West Coast Imaging or Calypso?

[Dan V]

Before I deal with LF scans, I'm considering having a number of 6x7 cm Velvia slides Tango drum scanned.

I have no experience with either, but I've read good things about both. There's a considerable price difference in scan prices between the two.

Anyone ever compared scan results of these two labs?

[paul stimac]

http://www.jaincotech.com/
seems to be the best price/performance that I've found. I've had scans from WCi and like Jaincotech scans as much or better.... and they are a lot cheaper. They have an Creo iqsmart3 for 8x10's and if you ask I'm sure they do your 6x7's on it. You can see how this scanner compares the Tango on the scanner comparison page on this site. It's way better than the Imacons that they advertise using.

[Ron Marshall]

http://www.jaincotech.com/
seems to be the best price/performance that I've found. I've had scans from WCi and like Jaincotech scans as much or better.... and they are a lot cheaper. They have an Creo iqsmart3 for 8x10's and if you ask I'm sure they do your 6x7's on it. You can see how this scanner compares the Tango on the scanner comparison page on this site. It's way better than the Imacons that they advertise using.

Paul, would you know what they charge for a 4x5 scan on the Creo?

[Hugh Sakols]

If you send yours to West Coast Imaging, Jeff Grandy, who is represented by the Ansel Adams Gallery will probably scan your film. I just stopped by yesterday - it's a real personable place with lots of talent.

[Vaughn]

Sorry, no comparitive experience...but WCI will take good care of you and your work.

Vaughn

[Harley Goldman]

No comparisons for scanning, but have worked with both for printing. The Calypso experience was an extended nightmare, the WCI experiences were smooth and painless.

[paul stimac]

Paul, would you know what they charge for a 4x5 scan on the Creo?

It depends on how many you have and what resolution you want. I can't remember what I paid last time but somewhere around $12-15 a scan. They'll negotiate with you.

[Dan V]

Thanks to all for your input. I recently spoke with Jeff at WCI and am impressed with his knowledge and professionalism which I'm sure translate well to his Tango scans.

I'm leaning toward WCI but will have to wait for their next scanning sale.

[Doug Dolde]

JAINCOTECH.COM Ask for Guatam Pai. I have dumped WCI for Jainco, 1/5 the price of WCI, spotless dust free scans as good as Tango scans.

In my opinion WCI is resting on their laurels.

[Ron Marshall]

It depends on how many you have and what resolution you want. I can't remember what I paid last time but somewhere around $12-15 a scan. They'll negotiate with you.

Thanks for the info Paul.

I will send the same neg to Jainco and elsewhere for a drumscan for a comparison. I intend to print 24x30 so I can possibly save quite a bit if the Creo scans suffice.

[Dan V]

Their order form is seven pages long and I just scanned it (no pun intended), but I didn't notice whether one has a choice of where the scan is to be done, but it appears so from this quote taken from their scan page:

"Moreover, when you choose JaincoTech’s scanning services in India, you benefit from the offshore outsourcing model too. "



JAINCOTECH.COM Ask for Guatam Pai. I have dumped WCI for Jainco, 1/5 the price of WCI, spotless dust free scans as good as Tango scans.

In my opinion WCI is resting on their laurels.

[Doug Dolde]

I have the scanning done in Ohio. I think they ftp the files to India for dust spotting. You really have to call them to get set up with them...they don't operate like WCI where you just send your order in for a fixed price.

[jimwitkowski]

If it's still relavent, I just got a notice from WCI about a sale on 200mb scans.

I have an Imacon that works reasonably well for prints up to 16x20, but I send my transparancies off to WCI when I need a larger print.I'm impressed at how much sharper the scans are even though the rez is higher. Let me clarify that statement. The image is sharper when I'm dust spoting at 200% in each of the files.

The last few 16bit 700mb files I've had done cost about $125 each.

I also use them for the large prints and have been impressed with their work.
2cents.

[Doug Dolde]

Update on JaincoTech scans: They have just told me that they misquoted me initally at $14.00 and their new price will be $29.95.

However for scans done in India by them the price is:

6x7 - $14.22 per scan
4x5 - $16.62 per scan

[Harley Goldman]

I would not want my film sent to India for scanning. Too much chance of it not appearing there or back here. I would rather pay more here and make sure I still have my film.

[Dave Jeffery]

Hi Doug,

Thanks for the information about Jainco. I called them today and inquired about getting some scans done using the Creo. I want to get a large enough scan done to handle a farily large prints and if larger prints are requested I'll have drum scans made.

For images that need some tweaking I'm guessing 16 bit scans are needed.

What file sizes would you recommend? I was thinking of having scans made for 32 x 40 inch prints but maybe that is overkill and 24 x 30 would be large enough.

I will have prints made on Lightjets and Epson printers.

TIA

[Doug Dolde]

I wouldn't even try to recommend a file size for someone else. I get 16 bit @2050 dpi on 4x5 film = ~ 450mb. Seems sufficient for anything but a 40x50 print (which I probably will never do).

PS: Harley you're they guy who recommended I save my money and not buy a Maxwell screen for my Arca Swiss...glad I didn't listen.

[Lenny Eiger]

I hope no one takes offense but I have to speak up....

