Professional versus home scan?

[DrPablo]

If I produce a relatively low number of images (being a hobbyist), which would be more economical -- getting a professional drum scan from the lab that develops my film, or purchasing a scanner that's up to the task?

Secondly, if I want to print enlargements, like a 40x50 or whatever, should I do it by sending in a digital file or should I send the negative / transparency?

[Ted Harris]

It all dpends on how large you want to print and what you consider satisfactory. Generally speaking if you are planning on mostly printing 8x10 and 11x14 you will likely be very pleased with the results from one of the consumer scanners. Add to that the great deal on refurbished Epson 4870 scanners direct from Epson that is available through 7/3 .... $160 with a coupon code which I can PM to you. At that price you can't lose since the 4870 is very little different than the current moel.

As for a professional scan you need to check your lab's capability and see how well they do. Not all lab's are equal as you probably knowfrom having lab's do wet darkroom enlargements for you. If you are really going to print 40x50 you need to be very sure of the quality of the lab and their understandingof your needs. Send the lab a negative or transparency. Hopefully the same lab that does the scan will be able to do the print. Tell then you want the highest resolution scan they can deliver, not a scan for print size. Make sure they will produce a proof print for you too. You can get this service from ej arts in the East and West Coast Imaging in the West as well as several others.

Disclaimer ... as most folks here know I have no connections with Epson and in fact am not prticularly fond of their scanners most of the time but this deal is too good to miss.

[Ted Harris]

Correction ... the 4870's for $160 seem to be gone, no longer listed in the Clearance Center on Epson's website but they may be back before the deadline. I knwo three people who got one yesterday.

[Mike Boden]

As Ted says, it's all about how big you want to print. From there, decide what dpi you want for printing, and go backwards. This will tell you how big of a file you need. Another cosideration is 8-bit versus 16-bit. This is very important when out-sourcing your scanning because most labs typically charge by the megabyte and when scanning at 16-bit versus 8-bit, the cost doubles.

For example, I print occasionally at 48x60 from 8x10 film. To print this big at 300 dpi, I scan at 2000dpi, which results in a file size of rougly 850Mb at 8-bit and 1.7G at 16-bit. With these numbers, a lab that typically charges $.50/Mb makes it $425 for the 8-bit and $850 for the 16-bit files. I don't about you, but that's waaaaaay too high for my blood. As a result, I found a used Howtek 4500 for $5000, and I made my money back in a very short time.

The other advantage of having my own scanner is that I now have a better creative control over the scan.

Good luck with your decision.

[Bruce Watson]

As you can imagine, the answer is "it depends."

It depends on the value you put on quality. It depends on how big a print you want to make "normally." It depends on your actual volume of scans to make big prints over time. It depends on a lot of things, and you are the only one who knows the answers.

I bought my own drum scanner. Every scan I make is a drum scan at about 11x enlargement (so I can do 10x prints with some room for cropping). I use the scan-once-use-many philosophy. I've made some beautiful huge prints from my scans.

I did this because I did the math with my own variables and it turned out that it made sense for me. Will it for you? You'll have to do your own math with your own variables and find out. Let us know what you decide.

[Ed Richards]

I shoot 4x5 black and white and scan on a Canon 9950. My best bet is that I am getting about 1800 real DPI, and I overscan at 4800 and downsample to reduce noise. I get extremely good 18 x 24 prints, and unless you stick your nose in them, excellent 24x30 prints at reasonable viewing distances. The scanner and software is about $500, and the Epson 700 is probably a little better at a little more money. That is less than 4 drum scans. I have shot about 900 sheets in the last year, probably scanned 700 of them, so at even $100 for drum scans, I would be looking at $70,000. Even if you only shoot 100 sheets a year, which is less than 9 a month, you would be looking at $10,000 for cheap drum scans.

