relatively old, hard to repair and not compatible even with VueScan, practically requiring a dedicated, and also much outdated computer to operate it. Not to mention about its footprint...

[photobymike]

when looking at a print made with a drum and my flat epson 750 ...i cannot tell you what scanner it was scanned with. Looking at the raw scan at 100 percent i can see the difference. I tested and retested because i wanted the best print i could make. When viewing a print for sharpness i cannot honestly tell the difference. Oh and how many of your print viewers look at your prints with a magnify glass? Then there is the principals of perceived sharpness. i can with some manipulation make the Epson look super sharp. this concept is not well understood by many people, even here. Want proof? Look at the pictures online. Without much exception they all are over sharpened to be viewed on the computer screen. Why is this relevant to this discussion? Well if you do not know how to sharpen your images for the screen or different size prints, does not matter how good of a scanner you have. Just my humble opinion...

http://youtu.be/KXtTeixz92A click here for a good tutorial on lightroom sharpening

[rdenney]

One aspect of the original post is the notion of reducing complexity and fiddliness. I cannot imagine that high-end flatbeds and drum scanners would go in that direction compared to any usage approach with a 750. I passed on a high-end flatbed this week because of the size, the needed vintage Apple computer (which was being supplied), the footprint required for it all, and, most of all, the limited time I have to make it work for me. Sure, the results are better for larger prints, but I can't print bigger than 16x20 anyway. If I ever have a need to print bigger, I'll pay someone like Lenny to do a drum scan. Hasn't happened yet.

So, sure, it's possible to improve absolute quality over the 750. But I doubt it's possible to do so with a system that operates anywhere near as easily or conveniently. All the solutions are fiddly to get the best results, particularly for those of us who can't spend every day sharpening our skills.

Rick "who uses a Nikon 8000 for medium and small-format film, however" Denney

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've been playing with my v750 for a week now and I don't do any fiddling. I just lay the 8x10 neg emulsion side down on the platen glass, cover it with AN glass, make sure scanner set to film area guide, then scan. Results are sharp enough for me.

[Corran]

Rick - you make a good point, but for me, the high-end flatbed primarily enhances my workflow speed. When I used a V700, I was painfully aware of the time it took to scan, even at low resolution. The Cezanne I have now, I can scan 6 sheets of 4x5 at once, in about what the V700 would take to do 2-3 IIRC. And I can setup an entire 36-exposure roll of film, or a couple rolls of 120, to scan at night and they're done in the morning. If I have a ton of scanning to do, I can do another batch in the morning before work and one at lunch. So I can easily scan 6 rolls of 120 or 18 sheets of 4x5 in one day, with only about 1-2 hours of actually setting up the scans.

The massively better resolution and quality compared to an Epson is just a bonus.

I had a Microtek M1, which I did like, but had the same limitations. It was a little faster than the V700 though. They aren't too expensive on the used market.

[Lenny Eiger]

Sure, the results are better for larger prints, but I can't print bigger than 16x20 anyway. If I ever have a need to print bigger, I'll pay someone like Lenny to do a drum scan. Hasn't happened yet.

So, sure, it's possible to improve absolute quality over the 750. But I doubt it's possible to do so with a system that operates anywhere near as easily or conveniently. All the solutions are fiddly to get the best results, particularly for those of us who can't spend every day sharpening our skills.

Rick "who uses a Nikon 8000 for medium and small-format film, however" Denney

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Rick.

It all depends on what's important to you. We all want to draw the line at a different spot. I'd say most of us are pretty insane, lugging around big cameras all over. Obsessing about lenses. Did you ever look at one of those threads where everyone gets out their equipment? 4 8x10's, 22 lenses, a 5x7, 3 4x5's. Many of us are tool junkies, that's for sure... Why not go a little further and get a drum scanner? It's only a few percentage points more insane.

I used a 750 on a project once for scanning prints. I actually reverted to using the drum scanner. It was easier and faster at 2000. I had to mount the print, but that only took a minute or two and the scan was another min at that rez. The 750 was taking 15 mins to scan the print at the same resolution. And I got the results I was looking for vs. not. Nothing is efficient if it doesn't produce the desired result.