I have a different philosophy. I don't do this a tiny amt for a tiny amt of data, more for a little more, etc. I like really great scans, with tons of data. We deliver scans that are 1.7 Gigs of data off of a 4x5, about 2 Gigs from a med format, 3 Gigs from 8x10. All 16 bit RGB. All hand-held thru the process, aperture matched to film grain, etc.

We use an Aztek Premier, in addition to delivering up to 8,000 pixels per inch, it has an optical resolution of 8,000, which means it can deliver real data. The Tango has an optical rez rate at only 4,000. (It's a great scanner too, but it can't match the sharpness of a Premier.)

We don't charge by the megabyte, only by the size of the original, $125 for med format, $135 for 4x5 and $150 for 8x10.

I don't suggest using a scanner that charges $19 for doing anything, unless you really don't care about it, or you are reproducing it very, very small. I would suggest that you choose a scanner company by the operator, by how attentive the operator will be to your needs. A scan is not just a thing that goes thru a machine and comes out - there are a lot of controls. Great scans come from people who really care about them. The better a rapport you have with the person doing you scans, the more likely you will get what you want.

Good luck, and sorry for the self promotion. I tried to keep it to a minimum.

Lenny

Lenny Eiger
www.eigerstudios.com
707-763-5922

[QT Luong]

We use an Aztek Premier, in addition to delivering up to 8,000 pixels per inch, it has an optical resolution of 8,000, which means it can deliver real data. The Tango has an optical rez rate at only 4,000. (It's a great scanner too, but it can't match the sharpness of a Premier.)



Is there more than 4,000 on LF film anyways ?

[Lenny Eiger]

Is there more than 4,000 on LF film anyways ?

Yes there is.

There are a lot of variables here. One of them is the device. Much of these tests were done on a Tango, some of the others on other scanners with a 6 micron capacity. They are not capable of more than 4,000 dpi of optical resolution. So the word on the street reflects this. Since the Tango is also set at an aperture of 11 microns (up until some software changes last year which allowed them minimal flexibility) there was also the word that you can't scan color negs (which usually scan well at 19 microns or thereabouts). I have aperture settings every two or three microns or so and can scan at 16, 19, or 22, whatever is necessary.

There are other variables. One should understand - there are 4,000 6 micron slices in an inch (24,000) - the conversion is really 2.54 cm to the inch, so this is fudged a bit. There are also 8,000 3 micron slices. So, it's one possibility that one doesn't get to the 8,000 unless you are scanning at 3 microns, which is rare. (Only test targets and military film.)

However, this does not appear to be the case. I have tested my scanner against the Tango at a similar micron level to its 11 and it is definitely quite a bit sharper. So there is something to it.

This has been discussed on the Scan High End list and there is general agreement that a 3 micron capable engine definitely supplies more resolution - at whatever aperture. Finally, I would say that I have seen this myself, with my own images. The limitation, at least in b&w, these days is the film.

Lenny

[Harley Goldman]

Doug,

Sorry if I somehow hurt your feelings by saying I would not want to send my original chromes to India.

I work hard and spend a lot of money to get a decent shot and don't want to risk sending them overseas. Things can easily get damaged or disappear in transit. Not too sure what that has to do with my saying that in my quick test, my Arca screen was about equal to the Maxwell screen in my Toho. But if you see a connection, it is okay by me.

[Doug Dolde]

Harley,

No hurt feelings at all. The good thing about the Maxwell screen isn't that it's brighter but that the fresnel is so fine you can't see the groove under a lupe.

As far as sending to India goes, Fedex Express is $40 each way and likely pretty secure. I'll probably send a big batch to amortize the shipping costs.

[Lenny Eiger]

As far as sending to India goes, Fedex Express is $40 each way and likely pretty secure. I'll probably send a big batch to amortize the shipping costs.

Doug,
I don't want to insult you in any way. However, I think you're crazy to do what you are suggesting. You're going to get stuff you can make an 8x10 with. Further, I don't think you are justified in taking shots at WCI, suggesting they are "resting on their laurels". I know those people and they are worthy of anyone's respect.

You can not compare junky scans, the likes of which you are ordering, with someone who takes care on how they operate a scanner. There are many different scanners and almost everyone on the high end scanner list agrees - over many years - that the most important factor in scanning is not the device, but the operator.

Lenny Eiger
EigerStudios

[Dan V]

I hope no one takes offense but I have to speak up....


Glad you did. Apparently I drank the Kool Aid thinking Tango was the best scanner on the market.

[naturephoto1]

Hi Dan,

Though my printer Bill Nordstrom uses a Tango and we have for years, it must be understood that these machines have been around for some time. Improvements and progress takes place over years time hopefully so it is not surprising that newer better scanners have come along.

Rich

[bob carnie]

Hi Lenny

I see by your posts you are a big fan of the Aztek Premier scanner,
I have a lab here in Toronto which prints on Lambda to different materials.
At present we use Imacon scanner for small to medium size prints and send out Repro Scans*tango* who now are harder to contact as they now seem to be a part of National Geo.
In short term I am looking for a reptubale lab that does high quality scans , which I would send my clients directly. I need to see some tests on different scanners and frankly I have been leaning towards Tango, as this is what my competitors use, but from your posts it seems that your unit blows away Tango.
In long term we will be purchasing our own unit, but before I do so I would like to know what is the best quality in long term for us.We only scan for clients that print with us and I do not want to change this,but we have seen the scanning side of our business skyrocket and believe that this niche part of our operations will grow to support the costs of a high end drum scanner.
We purchased the Lambda and only run at 400ppi which we believe is right up there in quality vs Chromira and Light Jet, and our next large investment would be the scanner to biggie size our Imocan, with the hopes of long term quality and support.
I would love to send a couple of transparancies and negatives to you to compare to our Imocan and I would send the same images to Repro to get tangos, Print them on a high quality gloss paper at 400ppi and see for myself.
I would send you back comparison prints for your own needs or observations.


