A few questions about film scanners

[Ballpointpenner]

Dear film scanners,

Recently, I started a thread in which I was trying to decide whether a larger format film camera or a DSLR was the better purchase for me. One of the points that came up in that thread was that I was wrong in my assumption that film was a dark-room only medium which could not be transferred to 'the digital dark room'. It came out that, as evidenced by this forum, many people scan their negatives to edit them digitally.

I have a few basic questions about this.

As I see it, the whole point of shooting larger format film is the higher quality visible in larger prints. Have consumer-priced scanners come to the point where they can take a medium or large format negative and create a digital file, without a substantial loss of quality to be seen in the final poster-sized print?

If so, which models are to be looked at, and what is their price-range? [personally, I would feel very strange paying over a few hundred dollars for a scanner, though I can guess that this attitude might need to be revised, should I choose to pursue this seriously...]
If not, what are the normal prices that labs charge for high quality scans?

Thank you for your time,

- Bpp

[DrPablo]

Hi Bpp,

Admittedly my experience pales in comparison to others here.

But I shoot 4x5, scan it on a $350 scanner (Microtek i800), and I've printed some magnificent 24x30" prints from it. To print a 24x30 at 300 dpi, you only need to scan a 4x5 at 1800 dpi. I scan at 4800 dpi, clone out dust, reduce noise (I run a 2 pixel median filter and fade it to ~15%), then downsample in 10% increments to the print size/resolution.

If you go MF instead of LF, at these scan resolutions I'm sure you could get great results out of 6x6 or 6x7 on a flatbed.

[Leonard Metcalf]

I scan my 4 x 5 negs and trannies and am very satisfied with the results. I scan with a cheap desktop scanner, (from 4 years ago, an Epson 3200) and have been very happy with my results. I print 24 x 30 inches onto cotton rag paper. Last week I used a friends scanner (Epson V700) and was stunned by the improvements over my older scanner. On 100% enlargement of my scans I was looking at the film grain clearly. The thing that really sold me on the scanner was the 2 & 1/4 inch scans from my medium format camera. Stunning results from a desktop scanner. IMHO

I packed up my darkroom two years ago, because I had to move house. Yes I miss the darkroom, but I must admit I am printing better photographs from my inkjet printer than I could ever get in the darkroom.

[Ted Harris]

Bpp, several comments:

1) While the vast majority of folks here do have scanners in the 350-900 range you raise an interesting point about not wanting to spend more than a few hundred dollars for a scanner, especially when a new 4x5 or larger enlarger and top quality lens will cost you much more. Even a used solid 4x5 enlarger and top quality lens in today's dramatically soft market can still cost you more than 500 for a good used one.

2) Depending on the model and your subject matter there is absolutely no question that today's "consumer class" scanners can easily produce a scan that will enable a stunning 8x10 to 16x20 print. As noted above there are many who find them quite adequate for 24x30 prints as well. A lot depends on the level of skill in the scanning, digital image editing and printing, not to mention the printer and paper chosen. Finally, one man's definition of "stunning" is not necessarily the same as another's.

3) Labs charge any where from 25 to 100 for a "high quality" scan and their definition of same varies from lab to lab. Generally the larger the file size you request the higher the charge from the lab. I am just now starting to take on scanning for others as my time permits, one of the reasons being tht I find the commercial pricing structure to be a bit silly. I am now in the final stages of working out my pricing which will be in the range of 50 for a master full resolution scan of your image, that means a file of anywhere from 500MB up and usually more likely in the 1 GB range for a scan from a 4x5 negative or transparency. Such a file should enbale large prints tht will satisfy the most critical. I go into this detail because the conventionalwisdom employed by most labs is to give you a scan that only meets yoru needs for a particular size print assuming an output requirement of 300-360 dpi.

[George Stewart]

When I had comparison scans done, years ago, the differences were obvious. At first, a scan from the consumer level flatbed looked good-why spend more? Then a scan from a commercial level unit, and the differences were obvious. Why shoot LF when one dumbs down the image during the workflow.

There are many opinions on the web, including mine. I'd suggest that you find out for yourself. Spend a few hundred dollars on some scans from different machines and see for yourself.