It's true the damn things can be expensive. So are good lenses, so is everything else. Come on over and visit next time you're out here and I'll give you a tour. This stuff is actually pretty easy...

Best,

Lenny

[sanking]

Both Rick and Lenny make good points.

I agree with Rick when he writes. “So, sure, it's possible to improve absolute quality over the 750. But I doubt it's possible to do so with a system that operates anywhere near as easily or conveniently. All the solutions are fiddly to get the best results, particularly for those of us who can't spend every day sharpening our skills.”

And I agree with Lenny’s comments.” It all depends on what's important to you. We all want to draw the line at a different spot. I'd say most of us are pretty insane, lugging around big cameras all over. Obsessing about lenses. Did you ever look at one of those threads where everyone gets out their equipment? 4 8x10's, 22 lenses, a 5x7, 3 4x5's. Many of us are tool junkies, that's for sure... Why not go a little further and get a drum scanner? It's only a few percentage points more insane.”

I would add, however, that being a bit insane is not the same as being totally insane. But of course, if you happen to fall on the far side of sane you are probably too far gone to know the difference.

That said, and from the perspective of someone who has used both digital cameras and ultra large format cameras, and who prints with digital media and with a 19th century printing process, and who has owned and used several different scanners, including the Epson V700, a high end flatbed, and a drum scanner, here is where I stand.

1. If you are totally sane you will buy a good digital camera and make digital prints.
2. If you are a bit insane you will work with film cameras and and scan your results with an inexpensive scanner like the Epson V700.
3. If you are totally insane you will shoot really large film and scan your work with a high end flatbed or drum scanner.

Lenny and I appear to be strolling arm in arm toward the abyss!

Sandy

[Ken Lee]

Both Rick and Lenny make good points.

I agree with Rick when he writes. “So, sure, it's possible to improve absolute quality over the 750. But I doubt it's possible to do so with a system that operates anywhere near as easily or conveniently. All the solutions are fiddly to get the best results, particularly for those of us who can't spend every day sharpening our skills.”

And I agree with Lenny’s comments.” It all depends on what's important to you. We all want to draw the line at a different spot. I'd say most of us are pretty insane, lugging around big cameras all over. Obsessing about lenses. Did you ever look at one of those threads where everyone gets out their equipment? 4 8x10's, 22 lenses, a 5x7, 3 4x5's. Many of us are tool junkies, that's for sure... Why not go a little further and get a drum scanner? It's only a few percentage points more insane.”

I would add, however, that being a bit insane is not the same as being totally insane. But of course, if you happen to fall on the far side of sane you are probably too far gone to know the difference.

That said, and from the perspective of someone who has used both digital cameras and ultra large format cameras, and who prints with digital media and with a 19th century printing process, and who has owned and used several different scanners, including the Epson V700, a high end flatbed, and a drum scanner, here is where I stand.

1. If you are totally sane you will buy a good digital camera and make digital prints.
2. If you are a bit insane you will work with film cameras and and scan your results with an inexpensive scanner like the Epson V700.
3. If you are totally insane you will shoot really large film and scan your work with a high end flatbed or drum scanner.

Lenny and I appear to be strolling arm in arm toward the abyss!

Sandy

Bravo ! Bravissimo, Maestro !

[Tin Can]

But, but where is the sanity in wet prints...

[Evanjoe610]

But, but where is the sanity in wet prints...

Randy,

You got a point there. Some of the BEST prints I saw over the years come from Master Darkroom enthusiasts. Bleaching & Zoning along with platinum printing has NOT been touched yet by the digital process. Close, but never surpassing it. I would wish for a high-en scanner, but that would be callling for a divorce with my wife! Bad enough that I had 3 Scitex scanners along with 3 4X5 enlargers, there was barely enough room to walk around in my house. I made peace by getting rid of 2 of the scanners and several Windows 7 PCs, G3 Tower, G3 iMac, and several printers.

TO Sandy, well worded and you couldn't put it in any better sense! Our hobbies are what drive us insane beside our wives. But that's another story all in its own to tell.

In the streamlining process, I am limited to my Scitex Eversmart Pro II, Imacon Precision II/III,and a Canon FS4000US scanner for my input scanning. Have 4 Macs and one PC Workstation... Now if I was offered a Hell drum scanner like the Tango or the flatbed Topaz for FREE, I make room for either one of those. Was offered both at one time for FREE, but I had no room.