If you are interested in this you can email me at bob@elevatordigital.ca , our site is www.elevatordigital.ca and our toll number is 1- 888-470-7555
By the way , you made great points, and I agree with you . You get what you pay for.

best regards
Bob Carnie


I hope no one takes offense but I have to speak up....

I have a different philosophy. I don't do this a tiny amt for a tiny amt of data, more for a little more, etc. I like really great scans, with tons of data. We deliver scans that are 1.7 Gigs of data off of a 4x5, about 2 Gigs from a med format, 3 Gigs from 8x10. All 16 bit RGB. All hand-held thru the process, aperture matched to film grain, etc.

We use an Aztek Premier, in addition to delivering up to 8,000 pixels per inch, it has an optical resolution of 8,000, which means it can deliver real data. The Tango has an optical rez rate at only 4,000. (It's a great scanner too, but it can't match the sharpness of a Premier.)

We don't charge by the megabyte, only by the size of the original, $125 for med format, $135 for 4x5 and $150 for 8x10.

I don't suggest using a scanner that charges $19 for doing anything, unless you really don't care about it, or you are reproducing it very, very small. I would suggest that you choose a scanner company by the operator, by how attentive the operator will be to your needs. A scan is not just a thing that goes thru a machine and comes out - there are a lot of controls. Great scans come from people who really care about them. The better a rapport you have with the person doing you scans, the more likely you will get what you want.

Good luck, and sorry for the self promotion. I tried to keep it to a minimum.

Lenny

Lenny Eiger
www.eigerstudios.com
707-763-5922

[Lenny Eiger]

Hi Lenny

.
In long term we will be purchasing our own unit, but before I do so I would like to know what is the best quality in long term for us.By the way , you made great points, and I agree with you . You get what you pay for.

best regards
Bob Carnie

Going to contact you offline, thanks

Lenny

[Gordon Moat]

Not to dismiss any drum scanner, but the Heidelberg Tango has been around for nearly ten years. Dainippon Screen have made newer drum scanners, as have Aztek. The other company still involved in new drum scanner production is ICG. Unfortunately, there are very few places in North America running the latest ICG scanner.

Obviously every drum scanner, and high end flatbed, is operator dependent. A really skilled operator can meet or exceed the capability of someone not as skilled (or not as conscientious) using better gear. While the current ICG drum scanners are technically at the pinnacle of development, one would also need to find a skilled operator using one. So the lesson in this is not to just search for a particular drum scanner in use, but to find someone who gets the most out of their gear.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[QT Luong]

At f22 (where typically most LF shots are done), the diffraction limit is 68 lp/mm. Someone explain how you are going to get 4000dpi on film in most typical situations.

Before saying that scans are crappy, maybe one should have a look at them ?

The scans that I got from Mumbai compared favorably with those that WCI made from the same transparencies. Tech skills in India are not necessarily second to the US. Like Doug, I don't see sending a Fedex to Mumbai as considerably more risky than sending a Fedex to Oakhurst or Santa Cruz, but this is obviously a matter of personal comfort level.

[Lenny Eiger]

I don't have to look at a scan to know its crappy. It takes 10-15 mins to mount up a drum. It takes a few mins to scan each image even at very low rez. Even at Indian rates - for less than $20 that means no time looking at the image and scanning at minimum resolution. No setting of apertures, no nothing.

My scanner takes about 45 minutes to do an 8,000 dpi scan of a 2 1/4, for a result of 2.2 Gigs. That doesn't include the time it takes to mount and to do an analysis of the grain size. It also doesn't allow for any corrections to the image. My software allows these corrections to be loaded directly into the scanner so that it scans within the range specified vs other software which applies changes to a raw scan. All this is useless? I think you'd have to look at my prints before you made this conclusion.

I get a lot more than 4,000 dpi from film on a regular basis. So do lots of other drum scanner operators. I think 68 lp/mm would really look like crap if that's all you got - imagine printing at 68 dpi - or even double that. There is more, regardless of the fact that there are no books on the subject with language that can explain this to you...

As someone else said earlier - you get what you pay for.

Lenny




At f22 (where typically most LF shots are done), the diffraction limit is 68 lp/mm. Someone explain how you are going to get 4000dpi on film in most typical situations.

Before saying that scans are crappy, maybe one should have a look at them ?

The scans that I got from Mumbai compared favorably with those that WCI made from the same transparencies. Tech skills in India are not necessarily second to the US. Like Doug, I don't see sending a Fedex to Mumbai as considerably more risky than sending a Fedex to Oakhurst or Santa Cruz, but this is obviously a matter of personal comfort level.

