How about something like a Howtek drum scanner

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I think I will be looking to buy a used drum scanner next year. I have seen some Howtek 4500 on sale for around 3-4K. How good is this scanner? And can its connection be upgraded from scsi and then run on a mac? I would prefer not to have two different systems. Any competent drum scanners out there that use a modern interface that won't break the bank even in a used condition? The Howtek looks like a good deal and so do the Tangos, but they all seem to use last centuries os and interface. That is my main hangup. If I can have them interface via usb, and such and use moderns system. It's a no brainer.

[Jim Andrada]

Yup

Last century's stuff. Well said!!! SCSI, Firewire (because sooner or later it will smoke what's attached to it - and where there's smoke...there used to be my Sound Devices audio recorder. Fortunately, for only a thick stack of bills they could fix it.)

[Alan9940]

The Howtek's are good scanners, but not without issues. Do some surfing around various forums and you'll turn up many threads. The trouble with all these machines are that they're old; repairs can be problematic due to lack of parts, they all interface via old technology, etc. Sure, you can convert SCSI to USB, for example, but what will you run the software on?

If you decide to go with one of these old units, I'd highly recommend you find one that includes the computer and all the paraphernalia needed to run it. Or, do what I do...scan on a flatbed for work prints, then if you have something you really like send out for a drum scan.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Currently that is what I do, but for the cost of a drum scan, I can buy one and make my money back after 50 scans. I wouldn't mind a newer one if I can find it on sale used. I progressing towards dark room prints for black and white and using the computer for the color stuff, but maybe not. I like to have options. I will keep lookiing around. There are some places that offer the scanner and computer plus warranty, but how well they honor it? Who knows. Maybe if I buy one I can also buy the spare parts that most commonly crap out.

[Mark Darragh]

Steven,
You’re obviously very enthusiastic about your photography which is great to see. Many of the issues that you are encountering regarding film choices, exposure, scanning etc come down to judgment and experience. All this take time to gain and, while forums like this, books, videos, even workshops can all help, the are really no shortcuts and magic bullets.

Drum scanners are only as good as the operator. They can deliver great results but, as has been mentioned, there many potential pitfalls. Learning to wet mount film and getting the most out of a drum scanner is an art in itself. Develop a good work flow and learn how to get the best out of your current equipment. At the very least it will help you develop the skills you need to operate a drum scanner. Get some drum scans done by Lenny Eiger or another experienced scanner operator. That might help in making an informed choice as to whether you really want or even need to make the move.

All the best

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I agree. I do wet mount currently with the V850 and still learning it and how to convert negatives and scan slides. I will agree as well I have a lot more to learn and know a lot less than most. I am still working the basics from film choice to final print. I figure by time I make the first true piece of art, I will be ancient.

I also read a lot, ask dumb questions and discuss often as wel as just doing photography, which is the only true way to learn.

[Alan9940]

Steven,

I wet mount with my Epson flatbed, too, but doing the same on to a drum is many more steps, a magnitude of more difficulty, and you need a mounting station to do it; which doesn’t necessarily come with the scanner. And, as already mentioned it generally takes years and years of experience to get the best out of a drum scanner.

[Alan Klein]

What does a drum scanner do differently than a flat bed?

[jp]

Might as well wait till you've mastered the epson before moving up to drum. I'm not there yet, but consider epson good enough.
If digital is part of the plan, you might as well shoot negative film and figure out the scanning to perfection to the capabilities of the epson. Essentially compressing the scene's range into something a scanner can handle.
transparency was original popular for it's wysiwyg which is no longer as important. Some people like transparencies for it self being the beautiful end product, like a tintype..

A drum scanner is wet mount and scans things more slowly into a sensitive vacuum tube photo sensor. Old school but high end.

[Sweep]

What does a drum scanner do differently than a flat bed?

I don't think it is what it does but how it does it. How it works is for someone else to answer.