At some point in the near future, I will release the darkroom equipment due to lack of space... and time.

[Lenny Eiger]

Randy,
You got a point there. Some of the BEST prints I saw over the years come from Master Darkroom enthusiasts. Bleaching & Zoning along with platinum printing has NOT been touched yet by the digital process. Close, but never surpassing it. I would wish for a high-en scanner, but that would be callling for a divorce with my wife!

I would disagree. many of the platinum prints being made today are being made with digital negatives. As far as whether the images are as good or not - that depends on what your idea of what a great print looks like. I started making platinum prints in about 1975. When I looked at the different quality of the paper surface I was hooked. I no longer wanted to look at darkroom prints. So, from my perspective, darkroom prints are easily surpassed, they can't compare on almost any level.

The inkjet prints I am making today are indistinguishable from platinum prints. I've done years of research into b&w processes, working with b&w ink sets, sometimes mixing my own, testing the results with drawdown bars, etc. These days I'm using my own mixture of Cone inks.

Everyone is free to like whatever you like. However, this question is highly subjective. There is no virtue in any process.

A couple of years ago I did a lot of work for a post-modernist photographer. She was trying to convert me a bit and we went to a show. There were a few interesting ideas, but then we saw some encaustic prints from a very famous new photographer made in wax. About 2 inches of wax, all the rage. It was hard to call them prints, yet there they were, framed and on the wall. Everything was so blurry it was impossible to see anything. I thought they were horrible. Ridiculous. However, this person was happy, it was just what they were after.

Lenny

[rdenney]

We all try to achieve the best quality we can balances against resources including space, expense, and time. It's possible to make very nice prints from Epson scans on Epson printers. The next noticeable improvement is going to add significant cost in space, expense or time. Each noticeable improvement beyond that one will come with a much larger cost than the previous one (which is the law of diminishing returns). Achieving the best that can be done will require a huge commitment in those resources--beyond what is possible for most people.

I use large-format film because it allows such good results even using those Epson products, and at my production level (scant), it's vastly cheaper than state-of-the-art digital. (I also already know how to do it, which means I'm already past the effect of the learning curve on my scarce resources. I would not be with, say, a drum scanner.) A 4x enlargement is pretty forgiving, both in the darkroom and in the scanning workflow.

Evan had no room for a drum scanner, just like I had no room for the Scitex he once offered to me. We might both be regretting those outcomes a bit, but we try to live within realities.

Rick "who mostly wants to make his own prints, even with those limitations" Denney

[Tyler Boley]

I hope this relates to the thread.. I have a friend with possible access to a Topaz and asking for input. Can she expect to see much improvement from her Epson 750? Both flatbeds of course.. one more advanced for sure.. she scans 4x5 and 120 negatives.
Thanks,
Tyler

[timparkin]

Just thought you'd like some feedback from someone who owns a Screen Cezanne Elite Pro, Howtek 4500, Fuji Lanovia C-550 and an Epson and who has had the same film scanned on Lenny Eiger's Aztek Premier.

Interestingly each machine has different advantages and disadvantages

Typical Price (low to high)

Epson V750
Screen Cezanne/Howtek 4500
Fuji Lanovia C-550
Tango XL/Primescan
Aztek Premier

Resolution (low to high)

Epson V750
Fuji Lanovia C-550
Howtek 4500
Tango XL/Primescan
Aztek Premiere
Screen Cezanne

N.B. Screen Cezanne limited to 10,000 pixels hence very high resolution only for 35mm or manually stitched for larger sizes

DMax

Epson V750
Screen Cezanne
Fuji Lanovia C-550
Howtek 4500/Aztek Premier (Premier might have a slight edge in noise)
Tango XL/Primescan

Weight/Size (low to high)

Epson V750
Screen Cezanne/Howtek 4500
Aztek Premiere
Fuji Lanovia
Tango XL/Primescan

N.B. The Tango XL/Primescan is very heavy but has a small footprint. The Screen is medium weight but needs double the bed area so has a large footprint

--

What you end up with is a scenario where the best scanner depends on your usage.