[QT Luong]

Well, if you could get to me more than 68 lp/mm (NOT 68 dpi) from a shot made at f22, then now *that's* something worth paying for, but I can see why it would be difficult to explain in words how to do so, since this would involve parallel universes with different physics laws :-)

[Ben Chase]

Well, if you could get to me more than 68 lp/mm (NOT 68 dpi) from a shot made at f22, then now *that's* something worth paying for, but I can see why it would be difficult to explain in words how to do so, since this would involve parallel universes with different physics laws :-)

Ouch. :)

[Doug Dolde]

Doug,
I don't want to insult you in any way. However, I think you're crazy to do what you are suggesting. You're going to get stuff you can make an 8x10 with. Further, I don't think you are justified in taking shots at WCI, suggesting they are "resting on their laurels". I know those people and they are worthy of anyone's respect.

You can not compare junky scans, the likes of which you are ordering, with someone who takes care on how they operate a scanner. There are many different scanners and almost everyone on the high end scanner list agrees - over many years - that the most important factor in scanning is not the device, but the operator.

Lenny Eiger
EigerStudios

didnt insult but man are you full of shit, if you think 2040dpi, 16 bit 440mb Imacon 949 scans are junk then you deserve to pay wci's inflated prices

[jetcode]

Thanks for the info Paul.
I will send the same neg to Jainco and elsewhere for a drumscan for a comparison. I intend to print 24x30 so I can possibly save quite a bit if the Creo scans suffice.

I have a Cezanne Elite coming in the next week because I am tired of having to pay $135 to get a scan or renting an Imacon (2040 limit on LF) by the hour and scurrying to get as many scans as possible.

I also plan on helping fellow photographers and artists who are interested in obtaining quality scans. If you truly need 8000dpi get a drum scan if not there are certainly other options.

[jetcode]

Well, if you could get to me more than 68 lp/mm (NOT 68 dpi) from a shot made at f22, then now *that's* something worth paying for, but I can see why it would be difficult to explain in words how to do so, since this would involve parallel universes with different physics laws :-)

Curious if you know why the optical measurement is in line pairs instead of lines and if a line pair has any special dimensional characteristics.

[jetcode]

if you think 2040dpi, 16 bit 440mb Imacon 949 scans are junk then you deserve to pay wci's inflated prices

I've had many scans done on a 646 and the next one up, not a 949, nice scans for sure but the 2040dpi limit for 4x5 and 1800dpi limit for 5x7 wasn't helping much in some cases. What's the point of shooting LF if you only get half the film resolution in a scan? I also believe their Dmax specification is a bit inflated. WCI rates are comparable to the $20k Hasselblad wants for their latest offering.

[jetcode]

I think 68 lp/mm would really look like crap if that's all you got - imagine printing at 68 dpi - or even double that.

68 lp/mm and 68 dpi are two completely different measurements, it would seem a qualified scanner operator would know the distinction, I am assuming you simply misstated this.



As someone else said earlier - you get what you pay for.


Spending lots of money doesn't guarantee high quality results does it.

[Dave Jeffery]

I've been trying to figure out the best price and quality for mid sized scans of 4x5 chromes for mid size prints as well. I'm new to LF and so please correct me where you think the following assumtions I'm presenting are incorrect.

I think for full resolution 16 bit Aztek drum scans of 4x5's, that Lenny's price of $135 is the best price anywhere.

For great film images that don't need much tweaking an 8 bit scan is good enough and for images that need more than a few simple adjustments, 16 bit files are needed.

Lightjet printers input files should be 304.8 ppi. For Epson printers 360 ppi input files produce slightly better prints than 300 ppi files.

The 16 bit Imacon scans are said to be 440 mb. Just by the numbers 484 mb 16 bit scans are needed for the Lightjet to print a 24x30 inch prints so maybe 440 mb is close enough? For a 360 ppi, 16 bit, Epson print 356 mb are needed for a 20x 24 inch print so these print sizes are theoretically where the Imacons max out for 16 bit scans.

My idea was to get scans made for prints in the 24x 30, 32x 40 size range and for $69 Chromatics will drum scan an 8 bit file that will print a 32x 40” using a Lightjet.

The next step up is the high end flatbeds like the Creo iQ Smart 2 + 3 and the Screens Cezannes which have an optical resolution of 5500 ppi, then at about 7 to 8x magnification it’s probably time to get drum scans made. I haven’t spoken further with Jainco about getting Creo scans done because I need to print on both Epsons and Lightjets and work with 8bit and 16bit files and I can’t seem to nail down a sweet spot in scan file sizes. For 8 bit Aztek drum scans Chromatics in Nashville have great prices but they are not wanting to scan in 16 bit mode.

Maybe 360 ppi is overkill for the Epson’s? It would be great to hear that is true.

I would like to hear about QT’s experience with the scans made in Mumbai. What equipment is used to scan the film, what resolution was possible, 8 bit or 16bit, and the cost.

For 16bit Tango scans Calypso’s prices are very cheap but I have been convinced by the input on these forums, without seeing any scans, that the Aztek scans are higher resolution, but many say the Tango scans are all that is needed.

I put together an Excel spreadsheet with the various 8 bit and 16 bit file sizes needed for the Lightjets and Epsons and there is no simple price point solution, but it’s looking like for 8bit files Chromatic’s Aztek scans are the best choice. For 16 bit I don’t know yet.