Wet mounting on a drum makes the film as close to perfectly flat as can be achieved as it is held taught around the drum so the distance between lens and film always remains constant. Then there is the use of photomultiplier tubes which, as far as I understand, are several thousand times more sensitive to light that the technology used in, for example, the Epson V series. Whether you can get, need, or perceive, any or all of the advantages from the drum scanner depends, as others have mentioned, on the skill of the operator.
I own a Howtek D4500 and whilst I love owning it is not without issues. Mounting time, scanning time, consumable costs etc, all should be part of the equation.
Can I tell the difference? Nope, but I have never owned anything else :-) I suppose that's a bit like auditioning televisions in a shop; once you get it home you have nothing to compare it to so you just have to keep telling yourself it is better.
Do I have need for a drum scanner. Nope, but its a hobby so I liked the idea of the drum scanner to get the very best out of my film whether I can tell the difference or not

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I am working on perfecting my scanning with Epson, but once a year I get a bonus I can spend on whatever I want so this was an option I thought about. It is not so much the Epson is not good, but if I want to print digitally, I want the best file I can get. And if I don't have to manipulate the negative at capture, etc as much, then I consider that a plus and may also end up with something that I can scan or go into a dark room with.

[Pali K]

Steven, I started with an Epson v700 and do think at some point I had mastered it to the best of my abilities. I found a Scanmate 11000 complete setup locally on Craigslist at a price I could not turn it down and have been on a journey to master this process since. I agree with the comments that the learning curve is not easy and drum scanners do require annual maintenance. I enjoy this maintenance process just as much as well and have slowly figured out everything I need.

I mentioned an Eversmart Supreme or IQSmart 2/3 in another thread which is something you should research on some more. You can get these working with a fairly new Mac setup and they are extremely reliable without the fuss of a drum scanner. In my opinion, these scanners are very close to drum quality and will actually beat many drum scanners in controlled testing.

Pali

[Corran]

Listen to Pali, he's got a wealth of experience on the drums and other scanners. He knows what's up.

It comes down to personal preference. I have no interest in a drum scanner. If I need high-end scanning of a transparency, I can send it out. For me the high-volume batch scanning abilities, along with of course good performance, of a high-end flatbed outweigh the differences, especially due to my personal choice to shoot mostly black and white. Shooting slides on occasion is a fun diversion but I haven't made any serious work on slides for years, and when I did, my Cezanne was good enough to pull plenty off the film (DR) for my uses. More important to me is being able to scan 2 rolls of roll film and a couple sheets of film in one batch.

If you think a great deal of your photography will be on Velvia, and you are going to make prints and want to have "the best" tool for that, then by all means get a drum scanner. If you aren't shooting slides except occasionally, I don't see the value in it. Just "making your money back" in 50 scans isn't really addressing the ancillary issues of learning how to use it (well). And how many scans would you really be sending out per year?

You're ping-ponging all over the place, perhaps consider sitting tight until you know what you want to do in detail (film types, print sizes, for what use, etc.).

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Let's just say I dont have half a century to learn and perfect the craft of one film one developer and printing method. I am trying and learning as much as I can in a short time so I can find what I desire and focus on that. The downside is I am wired in such a way that once I master something I become bored. So I need to keep photography fresh and that means always trying something new and perfecting it and hopefully along the way I earn the right to be considered an artist.

[Corran]

If one takes half a century to learn one film and one developer, they must not be a very good student!

I am the quintessential "try different things" kinda guy...I love shooting new films and trying new developers. However when I need to sit down and MAKE WORK I also know how to use a few films and developers that I've put a lot of time and effort into, and get good negatives/prints. I'm less inclined to try stuff in the darkroom because it's so dang expensive and I do not enjoy DR work as much as shooting. So I'm less adventurous there. Trying to do better with that and be more open to creative ideas.

Anyway, you can spend your whole life fiddling and screwing around with all kinds of stuff, that's totally okay and I am fine with it. Enjoy yourself! But don't expect to master something without putting in the requisite time, effort, and focus. Oh, and mastering your materials and technique doesn't make you an artist, IMO, but that's another topic for another day ;).

