Good 'ol drum vs flatbed

[davidwrogers]

Sitting here thinking of economical ways to increase the quality of my images. I'm running a V750 and fluid mount my 4x5s, and its acceptable. I get decent 30x30 prints out of them. Focus is strong (when the focus of the image itself is good) and colors, with some tweaking, are always real and vibrant. I'm shooting Ektar 100.

Should I spend 2000 dollars on an S1045AI from ebay? Am I going to get DRAMATICALLY superior results?

Does anyone have some comparison scans?

Thanks,
David R.

[sanking]

No, in my opinion you will not get DRAMATICALLY superior results with a drum scanner with Ektar 100 film at that print size from 4X5 Ektar. The question is, would you see any better results at all?

A comparison scan of a negative scanned with a drum scanner at 2400 dpi and an Epson V750 is not going to show a whole lot of difference. A photographer from the UK named Tim Parkin has already posted comparisons that pretty much show this to be true. If you poke around his web site you may find the comparison, he posted it here on the LF forum a year or so ago. http://www.timparkin.co.uk/

The exception would be if you are scanning a very dense negative, overexposed and or overdeveloped, or a transparency. In these cases a drum scanner would be able to pull more detail out of the dense areas as drum scanners have a much higher dynamic range than the Epson flatbed.

Sandy




Sitting here thinking of economical ways to increase the quality of my images. I'm running a V750 and fluid mount my 4x5s, and its acceptable. I get decent 30x30 prints out of them. Focus is strong (when the focus of the image itself is good) and colors, with some tweaking, are always real and vibrant. I'm shooting Ektar 100.

Should I spend 2000 dollars on an S1045AI from ebay? Am I going to get DRAMATICALLY superior results?

Does anyone have some comparison scans?

Thanks,
David R.

[photobymike]

"Am I going to get DRAMATICALLY superior results?"

you can increase printability or perception of a better print by perfecting your post processing. A lot of photographers have a weakness in post processing with Photoshop or Lightroom. Even if you have the best scan in the world you can screw it up by not understanding "perceived sharpness". Also an understanding on what your scanner sees when you scan. It is like using the proper paper grade when printing a neg in your darkroom. Some negatives will not scan well with epson 750. It has been my experience that my 750 epson loves the Kodak Ektar film. It is like the film engineers had this scanner mind when they designed this film.... Ektar scans very well vs Fuji scans ok, but i have found that i have to fiddle with it alot to get a decent scan

[Lenny Eiger]

I would disagree. At least a little. However. Instead of taking anyone's word for it (we are all biased), find someone with a really good drum scanner, like an Aztek Premier, and send them something to scan that you have already scanned on your 750.

This is one response I got earlier this month: "I finally got a chance to sit down with the scans today and look them over. In short, they are fantastic. I know I sent you flawed negatives, but you've given me the best opportunity to work with them. The quality of the local contrast in particular is mind boggling after working with mush flatbed scans for so long."

Now everyone is doing something different. We have a different contrast range we like and we print with all kinds of different techniques, from darkroom to digital neg to alt process. It is impossible to make a rule that covers everything.

For the price of one outside scan you can get your answer, one that's specific to what you are doing....


Lenny

[vinny]

This has been discussed to death. Do a search.

[EdSawyer]

Frankly, if optimal prints are the goal, I think optical printing in the darkroom supasses any scanning and the printing solution.

[Daniel Stone]

This has been discussed to death. Do a search.

Agreed!


Frankly, if optimal prints are the goal, I think optical printing in the darkroom supasses any scanning and the printing solution.

I concur. Especially for b/w printing onto fiber-base b/w paper, IMO.
Also, chromes and a well done(aka masked, color balanced, etc...) Ilfochrome print are a thing of beauty in themselves. They just 'glow' like no other medium I'm aware of, or seen yet. I can firmly state that some of the most glorious analog Ilfochrome prints I've seen in-person have been from Christopher Burkett, an undisputed master of the medium:
www.christopherburkett.com

These new color neg films(Portra 400, Ektar 100 in particular) and Fuji Crystal Archive/Flex papers, are as Drew Wiley has stated many a time before(essentially, not verbatim): "A match made in heaven". Once you got it, it's quite simple to "get it" again if you're fastidious about maintaining a tight regimen in terms of Q/C and absolute lack of "slop" in your approach to printmaking and properly exposing/processing your film to get the negative as good as possible pre-print.

Horses for courses, naturally ;)

-Dan

[Lenny Eiger]

It all depends on what you want to do. It also depends on your skills. Just because you are not skilled enough to make a print that can rival a darkroom print in another medium, it doesn't mean that others can't. Everyone has something they are after. With all due respect to Mr. Burkett, it isn't even slightly what I am after. Where'd all the shadow detail go? See - its all subjective.

This isn't about religion. Last I looked it was about Art, something about expressing one's self. Not someone else's rules. There is nothing better about creating a print in one way vs another. The only measure is whether the final product matches your vision. Not somebody else's, just your own. Ed might think that darkroom prints are better. He's entitled to his opinion. They don't come close to being right for me, I am after a different look. Everyone gets to do what they want. I'd just like to see a little mutual respect once in a while.

Lenny

[Daniel Stone]

<snip>
Ed might think that darkroom prints are better. He's entitled to his opinion. They don't come close to being right for me, I am after a different look. Everyone gets to do what they want. I'd just like to see a little mutual respect once in a while.

Lenny


Very true Lenny. I know I(and I believe Ed is the same) didn't mean any "disrespect" to others and their "beliefs" on how a print can be made. We all have different standards and weights of measure. We have to use what works for US, individually. Basically, pursue what needs to be done so you can create the work you need to create, whether it be scanning and digital output, or all analog and waving your hands in the darkroom :)

-Dan

[ScottPhotoCo]

It all depends on what you want to do. It also depends on your skills. Just because you are not skilled enough to make a print that can rival a darkroom print in another medium, it doesn't mean that others can't. Everyone has something they are after. With all due respect to Mr. Burkett, it isn't even slightly what I am after. Where'd all the shadow detail go? See - its all subjective.

This isn't about religion. Last I looked it was about Art, something about expressing one's self. Not someone else's rules. There is nothing better about creating a print in one way vs another. The only measure is whether the final product matches your vision. Not somebody else's, just your own. Ed might think that darkroom prints are better. He's entitled to his opinion. They don't come close to being right for me, I am after a different look. Everyone gets to do what they want. I'd just like to see a little mutual respect once in a while.

Lenny

Well said!

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

[Ed Bray]

Frankly, if optimal prints are the goal, I think optical printing in the darkroom supasses any scanning and the printing solution.

That would really depend on your darkroom skills.

My digital prints are better because I can get much more localised contrast and brightness control through the use of Photoshop and it's plug-ins such as Nik Silver Efex Pro2, spotting only needs to be done once and when I get the digital file as I want it, it can be saved with all the manipulations included. With a good paper, good inkjet printer and good colour management very good prints can be obtained from a digital file.

Better darkroom exponents may find that they produce better prints from the darkroom, and they may be expert in dodging and burning localised areas to get the finished print to look like they initially visualised, but for me at the moment digital printing wins.