Any feedback is welcome. TIA

[Dave Jeffery]

"The next step up" from the Imacon scans not the Aztek scans

[naturephoto1]

Hi Dave,

I am not sure about the pricing that you have there. My printer for the last 12 3/4 years is Bill Nordstrom, Laser Light Photographics and founder of Ever Color Fine Art. He scans with a Tango and we have for years. I believe that he still has a special price offer for $99 for the scan and the first print (from his Chromira Machine) up to 30" X 40" printed on Fuji Crystal Archive Matt or Glossy Paper.

Here is the link:

http://www.laserlightprintmaker.com/specialoffer.htm

Rich

[Stephen Best]

The 16 bit Imacon scans are said to be 440 mb. Just by the numbers 484 mb 16 bit scans are needed for the Lightjet to print a 24x30 inch prints so maybe 440 mb is close enough? For a 360 ppi, 16 bit, Epson print 356 mb are needed for a 20x 24 inch print so these print sizes are theoretically where the Imacons max out for 16 bit scans.

A Flextight 848/949/X5 will give you about a 420MB 16-bit file from 4x5 after trimming. This translates to a 24x30 print (with a 1.5" border) at Epson's optimal 360ppi. I scan trannies on my 848 with no cropping/resizing and print with no driver resampling to an Epson 7800 ... the scanner and printer are a great match. The earlier Precision scanners aren't in the same league (I used to have one).

Higher resolution scans may help with grain aliasing but with the Fujichrome I shoot you don't even hit grain at 2040dpi. There's no point bogging down Photoshop if the driver is just going to throw away the excess resolution. Also, Epson drivers will croak with really oversized files.

[Lenny Eiger]

didnt insult but man are you full of shit, if you think 2040dpi, 16 bit 440mb Imacon 949 scans are junk then you deserve to pay wci's inflated prices

Thankfully, I have my own drum scanner. My first one, a used Howtek 4500 cost me much less than the Imacon (about 9K with mounting station, drum, software and all) and was very impressive. Much more than an Imacon can do. The Imacon is after all, a flatbed, it's sensor is a CCD rather than a PMT. It scans one full line at a time, rather than taking individual samples. For a flatbed, they are generally pretty good quality altho' they upset a lot of folks because many of their performance claims are based on theoretical values vs measured (or real world) ones.

And yes, I do know the formula for converting line pairs to dpi - one of my earlier comments was in too much haste - (line pairs x 2) * 25.4 if anyone else wants to know.

FWIW, I get a 1.7 gig file from a 4x5, scanned at 4,000 dpi. Of course, the number of megabytes is meaningless. It's the number of pixels. Across the 5 inch side I get 4,000 x 5 inches, which is 20,000 pixels. That means I can do a 16x20 at 1,000 dpi or a 32x40 at 500 dpi. I want to give myself the capacity to do the latter at higher than 360.

My own work is black and white and since black and white tonalities are much more sensitive than color, I want to have all I can get from my negative. I print with RIP so I don't have to worry about Epson driver issues. I initially used Cone inks, which I think are excellent but have moved on and am now mixing my own.

We all do everything we can to expose and develop correctly to get as much as we can in the capture step. Its my opinion, you can agree or disagree, that the scan is part of the capture when digital printing. To quote and extend an old adage, if it ain't there in the neg - or it ain't there in the scan, it won't be there in a digital print. Therefore, I think one needs to get as good a scan as they can.

There are lots of great drum scanners out there. Certainly, some are better than others, but they are all good, and all better than what one can get of an Epson Perfection flatbed, for instance.

If you get scans from someone else, it ought to be someone you can talk to, whether its West Coast Imaging, Bill Nordstrom, any number of others, or myself.. Then at least you can explain what you are after and get something that matches your aims rather than some generic thing... that may or may not.

Lenny
EigerStudios

[QT Luong]

I would like to hear about QT’s experience with the scans made in Mumbai. What equipment is used to scan the film, what resolution was possible, 8 bit or 16bit, and the cost.

Tango/Primescan, 8bit, 300MB. $8 for quantities > 1000

FYI, Bill Nordstrom used to send 200dpi to the Lightjet.

[JPlomley]

Then at least you can explain what you are after and get something that matches your aims rather than some generic thing

Tanya Stafford at Jainco Tech manages the scanning lab. She will scan exactly the way you want and will post the "pre-scans" to their FTP site for approval before doing the final scan. Not sure how much more interactive one needs to be. I've been exceptionally please with the 949 scans, they know I want no sharpening (-160 in the Flextight software), no burned out highlights (they monitor this closely) and good shadow detail but without augmenting noise. I doubt I could do a better job myself. Colors are spot on accurate for the E100VS and Velvia 50 chromes I have sent.

[Stephen Best]

FWIW, I get a 1.7 gig file from a 4x5, scanned at 4,000 dpi. Of course, the number of megabytes is meaningless. It's the number of pixels. Across the 5 inch side I get 4,000 x 5 inches, which is 20,000 pixels. That means I can do a 16x20 at 1,000 dpi or a 32x40 at 500 dpi. I want to give myself the capacity to do the latter at higher than 360.

I doubt there's any RIP/driver that can make meaningful use of these resolutions. Try downsampling to exactly 360ppi, output sharpening at this resolution then comparing the results. For smaller prints, Epson's driver will stage at 720ppi if you turn Finest Detail on. I use this for quarter size prints from my files but you're kidding yourself if you think you can see a difference on rag. Qimage (which I don't use) will also deliver 720ppi I believe. Anything higher than this just gets thrown away. Having more megabytes may give you a warm fuzzy feeling but unless you know how the data flows through the RIP/driver you may be doing more harm than good.