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I agree. I am just trying to compress a lot of known knowledge into a short space so I can figure out what it is I desire and then focus on that. By 50 years I mean artists who found what they desired early on and then spent the rest of their career fine tuning it. And I also agree it is not how good you are with your tools. It is the end product. But you still need to master the tools. I am after the end product that I hope one day I will be remembered by. And it definitely is a topic for another day :)

[Thad Gerheim]

Steven, I'm no expert on this subject and that's the precise point I want to make. I do make my living from selling photos from the transparencies I drum scanned on my Tango drum scanner. I think there is some overblown information out there about these scanners. Karl Hudson of http://hudsongrafik.com/product-category/drumscanners/ came to Idaho to service and set up my scanner ten years ago and it has been running great ever since. Yes, I should have him come back and service it again after ten years. Karl showed me the basics on operating the machine in a few hours. Its not rocket science, although that is what Karl's dad did for NASA. I also have the Eversmart Supreme which is a great scanner too when running. The Eversmart is just as sharp and has good D-max, but there is such great tonality and D-max from the Tango. There's still good deals out there on both of these machines. I bought the Eversmart from Genesis in Phoenix and found the Tango in Seattle for $2000. After bringing it back to Idaho in a horse trailer I got a hold of Karl and was amazed that he would come to the backwoods of Idaho and help me out.
Good Luck

[Alan Klein]

I don't think it is what it does but how it does it. How it works is for someone else to answer.

Wet mounting on a drum makes the film as close to perfectly flat as can be achieved as it is held taught around the drum so the distance between lens and film always remains constant. Then there is the use of photomultiplier tubes which, as far as I understand, are several thousand times more sensitive to light that the technology used in, for example, the Epson V series. Whether you can get, need, or perceive, any or all of the advantages from the drum scanner depends, as others have mentioned, on the skill of the operator.
I own a Howtek D4500 and whilst I love owning it is not without issues. Mounting time, scanning time, consumable costs etc, all should be part of the equation.
Can I tell the difference? Nope, but I have never owned anything else :-) I suppose that's a bit like auditioning televisions in a shop; once you get it home you have nothing to compare it to so you just have to keep telling yourself it is better.
Do I have need for a drum scanner. Nope, but its a hobby so I liked the idea of the drum scanner to get the very best out of my film whether I can tell the difference or not

Can you show us examples of your Howtek scans?

[Pere Casals]

Can you show us examples of your Howtek scans?


I have seen some Howtek 4500 on sale for around 3-4K. How good is this scanner?

Here you have the collaborative test: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/ This is a fairly interesting information.

It has to be pointed that different machines may digitally optimize more or less the result.

A good excercise is downloading the crops and trying to make it match by sharpening or color adjustment.

I was surprised by the result, in particular in this case.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8561/28420386682_d481942db8_o.jpg

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/scanimages/prem-4x5-fullframe-u.jpg

This is a competely repeatable test, anybody may download the crops and use Ps to compare after editing each sample to its best.

Sure that the howtek performs better in some situations, but having a V850 only sometimes it would be worth the extra work involved with the drum scanning.

[Alan Klein]

Listen to Pali, he's got a wealth of experience on the drums and other scanners. He knows what's up.

It comes down to personal preference. I have no interest in a drum scanner. If I need high-end scanning of a transparency, I can send it out. For me the high-volume batch scanning abilities, along with of course good performance, of a high-end flatbed outweigh the differences, especially due to my personal choice to shoot mostly black and white. Shooting slides on occasion is a fun diversion but I haven't made any serious work on slides for years, and when I did, my Cezanne was good enough to pull plenty off the film (DR) for my uses. More important to me is being able to scan 2 rolls of roll film and a couple sheets of film in one batch.

If you think a great deal of your photography will be on Velvia, and you are going to make prints and want to have "the best" tool for that, then by all means get a drum scanner. If you aren't shooting slides except occasionally, I don't see the value in it. Just "making your money back" in 50 scans isn't really addressing the ancillary issues of learning how to use it (well). And how many scans would you really be sending out per year?