[Steven Barall]

There is a huge big giant amount of knowledge about scanners on this site. I used the Epson 2450 for four years and I scanned quite a bit of 4x5 and 6cm film and it was fine for it's time. This year I bought the Microtek 1800f and all I can say is that I now know what the " f " stands for but I won't say exactly on this forum in defference to the more genteel members.

I would go for the current best Epson scanner. The Epson scanners have a higher optical resolution than the 1800f regardless of what the folks at Mircotek like to say at every possible opportunity which is needed if you ever have to scan medium of small format films for fun or profit. Also the Epson 4990 and even the new V700 scanner are each much less expensive than the 1800f and Epson is a better company to deal with of you ever have a problem.

Also... There are certainly many reasons to use a view camera. To name a few, there is the physical aspect of it, the toil of having to lug the stuff around, this "work" which many people find so satisfying. There is the connection to history and the way that it allows you to share an experience from another time the way that indeed looking at an old photo does. Then there are the technical aspects of view camera photography that have nothing to do with the size of the film, meaning the camera movements which acknowledge that the world is infact a three dimensional place.

This is certainly not meant as a dig at your reason for using large format film, meaning for the production of clear large prints because it certainly is itself a reason just like the ones I just mentioned. Photography, conceptually and physically, is just a tool and any use of it is valid and worthwhile.

Good luck and have fun.

[photographs42]

I think you are correct in evaluating your options, but don’t overlook the issue of why you are doing whatever it is you decide to do. The way I look at it is there are three parts to the equation.

The first is; which tool do I want to use to make images? I have chosen a 5x7 film camera because the experience of working with that kind of camera is enjoyable to me. I don’t get the same kind of pleasure working with my Nikon D200 or with MF.

The second is; do I want to work in the darkroom or in front of a computer? I process RAW D200 Architectural images every day at my job and it is a totally different experience from working on an image in the darkroom. I prefer the darkroom experience.

Last is; what kind of art do I want to produce? I have produced some really nice digital prints from my scanned negatives. They aren’t like my silver prints but they are striking in there own right. But I prefer the silver images. Perhaps it is because of my connection to them or maybe it’s my mindset that the digital prints are a form of mechanical reproduction, but whatever the reason, I don’t get the same satisfaction from digital prints that I get from a well printed silver image.

You are getting some pretty good advice about scanners. Keep in mind that operating a scanner is an art by itself. Like any other tool, you must learn how to get the most out of it. A quality scan from a decent flat bed scanner done by a proficient operator can be better than a drum scan by an incompetent operator. Given equally skilled operators, there is no doubt that drum scanners are better, but you may not need that level of scan depending on your output. I can show you a 1200 dpi scan from a 5x7 negative done on my ageing Umax Powerlook III (flatbed) that has more detail than you would ever need. No doubt the newer flatbeds can top that.

Whichever path you take, consider your goals before deciding on the means. I photograph using LF and film for me. I do it the way I do because I enjoy it. If other people like it, that’s wonderful, but it isn’t why I do it.

Jerome

[Ken Lee]

A friend of mine just had her computer sent in for repairs. She forgot to back up her image files. The repair service reformatted her hard drive. She lost several years worth of photos.

I do all my "serious" work in B&W film, which should last a while. No need for storage media. Yes, my house could burn down, but the odds are slim.

Beware of the juggernaut of the digital photography industry. Next thing you know, they'll start paying people to convince you to buy their stuff. :-)

[Michael Heald]

Hello! I had four reasons for choosing scanning 4x5 instead of printing - space limitations, time limitations, possible future color work, and available equipment.
Space limitations - Since I move every 2 to 3 years, creating a 4x5 darkroom for B&W becomes problematic. I never know what kind of quarters I will have. I may not even have space to set up equipment for B&W, or at least, the space may be difficult to use.
Time limitations - Since I can adjust a slider and see the results immediately, as opposed to developing a new print to see the results, it seemed to me that the time needed to become competent in digital would be less than traditional darkroom work for me. Since I am new to photograpy, not just LF, I can spend the time savings on developing me "eye." Having said that, traditional darkroom work does have an appeal for me. To satisfy that urge, I think I'll try contact printing and alternative processes in the future, such as cyanotype.
Color work - Most folks I've talked with feel that color digital is better than color traditional darkroom work. I'd like to try my hand at color in the future. My experience in B&W digital should be useful with that.
Finally, I had the equipment to get into digital easily - computer, Microtek Scanmaker 5900. I purchased an inexpensive Epson R220 with MIS inks and the 8x10 B&W prints look good.
During the months of using this equipment, picking people's brains, reading posts, etc., I think I've got a better idea of what I want to photograph and the equipment I need to pursue that, including digital.
I've upgraded my LF kit - going from Pacemaker Graphic, to Orbit, to Tachihara with 90mm SuperAngulon and 210mm Sironar N. Scanner upgrade is next (wife willing!). I'll grab a 4990 if Epson still makes them (they've been out on their on-line store for a while). If not, V7xx series. Best regards.