If you're scanning small format negatives you just can't beat the Screen Cezanne Elite Pro. Resolution wise it's on a par with the Aztek in one direction but in the scan direction is even higher. It's real advantage is it gets this resolution with very little noise.

If you're scanning negative and don't need the resolution, a Fuji Lanovia C-550/Quattro or Finescan 2750 make the best automated colour inversions I have ever seen and hence make a wonderful "contact print" machine. However the resolution is only just better than the Epson V750 (I reckon about 3000dpi and I've confirmed this as I've got two).

If you're scanning chromes then you can't beat a drum scanner. All flatbeds suffer from flare across the ccd so if you have bright and dark areas next to each other you end up with a 'glow' around the light areas. Very frustrating for some high contrast chromes. Usually they're OK though. The Cezanne does a pretty bad job of chromes with the standard lamps but some people have added custom lamps. The main issue with the Cezanne is that it has some 'saturation boost' circuitry that pulls back the opposite channels when colours get high. This means, for instance, if you have a bright red, the green and blue channels will be pulled down as it hits it's peak saturation. This means getting a nice consistent black across a frame is horrible and you end up with some very odd colour shifts sometimes. I'm trying to work a way around this but it makes profiling a pain.

The C-550's have a good dmax but because it uses the glass plate and a mirror to set a reference white, any dust in the path will create streaks. This can be managed away but in reality you'll see streaks in some skies on some negatives and if you really boost shadows you'll also get lines. I've scanned 60 negs recently for a client on the machine and just a couple of shots with a very even sky showed the streaking to such an extent to be unacceptable (probably because you have to add so much contrast to the sky area so it boosts the streakiness).

I've only just taken delivery of the Tango XL and so far I'm getting about 4500 - 5000dpi but Karl Hudson and I are checking a few different machines to work out if this is an anomaly. In reality this is more than enough resolution for all but exceptionally sharp black and white films. Where the Tango XL does win out in style is in Dmax. I was shocked to see just how much extra it could get out of the shadows above the Aztek and Howtek machines. I'll write a blog post about this in the future but I see this as the killer feature of the Tango and is more important than resolution for my photography. It also seems to exhibit almost no 'wobble' which affects nearly all drum scanners to some extent (i.e. along the axis of the drum straight lines exhibit a couple of pixel drift backwards and forwards adding a sine wave component). It's very nice not to have this for high scans.

So in an ideal world you'd own a Screen Cezanne Elite Pro for small format negatives, A Tango XL for productivity (huge drum size and fast scans) and shadow recovery, a Fuji Lanovia for quick negative scanning and 'adequate' transparency scanning and an Aztek Premiere/ICG380/Screen SG-8060p for big film at ridiculous resolutions.

As for the Epson - it does very well for 4x5 negative scanning and is adequate for well exposed transparency scanning up to 20"x24" prints if you don't mind spending time setting it up well. I know of a few clients who have run galleries where the majority of their film has been scanned on an Epson.

Tim

p.s. I don't have an Imacon but have used a few and a very well set up modern one gets a Dmax approaching the Howtek 4500 but the shadows have quite a bit of pattern noise visible so even thought the shadows are visible, they aren't particularly usable if you want to really boost them. They also suffer from some colour patterning (as does the Lanovia to a lot smaller extent) where you get something that looks like chromatic abberations on high contrast specular-like edges.

p.p.s. Scanning is a pain! Get yourself something that produces OK scans with little effort (Nikon 8000, Minolta Dimage, Epson V750) and then send out for your best to a reputable scanner operator who uses the right scanner for your requirements.

[Ari]

Excellent post, Tim, and thank you for a great summary.

[Professional]

So Tim Parkin, what do you suggest me for a drum scanner if i can find one? I want something to give me high quality for my film from say 120 up to 8x10.

[timparkin]

So Tim Parkin, what do you suggest me for a drum scanner if i can find one? I want something to give me high quality for my film from say 120 up to 8x10.

Well in my opinion nearly all flatbed scanners are flawed because of artefacts caused by dirt/marks on the calibration strip causing stripes across the image. These are most often not visible in the majority of pictures but you get a neg with a flat sky and want to increase the contrast of then I've not come across a scanner that doesn't leave marks of this sort. The same goes for really boosting shadows or recovering highlights as the increase in contrast reveals any marks.