If you are going to work digitally, you need to scan most of your shots, so it gets very expensive very fast. If you are only shooting a few shots a month, it is not worth becoming a drum scanner mechanic. If I were doing this as my day job, I would join Bruce and buy a drum scanner, but then I have a little engineering in my background. If I were a well paid professional, I would have the lab do drum scans and charge the client.:-)

Unless money does not matter, and it may not, a good scan from a top of the line consumer scanner will give you a file that will make a better print than you will be able to take advantage of until you are a lot more experienced. I think it would be better to do more of the cheaper scans than to be limited by your scanning budget.

[Dan V]

Depends what level of quality is important to you, your subject matter and style, and how you view your work - no pun intended. A high-end flat bed scanner would likely be more economical if you just want to scan your own material for personal use. But if you have any interest in selling or gifting large prints, a consumer-level scanner would not produce top-quality prints.

Most of us moved up to LF photography for the superior results this format makes possible. If you have outstanding exposures on large format slide film that are technically excellent, and want to produce the best prints, a professional high-end drum scan is the way to go. From that digital scan, a good lab can produce prints that will make your jaw drop.

Check out www.westcoastimaging.com which has an excellent reputation (I don't work for them, and they didn't put me up to this). Unfortunately pro drum scans can be expensive. Fortunately, they're currently offering a 25% discount on drum scans.

[Ed Richards]

I would like to differentiate between the theoritical and the real. A properly run consumer scanner like the 9950 or the 700 will let you do a 16x20 or even slightly larger that is sharper and has as good tonality as the best of AA's prints - if you can hold up your end with the images. While a modern drum scan and a perfect negative is certainly sharper than anything AA did, most of us would be happy to do as well as he did. If you have to choose, better to have a 100 (or 1000) consumer scans than 10 drum scans, at least until you can produce those perfectly exposed and composed negatives every time. If you do not have to choose, get the drum scans. If money were no object, I certainly would. Since it is, I am betting that I get much better prints by shooting more film and working harder on the negatives and print sfrom that film, than by having only a small number of files to work from. Once you have been through those 100 scans and find the handful of really good shots, then get a drum scan and see how much difference it makes in your printing.

[Brian Ellis]

"But if you have any interest in selling or gifting large prints, a consumer-level scanner would not produce top-quality prints."

Really? What do you consider "large" or "top quality" or "consumer level?" I make what I consider to be "top quality" prints in the 13x19 range from scans made on my Epson 4990, which I assume you would consider to be a "consumer level" scanner. At least they're indistinguishable from prints made from scans on the Imacon $10,000 or so scanner that was used at the Palm Beach Photographic Workshops when I attended a workshop there so I assume they're "top quality."

IMHO vague statements like the one I've quoted here are very misleading and incorrectly cause people with little scanning experience to think that they need drum scans or $10,000 flat beds to make excellent prints since there's no indication of what the poster considers to be "large" or "top quality." I'd agree that if "large" means say 20x24 or bigger prints and "top quality" means equivalent in technical terms to a print the same size made in a darkroom by a talented darkroom printer from 4x5 film then a drum scan or a scan from a very expensive (maybe $3000 and up) flat bed is probably needed. But how many people have printers that will make prints larger than about 16x20 and even if they have such a printer, how often do they actually make prints that size? I don't know about others, and certainly there's a big difference between amateurs and pros, but because of ink and paper costs I confine prints larger than about 8x10 to those I plan to mat and display, which is maybe 1 out of every 50 or more photographs that I make. And when I do make a print larger than that it can't exceed 13" in width because that's the largest width my Epson 1160, 1280, and 2200 printers could handle. But for me and my purposes a print of about 13x19 is a big print, bigger than I used to make in a darkroom and more than adequate for display and (hopefully) sale. I may or may not be typical of the other "serious amateurs" here but the people (unfortunately few) who buy my prints don't for the most part even want prints that when framed and matted will be four or five feet long.

It would be interesting to take a poll here and see what most of us average in terms of routine print size and maximum print size. I'd be willing to bet that very few people here other than the pros (by which I mean those who derive a substantial part of their living from photography) routinely make prints larger than about 16x20 and for that you don't IMHO need a drum scan or a scanner costing more than about $1000 to make a "top quality" print.

[Capocheny]

I think the biggest question you need to ask yourself here is, "Do I WANT to dedicate the time and effort into learning the process and all the nuances that go along with it?"