You're ping-ponging all over the place, perhaps consider sitting tight until you know what you want to do in detail (film types, print sizes, for what use, etc.).

Good advice. I scan with a V600 and it's good enough for the web and home slide shows. If I want to do some printing (once my wife let's me use some more wall space :) , then I'll send only those out for drum scanning and printing.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I think it will come down to two or three items. First though, the work involved in learning to drum scan I do not consider a hurdle. What is important is longevity in keeping the scanner operational before needing to replace it, up time for scanner vs down time and just how well it pulls in the details we/I are after. It may not be appropriate for every situation, but having the right tool when needed is better than not. This does not in any way though lesson the need to be competent at capture or in processing the film and it will for sure not make a turd smell any better.

I work with high end simulation software and do classical hand analysis of aircraft/spacecraft structures and I can tell you for sure that crap in is x2 crap out. So it would be with a drum scanner or any scanner for that matter. If the negative/slide you are feeding it is crap to start with no amount of polishing will get good out. If you feed a great image to scanner, but are inept at making a scan, then you will also get crap out.

[Sweep]

Can you show us examples of your Howtek scans?

Hi Alan,
I am happy to send you a scan of a 10x8" Provia 100 transparency made on my Howtek at 2000dpi but i'm not sure what use it will be if you can't compare it to the same piece of film scanned on a flatbed. It will need to be by Dropbox as the file size is in the order of 900Mb.
Let me know.

...Sweep

[Alan Klein]

Sweep, You make a good point. Thanks, but let's not do it. I was hoping if someone had a comparison of medium format sample showing the difference between the Howtek or other drum scanner vs. a flat bed like the Epson V series.

[Pali K]

Listen to Pali, he's got a wealth of experience on the drums and other scanners. He knows what's up.

:) Thanks Bryan!

I feel like everyone is reaching for their own ideal results that are so subjective based on persontal taste and benchmark for quality that it's impossible to have a fair representation of opinions. It is also very unfortunate that every conversation on the topic is suffering from the extreme bias from a few that just don't understand simple facts from wishes. I want to be helpful but I struggle to find the energy to keep up with the same inevitable argument.

If I were talking to my old self before I got the gear I now have, I would tell myself that I don't need anything other than an Epson V700-V850 if all I shot was B&W LF film. If I needed scans from 35mm and 6x4.5 and best color scans without color bleeding or muting in high contrast negatives, I would tell myself to get a Cezanne, Scitex, or IQSmart with 16 BIT. I would only tell myself to get a drum scanner if I was absolutely dead set on having the best possible digital archive of film and economics made sense to buy vs paying for drum scans.

That said, I now have Epson v700, ES Pro, ES Supreme, Scanmate 5000, Scanmate 11000, and Tango. Absurd? Absolutely, but these are all rescued scanners that I have spent countless hours fixing other than the V700 and Scanmate 11000. Now here are the main points that I try to put out there if anyone wishes to benefit from my absurd situation:

- ES Supreme is my most used scanner
- ES PRO would be my most used scanner if Supreme was not in the mix. Even it's 8 bit output outperforms anything from Epson
- Tango is my go-to for archiving slide film
- Scanmate 11000 is my go-to for archiving color and bw negative film. Scanmate 5000 would be next in line if I didn't have 11000
- Epson v700 has been in the box it came in since I got ES Pro for $200
- Epson v700 is the fastest scanner I have

I hope this conversation with myself is helpful to someone :)

Pali

[Pere Casals]

- ES PRO ... Even it's 8 bit output outperforms anything from Epson


Pali, IMHO that is wrong.

the EPSON with ME is beyond effective 12 bits accuracy.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

It is always good to get a variety of opinions, even if we think wrong. Because in the end as long as we have open minds we will learn new things that only help us grow. We should always do what works for us regardless of what the masses say.