So out of the drum scanners you need to choose what maximum resolution you need. In my opinion any resolution over 4-500dpi and any aperture smaller than about 8-10 isn't needed for real world films. There is a slight advantage that tends to dissapear in a print unless you are going to 100"x80" enlargements.

Also you need to choose how much you are willing to spend, how much work you are willing to put in and how much risk is associated with it. In the UK there is a guy who helps repair Howteks which is nice :-) and Tango/Primescan have Karl Hudson which is a godsend. ICG don't seem to have anybody but themselves and they are inevitably expensive. It's a risk buying something like a 380 second hand as the servicing could cost more than the device.

Personally I would probably buy a Howtek 4500 or 4000 to get into the drum scanning arena as they are nice and simple devices which aren't huge and can be had for a reasonable price. The difference between non-drum scanners and drum scanners is typically a lot more than the difference between makes of drum scanner for 'normal' usage.

If you're scanning chromes then the Tango/Primescan may be a better choice.

If you're scanning colour neg I'd be tempted to keep my eye out for a Fuji Finescan 2750 to make getting a good colour reference a lot easier and for quick scans.

I've never had access to a screen drum scanner so can't comment on them but I've heard good things about the higher end devices.

Tim

[Professional]

Well in my opinion nearly all flatbed scanners are flawed because of artefacts caused by dirt/marks on the calibration strip causing stripes across the image. These are most often not visible in the majority of pictures but you get a neg with a flat sky and want to increase the contrast of then I've not come across a scanner that doesn't leave marks of this sort. The same goes for really boosting shadows or recovering highlights as the increase in contrast reveals any marks.

So out of the drum scanners you need to choose what maximum resolution you need. In my opinion any resolution over 4-500dpi and any aperture smaller than about 8-10 isn't needed for real world films. There is a slight advantage that tends to dissapear in a print unless you are going to 100"x80" enlargements.

Also you need to choose how much you are willing to spend, how much work you are willing to put in and how much risk is associated with it. In the UK there is a guy who helps repair Howteks which is nice :-) and Tango/Primescan have Karl Hudson which is a godsend. ICG don't seem to have anybody but themselves and they are inevitably expensive. It's a risk buying something like a 380 second hand as the servicing could cost more than the device.

Personally I would probably buy a Howtek 4500 or 4000 to get into the drum scanning arena as they are nice and simple devices which aren't huge and can be had for a reasonable price. The difference between non-drum scanners and drum scanners is typically a lot more than the difference between makes of drum scanner for 'normal' usage.

If you're scanning chromes then the Tango/Primescan may be a better choice.

If you're scanning colour neg I'd be tempted to keep my eye out for a Fuji Finescan 2750 to make getting a good colour reference a lot easier and for quick scans.

I've never had access to a screen drum scanner so can't comment on them but I've heard good things about the higher end devices.

Tim

Hmmmmm, it is more confusing now, because i must decide wisely and carefully, the shipping will be as much or nearly half the price of the scanner itself, so in this case i can't just choose anything and later i find out it is not what i look for, i am scanning all kind of films, so there is not specific scanner i may choose over another for type of film reason.

At the end, i am not sure which drum scanner or screen drum scanner to find, shipping overseas is a big nightmare and i don't know which companies still offer used/refurb scanners to get, Sandy King gave me a link and i thank him a lot and appreciate it, but i will call them and see what are the prices if still something available, and i am also thinking more about that Howtek D4500, i saw D7500 but not sure if that one is much better over the 4000 series, Tango sounds very very expensive even as used/refurb, but i will check out all the prices anyway.

[jcoldslabs]

Well in my opinion nearly all flatbed scanners are flawed because of artifacts caused by dirt/marks on the calibration strip causing stripes across the image. These are most often not visible in the majority of pictures but you get a neg with a flat sky and want to increase the contrast of then I've not come across a scanner that doesn't leave marks of this sort. The same goes for really boosting shadows or recovering highlights as the increase in contrast reveals any marks.

Oh, thank god. I thought it was just me!

Jonathan