Your answer will dictate where you go next. From a purely economical point of view, if your energy and time is worth more doing other things then, no, I'd send them out to a competent lab. However, if you'd like to invest the time and effort into "learning" how to do it yourself, then I'd definitely recommend you buy a scanner and go for it! :) I'm sure Ted can speak to the learning curve side of the process.

As for sending the lab the original or a disk, personally, I'd send them the transparency/negative. They can then match the colors and see first hand what they're working with.

But, I'd also recommend that you use a first rate, reliable and competent lab! :)

Cheers

[Ted Harris]

Ahhhhhhh the learning curve. All depends on where you are in the process. If you are already reasonably 'computer literate' and are a solid competent wet darkroom worker then the learning curve will largely consist of translating the skills you use in the darkroom into the digital process ... each step along the way in the digital workflow has its analog in the wet darkroom, this is one of the things we stress in our workshops. Having said that, think back to how long it took you to reach a point where you felt you were a competent printer in your darkroom and then realize that it is going to take time to get there with digital workflow as well. Less time likely much less time since you are translating already learned skills. In my own case I consider myself a master printer in a wet darkroom but it took me 20 + years working in darkrooms to get to the point where I could make that statement. In fact, now that I do a lot less work in a traditional darkroom I am not so sure that I would not have to immerse myself there for a few weeks or months to get all the old skills back. On the other hand, I have been scanning and printing digitally now for nearly seven years and it is only in the past two or three that I have begun to feel really comfortable with my skills. I am still not at the point where I would say I am a 'mastter' ..... perhaps sometime soon though (hopefully).

As far as hardware goes, since I am making the wet darkroom/digital analogy, you get what you need and can afford. My first enlarger was an ancient Federal (I think) with a less than great lens and it was ancient in 1954 when I started using it! I used a lot of enlargers after that and when I finally equipped my studio in The Torpedo Factory with two Omega D 2's I thought I had the best there was. Then I used a high end Durst 4x5 and ....... all going to show that you use what you got and what you can afford but don't be surprised if there is somethig else that might help you better utilize your skills. None of the equipement in the world, of course, will do you any good without the skill ..... that applies to labs with topnotch equipment too, especially those that have the equipment but no artists using it.

[Ted Harris]

Brian is right on. I can think of less than a dozen prints I ever made in a wet darkroomthat were larger than 16x20 and when I did print larger than 16x20 I had to borrow trays from a nearby lab. Printing digitally it is a bit easier but still I seldom do. I have a few exhibition prints that are larger but only a few. I hear people talking about making large prints and I have colleagues that do so on a regular basis, some regulars on this Forum. For the most part though, vrey few people print that large, even digitally. We asked the question of those attending our scanning seminars at the 2005 View Camera Conference to two different filled rooms and in each instance only a small sprinkling of hands went up.

The only time I have seen a preponderance of prints lrger than 16x20 was at this year's Photo LA in Sanata Monica. There, most of the prints were 20x30 larer, many mucgh larger. Nick Brandt, for example, was exhibiting one of his magnificant wall sized prints of an elephant herd. But don't forget, the least expensive print in the entire exhibit was well over $1000 and most were priced in the range of $4000 or more. When I know I have clients that will pay that kind of money for large prints I'll start printing them too bu tfor the average viewing area they gete too large.

[Gary Nylander]

To answer Brian's poll question, I print no larger than 16 x 20 from my scanned large format negatives and even when I had my darkroom , 16 x 20 was the largest I ever printed.

Gary

[Harley Goldman]

For Brian's poll, I never make prints bigger than 16x20. I print them on an Epson 4800. I don't have the wall space or the need to go any bigger.

I scan with an Epson 4870 and get drum scans. Several times,I have printed the same image from both and the drum scan is noticeably better. However, if you do not put the prints side by side, the ones from the 4870 are pretty dang good (in fact very good).