[Lenny Eiger]

I doubt there's any RIP/driver that can make meaningful use of these resolutions. Try downsampling to exactly 360ppi, output sharpening at this resolution then comparing the results. For smaller prints, Epson's driver will stage at 720ppi if you turn Finest Detail on. I use this for quarter size prints from my files but you're kidding yourself if you think you can see a difference on rag. Qimage (which I don't use) will also deliver 720ppi I believe. Anything higher than this just gets thrown away. Having more megabytes may give you a warm fuzzy feeling but unless you know how the data flows through the RIP/driver you may be doing more harm than good.

I have already done the 360 vs 720 test - years ago. I can see the difference in my setup, small as it may be. I am also almost positive that everything over 720 gets tossed. I use Ergosoft's StudioPrint, which I like very much. I am targeting the capacity to do a 40 inch print. 720 at 40 inches is 28,800 pixels. I am only using 20,000, which gets me 500 dpi at 40 inches. Since it's black and white, 6 dilutions, it IS better at 485 or so than it is at 360.

So it isn't about warm and fuzzy for me. I do know how to use my RIP. I know I am not doing more harm than good because I have done the comparisons. I use a RIP and I have way more control than you are imagining.

<vent>
On another topic - it's amazing to me that when people here find an opinion that is new, or different than their own, they automatically assume the other person is new at this and give them advice. Often (tho' not in this case at all) they are quite rude. I think it is a good thing to ask a question to find out the persons level of knowledge first before you make assumptions. As it turn out, I am using a more advanced system than the poster I am replying to. It's quite possible I am more experienced. It's also quite possible that he is getting fabulous results and making beautiful prints - I see no reason why would I assume any different.

I just think people ought to ask if someone has considered something before they jump to advise. Every few months I get on this forum and it's always been the same - there isn't a sense of mutual respect, or even respect for people that have been at this for years and years. I certainly don't have to be right about everything, but the conclusions I have come to - altho sometimes strong, or even too strong - have come from experience, not just parroting what others have said. Been doing this for more than 40 years....
</vent off>

[bob carnie]

All my work is at 400ppi, in fact the Lambda 76 will not work with the Harmon Digital Fibre Paper unless it is at 400ppi, Our Cibachromes are run at 400ppi as well.
I can see the difference *better* at 400ppi over the native 200ppi, as well I have seen scans from my Imocan compared to Repro Scans Tango and I do grudgingly admit that tango is better for certain applications. Most of my work that I am refering to is at 30x40 inch from medium size negatives/transparancies. I am with Lenny here on this one, Apples to Apples dead nut comparisons I do prefer for the larger gloss prints at 400ppi , tango scans or in his case Aztek scans, If I am printing inkjet on rag paper I see absolutely no need to go to a Tango Scan as the inks bleed and create a visual smoothness of tonality.
I scan daily on our Imocan but I would tend to defer to someone like Lenny who specializes in scans for a living for specific scanning needs. I control all aspects of my production and have the option to decide what my original input will be for any/all final output applications.Therefore for certain projects/photographers we do outsource to *real* drum scanning operations to get the results we require.
I believe it is all in the operator and his/her ability to look at the original, visulize what media it is going to be printed on and using good common sense to get there.
Just sending out images blind to operators who will bang out your scans for cheap prices may make total sense, but I do not think this is the best method for good scans for exceptional prints.

[Stephen Best]

On another topic - it's amazing to me that when people here find an opinion that is new, or different than their own, they automatically assume the other person is new at this and give them advice.

I'm sorry you took it this way, but maybe you should be careful of comments like printing 16x20s at 1000ppi as, by your own admission, such resolutions are self defeating. The intention is to give practical advice to others, not just throw around big numbers and imply how superior your approach is.

[Lenny Eiger]

I'm sorry you took it this way, but maybe you should be careful of comments like printing 16x20s at 1000ppi as, by your own admission, such resolutions are self defeating. The intention is to give practical advice to others, not just throw around big numbers and imply how superior your approach is.

I'm not suggesting you did anything horrible - it was just a comment and not particularly directed at you. However, if you re-read my post, I was very clear that I was looking for the higher size with the amt of pixels. Yet you're still giving me advice, telling me I should be careful. And I just have a bunch of experience, not the big inflated ego you want to suggest. Despite requesting some mutual respect, I'm not trying to impress anyone - I like the bigger numbers because they work for me.

As to a higher number of pixels to the printer - I don't see any degradation of quality from sending a larger file that gets dropped off to 720 at the printer. I suppose its possible with some other driver there would be, but there isn't on mine and I retain the capability to print it larger, and have a "Master File" with all my selections and adjustment layers, etc.

[Dave Jeffery]

"I believe it is all in the operator and his/her ability to look at the original, visulize what media it is going to be printed on and using good common sense to get there.
Just sending out images blind to operators who will bang out your scans for cheap prices may make total sense, but I do not think this is the best method for good scans for exceptional prints."

Thanks Bob! I would have resembled that remark. That's why I fish for input.