[Ken Lee]

If you have a sizeable collection of 4x5 negatives from which you need to squeeze the last few % of resolution and tonality, then you may need to spend the time and money on a drum scanner.

For less money and effort, consider moving up from the very bottom of LF to 5x7 or larger. 5x7 give you an immediate 20% increase in image size along the shorter dimension and 40% along the longer dimension. Most of that translates into higher resolution. My 1930's wooden 5x7 Kodak camera is modestly priced but fitted with a modern lens does OK.

See this 5x7 sample image (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/RangerDetail.php), dry-scanned with a consumer grade Epson scanner.

[Pere Casals]

5x7

With 5x7" an Epson works in a sweet point, because the Hi Res lens just covers 5.9". In that situation it pulls effective 200MPix, more than enough for a flawless 1.5m print, even if viewed with nose on it.

A drum would allow to enlarge to 2m instead 1.5m, with perfect quality in both situations, if the negative quality allows that 2m size that it's not always the case. Dimensions may vary depending on what we demand, but the relationship should be around that...

What I find very important is Ps skills, acutance has to be optimized for the intended viewing distance, one thing is checking sharpness in the monitor and another one optimizing for the print in the way it will be displayed. Many people don't realize that.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

If you have a sizeable collection of 4x5 negatives from which you need to squeeze the last few % of resolution and tonality, then you may need to spend the time and money on a drum scanner.

For less money and effort, consider moving up from the very bottom of LF to 5x7 or larger. 5x7 give you an immediate 20% increase in image size along the shorter dimension and 40% along the longer dimension. Most of that translates into higher resolution. My 1930's wooden 5x7 Kodak camera is modestly priced but fitted with a modern lens does OK.

See this 5x7 sample image (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/RangerDetail.php), dry-scanned with a consumer grade Epson scanner.

I am seriously considering the move up. This will also let me do 6x17 panos as well. Lest, I fall all the way into the rabbit hole and end up at 8x10 (which may very well happen) But I do like the idea of a 5x7, nice in-between. And I can buy a 5x7 back for my current Chamonix 45H-1 or just buy a f5x7 from them or elsewhere for a little bit more money of the larger back.

PS,
That is impressive.

[Tin Can]

Ken Lee shows actual fact with a scan.

He also shares what he knows to work.

I have spent many hours on his website.

Thank you






If you have a sizeable collection of 4x5 negatives from which you need to squeeze the last few % of resolution and tonality, then you may need to spend the time and money on a drum scanner.

For less money and effort, consider moving up from the very bottom of LF to 5x7 or larger. 5x7 give you an immediate 20% increase in image size along the shorter dimension and 40% along the longer dimension. Most of that translates into higher resolution. My 1930's wooden 5x7 Kodak camera is modestly priced but fitted with a modern lens does OK.

See this 5x7 sample image (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/RangerDetail.php), dry-scanned with a consumer grade Epson scanner.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Ken Lee shows actual fact with a scan.

He also shares what he knows to work.

I have spent many hours on his website.

Thank you

Not disagreeing at all. I too have spent time on his website and he even helped me with an image. In the end it comes down to personal choice. I ask and discuss to get the input of everyone and then digest to make the best informed decision I can and can afford.

To me it doesn't matter how you get to your final image. As long as it is the image you want. Tools are secondary.

[Tin Can]

Steven, my post was not directed at you.

We often expand threads beyond the OP.


Not disagreeing at all. I too have spent time on his website and he even helped me with an image. In the end it comes down to personal choice. I ask and discuss to get the input of everyone and then digest to make the best informed decision I can and can afford.

To me it doesn't matter how you get to your final image. As long as it is the image you want. Tools are secondary.

[Ken Lee]

Roughly speaking, a 5x7 image scanned at 2400dpi gives a 12,000 x 16,800 pixel file.

Printing at 300 dpi (an enlargement of 8x) we can produce a roughly 40x56 inch print. At that size, a digital print make with competent sharpening can be quite impressive if we can afford to print and frame it.