[Bruce Watson]

It would be interesting to take a poll here and see what most of us average in terms of routine print size and maximum print size. I'd be willing to bet that very few people here other than the pros (by which I mean those who derive a substantial part of their living from photography) routinely make prints larger than about 16x20...
Well, I'm not exactly a pro by your definition. For a 4:5 ratio print, I routinely make prints that are 55 x 44 cm, and 68.8 x 55 cm (55 cm fits nicely on a 24 inch roll of paper and makes for easy matting). These are the print sizes that sell best for me. I've sold a few 125 x 100 cm prints on canvas too though. Really though, it's the image that tells me what size to print -- some images want to be printed big, and with inkjet printing I can do that where I couldn't do it with my darkrooms.

So I'd have to say in answer to your poll that I do routinely make prints bigger than 20 x 16 inches.

I'm also a collector. Most of what I buy is 20x16 inch prints. Not because that's the size I want, but because that's all that's normally available. I'd rather have 24x20 inch prints when I can get them, but photography has a "tradition" of 20 x 16 inch prints that appears to be difficult to shake -- it's still difficult to make prints bigger than 20 x 16 inches in the darkroom, and overwhelmingly difficult to make 50 x 40 inch prints in the darkroom. So apparently it's become "tradition" and photography means "small" for many people, even photographers. Even with inkjet prints it's hard to find prints bigger than 20 x 16 inches. When I've asked I've often been told it's "because that's the size I've always made." Tradition, and not thinking out of the box maybe ;-)

One of the reasons I moved to the 5x4 inch format was so that I'd have more film area and could therefore make bigger prints. One of the reasons I started printing digitally was so that I could make bigger prints. Now, I make bigger prints.

For any print, no matter what the size, you still have to live with the rule of "garbage-in-garbage-out." You can't make a print any better than the quality of your scan. As the level of enlargement increases, higher quality scans will out.

The questions each of us must answer include how much enlargement and how much print quality are desired. It's a personal choice. And the answer to these and other questions indicate whether or not a drum scan is needed or wanted. Clearly, YMMV.

[Capocheny]

Ahhhhhhh the learning curve. All depends on where you are in the process. If you are already reasonably 'computer literate' and are a solid competent wet darkroom worker then the learning curve will largely consist of translating the skills you use in the darkroom into the digital process ... each step along the way in the digital workflow has its analog in the wet darkroom, this is one of the things we stress in our workshops. Having said that, think back to how long it took you to reach a point where you felt you were a competent printer in your darkroom and then realize that it is going to take time to get there with digital workflow as well. Less time likely much less time since you are translating already learned skills. In my own case I consider myself a master printer in a wet darkroom but it took me 20 + years working in darkrooms to get to the point where I could make that statement. In fact, now that I do a lot less work in a traditional darkroom I am not so sure that I would not have to immerse myself there for a few weeks or months to get all the old skills back. On the other hand, I have been scanning and printing digitally now for nearly seven years and it is only in the past two or three that I have begun to feel really comfortable with my skills. I am still not at the point where I would say I am a 'mastter' ..... perhaps sometime soon though (hopefully).

As far as hardware goes, since I am making the wet darkroom/digital analogy, you get what you need and can afford. My first enlarger was an ancient Federal (I think) with a less than great lens and it was ancient in 1954 when I started using it! I used a lot of enlargers after that and when I finally equipped my studio in The Torpedo Factory with two Omega D 2's I thought I had the best there was. Then I used a high end Durst 4x5 and ....... all going to show that you use what you got and what you can afford but don't be surprised if there is somethig else that might help you better utilize your skills. None of the equipement in the world, of course, will do you any good without the skill ..... that applies to labs with topnotch equipment too, especially those that have the equipment but no artists using it.

Ted, thank you for the wading in with your comments. :)

Gads, I printed for many, many years in a wet darkroom (even spent a 4 year stint with a major newspaper printing under stringent deadlines) and can't say that I'm even remotely competent with the process! :( I can only dream (in my wildest dreams) of calling myself a Master printer. So, I'm envious of people who are at that level!