"visulize what media it is going to be printed on"

I had only considered trying to get scans made for the optimal printer input file sizes and I don't yet understand how the choice of print media effects how the film should be scanned.
I wrongfully assumed that with a high quality scan that only the color gamut reductions were an issue converting to print and that other desired effects and changes could be made in post. Hopefully I am not misunderstanding what you are saying.

Can anyone elaborate on this and are there some books or literature that I should read to get a better understanding of the process?

Thanks again Bob and others. The recent postings have been very beneficial. I'm slogging through "Color Management for Photographers" at the moment and need to do a lot more reading.

Looking forward to the leaves changing colors soon.

[jetcode]

<vent>
I just think people ought to ask if someone has considered something before they jump to advise.
</vent off>

with all due respect telling someone that their scans are shit because they don't originate in your scanner isn't likely the best way to make new contacts

just an observation

[jetcode]

Just sending out images blind to operators who will bang out your scans for cheap prices may make total sense, but I do not think this is the best method for good scans for exceptional prints.

I guess the question then becomes is the scanner operator dictating my vision? To me the scan operators only goal is to produce quality data from an image not decide for me what the output context will be and then scan for that. An image will likely be printed to the web and potentially various print surfaces. I don't want to get a different scan for every print surface.

[bob carnie]

My experience tells me that when I am printing for Ink Jet the settings on my scanner *or better said* the image on my screen is different than the settings that I will use for a colour image that will be converted to black and white, printed on digital fibre paper in traditional chemicals, then bleach tone in chemical baths.
I allow for some burn off at both ends of the scale that occurs in the fibre print steps.
Therefore my screen will look flatter for the fibre or the numbers will be a greater spread between highlight with detail to shadow with detail than that of the same image that I want to print on Hannamuhle Rag with my epson.
When I am printing a large digital cibachrome which is an extremely glossy material that will show intricate details I will defer to a larger file that we sometimes outsource to a different scanner.
I am dictating the vision for the scanner operator, and those who are competent and willing to listen to my needs are the people I seek.
At my shop I will not allow my assistants to press the scan button on our scanner until I have seen the image on the screen and I know which media we are printing on. This may seem anal, but its my shop and my name goes on every print that I sell , so I have a vested interest in the small details of our projects. We are a very small operation compared to some of our competitors.
I do very little scan work for web or for small prints so my particuar requirements may not be relevant to others. But I have found this vision thing to be very critical when making scans.
On a different side note but going back 15 years before PS and laser printers, we use to make internegs, for colour transparancies. 95% of all labs that made internegs from 35mm would project them onto 4x5 film stock , for ease of use and cleanliness factors*quick and easy*
The best interneg lab I ever worked at did all 35mm internegs by contact. They were harder to do , harder to clean, but to a discerning eye much sharper and better clarity of tones.
I am wondering it this small 5-10% difference is what I am talking about when making scans?
I don't disagree about the sillyness of getting different scans for different purposes, In my world , I am only scanning for final exhibition print and I am saying that we do consider the final media before we hit the scan button.
I am not caught up in the whole drama of who has the best gear, because each year I would be chasing a magic bullet , I believe its all in the operator and their skill in listening to the client and using equipment*tools* that they are comfortable with and have a deep understanding of the whole process.


I guess the question then becomes is the scanner operator dictating my vision? To me the scan operators only goal is to produce quality data from an image not decide for me what the output context will be and then scan for that. An image will likely be printed to the web and potentially various print surfaces. I don't want to get a different scan for every print surface.

[Lenny Eiger]

with all due respect telling someone that their scans are shit because they don't originate in your scanner isn't likely the best way to make new contacts
just an observation

This is a gross mis-quoting of what I said. I think scans that are done for $8, or $20 are going to be very generic. The amount of money in the transaction doesn't allow for any care.

I don't say everyone's else's scans are shit. I never did. However, I've been at this for a while and do have a sense of what other scanners are capable of. I've seen great scans by a lot of different drum scanners. There is a hierarchy of quality, from flatbeds to film scanners to drums, and within drums from 11 micron to 6 and 3 micron engines. Scanning on all of these can be improved with more knowledge, lots of care, glass carriers, wet mounting, better software, etc.

[jetcode]

My experience tells me that when I am printing for Ink Jet the settings on my scanner *or better said* the image on my screen is different than the settings that I will use for a colour image that will be converted to black and white, printed on digital fibre paper in traditional chemicals, then bleach tone in chemical baths.
I allow for some burn off at both ends of the scale that occurs in the fibre print steps.
Therefore my screen will look flatter for the fibre or the numbers will be a greater spread between highlight with detail to shadow with detail than that of the same image that I want to print on Hannamuhle Rag with my epson.
When I am printing a large digital cibachrome which is an extremely glossy material that will show intricate details I will defer to a larger file that we sometimes outsource to a different scanner.
I am dictating the vision for the scanner operator, and those who are competent and willing to listen to my needs are the people I seek.
At my shop I will not allow my assistants to press the scan button on our scanner until I have seen the image on the screen and I know which media we are printing on. This may seem anal, but its my shop and my name goes on every print that I sell , so I have a vested interest in the small details of our projects. We are a very small operation compared to some of our competitors.
I do very little scan work for web or for small prints so my particuar requirements may not be relevant to others. But I have found this vision thing to be very critical when making scans.
On a different side note but going back 15 years before PS and laser printers, we use to make internegs, for colour transparancies. 95&#37; of all labs that made internegs from 35mm would project them onto 4x5 film stock , for ease of use and cleanliness factors*quick and easy*
The best interneg lab I ever worked at did all 35mm internegs by contact. They were harder to do , harder to clean, but to a discerning eye much sharper and better clarity of tones.
I am wondering it this small 5-10% difference is what I am talking about when making scans?
I don't disagree about the sillyness of getting different scans for different purposes, In my world , I am only scanning for final exhibition print and I am saying that we do consider the final media before we hit the scan button.
I am not caught up in the whole drama of who has the best gear, because each year I would be chasing a magic bullet , I believe its all in the operator and their skill in listening to the client and using equipment*tools* that they are comfortable with and have a deep understanding of the whole process.