Mike

[Greg Miller]

A friend of mine just had her computer sent in for repairs. She forgot to back up her image files. The repair service reformatted her hard drive. She lost several years worth of photos.

I do all my "serious" work in B&W film, which should last a while. No need for storage media. Yes, my house could burn down, but the odds are slim.

Beware of the juggernaut of the digital photography industry. Next thing you know, they'll start paying people to convince you to buy their stuff. :-)


Anecdotal evidence of one person losing their digital files is a poor argument. It takes just a bit of effort to learn how to properly protect a digitial file (and making last minute backups before sending in a PC for repair does not cut it), just like it takes a bit of effort to learn how to properly protect images on film. Both methods can work well, and both take just a bit of effort to learn how to do them properly. And both take a bit of investment in hardware - be it external hard drives or filing cabinets, hanging folders, archival holders, and silica gel desicant.

[Ken Lee]

Anecdotal evidence of one person losing their digital files is a poor argument. It takes just a bit of effort to learn how to properly protect a digitial file (and making last minute backups before sending in a PC for repair does not cut it), just like it takes a bit of effort to learn how to properly protect images on film. Both methods can work well, and both take just a bit of effort to learn how to do them properly. And both take a bit of investment in hardware - be it external hard drives or filing cabinets, hanging folders, archival holders, and silica gel desicant.

Thank you for making this excellent point. I stand corrected !

Best wishes,

Ken

[Leonard Evens]

I scan (with an Epson 3200) because my condo doesn't have space to install a 4 x 5 enlarger. Also, I have a bad back so I would have to get help to install such an enlarger and I would even have trouble using it. Before we moved to the condo, I had a darkroom in our basement in which I could do up to 6 x 9, and I do miss the ability to make my own 16 x 20 (or larger) prints. I can go up to 13 x 19, but that is bit small as far as I'm concerned. Larger inkjet prints are feasible with more expensive printers, but they also take up considerable room and weigh a ton. Of course I can send images out to be printed, but I like to do my own printing where possible.

With my Epson 3200, I did make one 10 x 24 inch pirnt, in three panes each 10 x 8 inches. This is just about a 5 X enlargement. It looks pretty sharp to me, even reasonably close up. Note that the Epson 3200 delivers, at best 28-30 lp/mm, and usually less, so a 5 X enlargement is the limit of what you might expect before you would easily see lack of detail. The scene is a row of shop windows taken from across a street using a 75 mm lens. Using a magnifier, I can see that some of the letters in signs are not resolved, but I can't see that with my naked eye, even from relatively close-up. What I can see looks fine. Probably Ted Harris's experienced eye would see deficiencies, and even I would probably see the difference if I examined a conventional 5 X enlargment of the same scene side by side with my digitally produced image.

Another thing to keep in mind is that conventional methods also have their limits. People talk about wall sized prints which you can examine close-up, but that is fantasy. You would be luckty to get 40-50 lp/mm from a good lens and fine grained film combined. The human eye can resolve something like 5-10 lp/mm at a distance of 10-12 inches. That means you can't expect to enlarge more than 5-10 X without being able to see loss of detail close-up, and the larger figure only applies if your visual system is not too discriminating. Moreover, unless you set a very small coc, the resolution at the limits of DOF is also going to limit how much you can enlarge a typical scene not confined to a single plane. Choosing a very small coc will lead you to small apertures which will lead to loss of resolution because of diffraction, and that will show up in large prints.