As to Brian's poll... I now send my work out to a pro-lab and 16x20 is the absolute largest size I have printed. One day, I may get back into the wet darkroom side of things.... or REALLY think about taking a digital darkroom course with a Master. Then, all bets are off! :)

Cheers

[Ted Harris]

Ted, thank you for the wading in with your comments. :)

Gads, I printed for many, many years in a wet darkroom (even spent a 4 year stint with a major newspaper printing under stringent deadlines)

Cheers

I did a bunch of that too ... certainly not conducive to learning fine art printing, expecially when you were printing from still wet 4x5 negatives to meet a deadline (that was in the late 50's). OTOH, a great way to learn how to get an acceptable image, fast. As for learning printing skills, I suppose I could even build a house with all the sheets of Brovia that went in the trash. In fact, the main reason that I turned to digital was $$$. One day I took a hard look at the cost of color printing considering all the prints I threw out because I didn't think they were just right and that was when I decided to try digital.

[Ed Richards]

> The questions each of us must answer include how much enlargement and how much print quality are desired.

It also depends on the nature of the subject - if you are not doing shots with fine detail, scanning issues are very different. OTOH, if your image depends on having every blade of grass visible in that meadow in the background, you will notice the difference with a high rez scan in smaller prints.

More fundamentally, I am not sure anyone except photography geeks care about ultimate sharpness - look at the commercially successful photographers and also the artistically successful ones - very few of them depend eaking out the best possible sharpness from LF, and for many of those that do, their images start to look all alike. The illusion of sharpness created by contrast and subject matter is much more important - if you stick your nose in an AA print, you find that few are really sharp by modern standards, but that they look sharp because of the skills of the photographer.

[Ron Marshall]

For Brian's poll: The largest I print is 13x19 and then only as gifts or a few for our walls. Most for myself are 8x10 due to cost. All with a 4990 and a 2200.

[Charles]

I'm new to this forum and I own a gallery in SW Utah from which I sell my landscape photography. Although I sell prints derived from medium 645, 6x9 and 617 chromes, I do occasionally shoot 4x5, and recently I've even considered 5x7.

But to the point, I currently use an Imacon PhotoFlex for my scanning. My 617 images have incredible sharpness to the point where customers looking at a 12x36 print often ask "how large can I go".

Having been involved in the extreme high end of another career field for many years, I tend to think too many of us get sucked into the hardware aspects of a hobby or business and loss sight of what is really important to the customer or end user who doesn't know DMAX from Shinola.

[joolsb]

There is another way if you know a place that will rent out time on a pro scanner. A place close to where I live rents out an Imacon 949 for about $100 an hour, which, for the very few shots I have that merit such treatment, seems to be a good way to go. I can come away with my preferred 500Mb 16-bit scans for far less than the lab would charge if they did all the hard work.

On a related point, can anyone quote me a realistic figure for how many scans (2400 dpi, 16bit) a 949 could do in an hour? And would I be able to get to grips with the software quickly, based on my familiarity with other scanning software? I typically only ensure there are no clipped highlights or shadows before making a low-contrast scan, leaving more sophisticated corrections to PS.

[Capocheny]

I did a bunch of that too ... certainly not conducive to learning fine art printing, expecially when you were printing from still wet 4x5 negatives to meet a deadline (that was in the late 50's). OTOH, a great way to learn how to get an acceptable image, fast. As for learning printing skills, I suppose I could even build a house with all the sheets of Brovia that went in the trash. In fact, the main reason that I turned to digital was $$$. One day I took a hard look at the cost of color printing considering all the prints I threw out because I didn't think they were just right and that was when I decided to try digital.

Hi Ted,

LOL, yes, I also wasted a LOT of color paper when I first started learning how to print color. And, in fact, I'm much, much better at printing color than I am in B&W. When I printed for the newspaper, it was usually challenging because many of the photographers didn't know how to use color correction filters when shooting under mixed lighting conditions. It was always fun! :)

Whenever possible, I visit galleries with B&W photographic images on exhibit and, in the majority of cases, I walk away thinking, "I wish I were that good!" It's not that I'm unable to print an acceptable image but looking at images of the really good photographer/printers always takes my breath away!

Oh well... one can't be a master at everything they do! But, I'm working on it! :)

Cheers