More conservatively, if an Epson scanner really only delivers 1500 dpi at 50% contrast we can enlarge by a factor of 5X but still end up with a formidable 25 x 35 inch print at 300 dpi.

At large size, prints cost more than film and equipment because paper and ink (or paper and chemistry) are pricey. I stick with 16x20 prints for that reason, except when someone commissions larger works.

Because enlargement from 5x7 to 16x20 is only 3-4X, 16x20 prints from 5x7 are often so sharp that they hardly requiring any sharpening before printing.

[Pere Casals]

Roughly speaking, a 5x7 image scanned at 2400dpi gives a 12,000 x 16,800 pixel file.

Well, I guess you mean (with the EPSON) scanned at some 4800 to obtain 2400 effective... if we scan at 2400 we obtain some 2100 effective...

2400 effective matches with around 50 lp/mm in the negative, a resolving power that often is not in the negative.

One thing is measuring 50 lp/mm on a flat target, and another thing is performance in real world photography, in many 3D scenes almost nothing is in perfect focus, for example...

So in LF the V850 performance may not be the limiting factor, it is more likely it is a limiting factor in smaller formats, as a lens covering only the 35mm format circle may have higher resolving power.

Many drum jobs for LF are delivered at 2000 or 3000 dpi, because the extra effort has a cost and may not have a Q benefit.

____

pd: yes... 2400 dpi in the scanner are at extintion... considering 50% contrast at 1500 makes sense for a high Q standard...

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Steven, my post was not directed at you.

We often expand threads beyond the OP.

Ok. My apologies.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Roughly speaking, a 5x7 image scanned at 2400dpi gives a 12,000 x 16,800 pixel file.

Printing at 300 dpi (an enlargement of 8x) we can produce a roughly 40x56 inch print. At that size, a digital print make with competent sharpening can be quite impressive if we can afford to print and frame it.

More conservatively, if an Epson scanner really only delivers 1500 dpi at 50% contrast we can enlarge by a factor of 5X but still end up with a formidable 25 x 35 inch print at 300 dpi.

At large size, prints cost more than film and equipment because paper and ink (or paper and chemistry) are pricey. I stick with 16x20 prints for that reason, except when someone commissions larger works.

Because enlargement from 5x7 to 16x20 is only 3-4X, 16x20 prints from 5x7 are often so sharp that they hardly requiring any sharpening before printing.

The smaller amount necessary to get a larger print from a 5x7 is certainly a benefit as well.

[Sideshow Bob]

If you want to know what is involved in wet mounting film I made a video ~6 years ago (damn, were does the time go) showing the proceedure that I use. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCHS5yiF4Mc
Let me know if you have any questions.

Mr.G

P.S. I have a ScanMate 5000 for sale.

[chassis]

Didn't see where Alan Klein's question was answered.

Epson V family of scanners use a linear CCD technology: http://dasch.rc.fas.harvard.edu/papers/Scannerevaluation1.pdf and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device

Many drum scanners use photomultiplier tube (PMT) technology: http://www.aztek.com/Howtek%20Pages/Guides/Scanners/Scanmaster4500.pdf and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photomultiplier

Agree with Randy that Ken Lee's site is one of the best on the topic of film scanning.

[Tin Can]

PM sent to OP

[Daniel Unkefer]

Tim Layton just got a Howtek up and running and is now selling scanning services with it. Very interesting what he is doing and seems to be willing to share knowledge.

www.timlaytonfineart.com

Maybe news to some here. At some point I might order a scan. We will see..

[Jim Andrada]

I was thinking about a drim scanner a few years back and paid a visit to Lenny Eiger to see how it was done. He scanned a couple of 5 x 7 negs for me and I decided that the drum workflow wasn't for me so I upgraded from the 750 to an IQsmart 2. I'm completely happy with the results I get with it and the workflow is very simple. I fo a lot of MF as well as LF and putting a couple of rolls on the bed takes next to no time.