Depsite all these problems, prints often look sharper than they have any bsuiness being. That is because the appearance of sharpness has to do with more than simple resolution. Well defined edges, which can be enhanced digitally, help, and the nature of the interesting detail plays an important role. For example, for the paned print I described above, I did use a modest degree of sharpening, and I was fortunate in the distribution of detail.

One difficulty with using consumer grade scanners is that one is strongly tempted to get the latest scanner in hopes of improved performance. I plan to get either an Epson 4990 or a V700 in hopes of doing better. That would be my third such scanner. But I would have to buy quite a few such scanners before I approached the price of the highest quality scanners capable of handling 4 x 5 sources. Still, I have already exceeded the cost of a used 4 x 5 enlarger.

[Eric Brody]

What do you enjoy doing when you take and make photographs? Make the decision based on that. There is no question that the quality of scanned 4x5 or even MF with a $1000 or less scanner can be excellent for most enlargements. How many 30x40 prints do most of us make anyway? In my 40+ years in photography, I myself have made less than a hundred, eg. none.

There are many of us who simply enjoy working in the darkroom, regardless of its inherent inefficiencies. There is a magic for many in a silver gelatin print. Some people enjoy the incredibly precise control of the computer. I have an image of rock art from the southwest in which the art is detailed and lighter than the background rocks. In Photoshop, I was able to select the art, it took a while, and lighten it to dramatise the image, this is simply impossible to do in the darkroom, at least with my level of darkroom skills.

It is nice to have a piece of film that one can print in the traditional darkroom or scan. No one knows if consumer scanner technology has reached an asymptotic level of development or not, but a major breakthrough in either price or quality seems unlikely. To do quality work in the darkroom or in front of the computer takes a huge amount of time. There are no shortcuts to excellence.

No one should kid oneself that the computer is really faster, except that when one has "finalized" the image in Photoshop, one can load the printer, push "print," go cook dinner and have a bunch of identical images of hopefully high quality. I have never figured out how to do that in the darkroom as much as I love it. I have an image that was in a small show, that actually sold four copies, my only four copies. Now, to make more, I must return to the darkroom, peruse my notes, never detailed enough in retrospect, and try to do it again.

The most important part is "are we having fun?" is what I am doing producing work that satisfies me, regardless of the tools? Paint, scan, print in the darkroom, all are different, all are valid, and all can produce wonderful images.

Good luck.

Eric

[jim kitchen]

I made a choice over a year ago to enter the digital world, and I purchased an Epson 4990 to scan my 4X5, and 8X10 B&W negatives. I now own the Epson 750 for other uninteresting reasons, but I use the scanner to preview my images digitally, prior to sending a qualifier off to a lab for drum scanning. This screening process saves copious dollars. I do, however, process my film in the traditional manner, and I really do not wish to change that control point, unless the film God takes a long hiatus in the future...

That said, my drum scans are a joy to work with, I enjoy the benefits of a "lightroom," and I prefer the new leisurely pace, while reviewing and cleaning an image for printing. I must admit, I have not been totally successful with every image, since it is a new environment for me, and although I can carry my years of darkroom experience forward, I still struggle with finding the correct darkroom sequence using my new found digital tools. Actually, I find this new process a lot of fun, as I watch the image unfold in front of me on a calibrated monitor.

One might note however, scanning requires a new mindset, and you can choose to develop your negatives in the traditional "I want to print it on silver paper" manner. This can be a wonderful process, but you can also modify the development process to accomodate digital scanning. The argument for each process is as diverse as the number of film and developer permutations, so I just decided to stick with developing my film, as if I wanted to print in the darkroom.

Large format negatives are certainly dumbed down for printing, but that is currently due to an imperfect printing evironment. Printer technology will steadily and significantly improve. When a user is careful, and has a clear attentive process, the user can definitely produce a quality print. I'll bet within five years or less, digital printing will be so wondrous, that I will never compare my original silver images to them. Can I see the difference between a 4X5 scanned image and an 8X10 image, when both are set for 16X20 output? Personally I can not, but I definitely see a difference when the image is greater than that size, for obvious reaons. Can I see a difference between my previous silver prints and my new found digital images? Yes I can, and I prefer the latter, just because the images have a truly different look and feel to them. I enjoy that difference.

The digital process changes every day with new auxilliary equipment, papers, toners and inks. I find this process absolutely fascinating. When it comes to a digital image from a 4X5 negative and, or any other even larger format negative, a drum scanned image is extremely tough to beat. Flatbed scanners and their CCD's get you in the ballpark, and although that will change in the furure too, I will use the flatbed scanner for previewing, and the drum scanner for output. The newer drum scanning technology allows for an 8X10 negative to be as large as 28GB. Now that is huge, but my current version of Photoshop will choke on the first 4GB. Anyway, I made a choice a while ago to convert my time and effort to blending both worlds. I am quite happy with my new environment, and I probably will be for a number of years.

As for a good drum scanning firm, try this place out: http://www.accumedia.net/digitalscans.html

They do all of my work, and they do a great job.

jim k

[Joseph O'Neil]

When it comes to the issue of backups, not 100 year backups but short term use, I have found that those external USB hard drives - not the USB keys that people wear around thier necks - but these are actual external hard drives in their own case & power supply - those things are worth their weight in gold.

I use them for backing up essentail data only - programs you can always re-install. But the best part is, go buy yourself a $200 fire safe / firebox. When you are finished on the computer for a day, back up all working files to the external hard drive, then turn it off, disconnect it, and put the thing in your fire safe.

even if lightning hits your computer, or you have a break in, flood, fire, anything, your data stands a pretty good chance of data survival. You can always buy a new computer, install your software, and be up and running with all your original working files in less than a day .

good luck
joe

[PViapiano]

As Joseph said, backing up is incredibly important...but I have found that external USB drives can be very flaky and short-lived. I've had 3 crashes/total failures within the last 2 years and they were on protected circuits. They were both Seagate and Western Digital. Their manufacturing quality control is very poor, IMO. Now, I feel I have to backup the backup...

[Ted Harris]

I do more than just backing up my image files. First, the original negaties and transparencies are well and safely stored. I go through a backup routine backung up all my files to a separate backup drive 3 to 5 times a week. Finally, after I have created a master image I save that image to an "Archive Disc" which is yet another separate external drive. In addition to the master image, I also save image print files to the archive disc. When the archive disc gets full I take it out of its case, put it in container and put it away in dead storage. I then put a new blank hard drive in the external case and start over. At the moment I am using 250 GB drives because they are the most economical. Given what seems to be happening with pricing i will probabl switch to 300 GB soon. Critically important work is also stored on DVD's as a second insurance policy.

[Karl Hudson]

You certainly are getting a lot of good info back on scanning here. As someone who has been around high end scanners since the early 80's, it is amazing to me how this whole scanning thing has evolved through the years. Scanning was once a trade that took a while to learn and the pay scale was up there. Now there are so many new desktop scanners available that can do a darn decent job within minutes of being out of the box. The whole high end scanning industry has been in decline for years and nearly every manufacturer has stopped production...could it have been too soon? For most applications who really cares about that kind of image quality anymore? But there is still a large group of people who do care...people on this forum for example.

I just wanted to add here a little trend I am starting to notice...the demand for high end drum scanners lately has not been from people working in the big office buildings downtown. They are now going into people's homes...sometimes the living room, sometimes the basement or the guest bedroom. These people are professional photographers with loads of images they want to digitize themselves. And if you want to talk about securing your collection. A few DVD's will hold a lot of high res scans which you can throw into a safety deposit box for added security (or simply park copies at a friend's house). So if the house burns down or the hard drive crashes your collection is intact. Of course the later models ran with software that was real easy to learn. I guess the idea was to replace the highly paid professional scanner operator with anybody in the office that had nothing else to do at that moment when a scan was needed.

The fact is ...if you want to get a real high end scanner now, they are getting unbelievably affordable on the used market. The difference in image quality is substantial versus the brand new one from CompUSA or Office Depot. The Printing Industry is loaded with high end scanners that don't get used that much anymore thanks to digital photography and stock photography in widespread usage now for advertising. Look around in the printing industry. There could be a printing company down the street from you looking to unload a high end unit that is taking up their space. Chances are the operator was laid off already quite a while back.

[Ballpointpenner]

Wow,

Again, I am amazed at the quantity and quality of answers on this forum. This is surely all very useful information for me to consider. Thanks a lot!

- Bpp