No one will fault you for providing the best quality possible, least your clients.

Here is the process I use/intend to use (I have nowhere near the experience you do)

1) Determine the desired output surfaces.

2) Scan the film precisely as the eye sees the film, there may be some adjustments here but it would be to maximize highlight and shadow detail. If a high contrast image is difficult to scan I will scan for highlights and scan for shadows and merge the images using HDR techniques.

3) Manipulate the image in CSx for each type of print, whether the web, paper surface, digital prepress, etc. In this respect some clients may want to profile the image to their output devices.

By all means you are the one who will hear from the client if all is not well so I am not at all suggesting any deviation to your current process, I am merely suggesting the approach I plan on using and that may change as I gain more experience.

[jetcode]

This is a gross mis-quoting of what I said. I think scans that are done for $8, or $20 are going to be very generic. The amount of money in the transaction doesn't allow for any care.

I don't say everyone's else's scans are shit. I never did. However, I've been at this for a while and do have a sense of what other scanners are capable of. I've seen great scans by a lot of different drum scanners. There is a hierarchy of quality, from flatbeds to film scanners to drums, and within drums from 11 micron to 6 and 3 micron engines. Scanning on all of these can be improved with more knowledge, lots of care, glass carriers, wet mounting, better software, etc.

My apologies for rewording the context, the general feeling I got from the thread is the statement that your scans are superior and everything else will be inferior to some degree either by process or operation.

"I don't have to look at a scan to know its crappy. "

and

"You can not compare junky scans, the likes of which you are ordering, with someone who takes care on how they operate a scanner."

The truth is - if you don't have empirical data from a junky scan then you are shooting from the hip - you may be right, you may be wrong - that $20 scan in India may likely be a $135 scan here, who is to say, do you have empirical data from India to back your assessments? Maybe you don't need to.

People think their Imacon and Tango scans are excellent, some people choose to get less expensive scans offshore. The reason is simple. I have a 100 scans to make but I don't want to spend $13,500 to get them made, and yes volume brings some discount.

There will always be wars about scanner/operator capabilities but ultimately it comes down to personal choice, availability, and affordability.

[bob carnie]

Jetcode
I see absolutely nothing wrong with your approach

[Lenny Eiger]

My apologies for rewording the context, the general feeling I got from the thread is the statement that your scans are superior and everything else will be inferior to some degree either by process or operation.


I don't feel that way. I think my scans are great, but there are a lot of others who do great scans.


The truth is - if you don't have empirical data from a junky scan then you are shooting from the hip - you may be right, you may be wrong -Maybe you don't need to.

Most of the folks that get scans for low $$ get a fraction of the data that myself and other top scanner operators deliver. I think that's a shame unless you will never use it for anything else other than a very small photo - certainly perfect for most commercial uses. Almost every time I have done a "short" scan and deliver only 100 megs or so they come back later and want a larger print - and they don't really want to pay for the scan a second time. There is also the issue of archiving... for future printers that may have more capabilities that we have now. I think the folks selling scans that are 30 and 60 megs are doing their customers a disservice, unless they never want to go past the limits of those sizes.


People think their Imacon and Tango scans are excellent, some people choose to get less expensive scans offshore. The reason is simple. I have a 100 scans to make but I don't want to spend $13,500 to get them made, and yes volume brings some discount.


I don't think Imacon and Tango should be in the same sentence. Regardless, I do have some sympathy for your plight. This amount is not trivial. Personally, when I was faced with bringing my portfolio into the digital spectrum I had a similar amount it was going to cost me and I made the decision to buy my own drum scanner. That's how I got started in this circus. It isn't the right decision for everyone, however, for a whole variety of reasons.

Still, it comes down to what you want to do with the scans. It may be that paying $8-$30 for the scans may get you a workable 13x19 print, just an an example, and that when you want to make a larger one you can budget for a larger scan. You can also go for a great scan and make a great deal with a top operator based on volume thats somewhere in the middle. (Volume may get you a bigger discount than you imagine, depending on the service and whether their scanner is running all day or not.


There will always be wars about scanner/operator capabilities but ultimately it comes down to personal choice, availability, and affordability.

I can't disagree with this except on one point - and it's my opinion, so you can take it however you want - or dismiss it. We all do what we can to get as much info into the camera, and on to the film. Getting only a portion of what you want on the scan is getting only a portion on the neg. Because the computer needs the data to make the right print, the scan must be considered part of the capture step. How many of us have an expensive camera - or buy the more expensive film and/or developer?

[jetcode]

thanks lenny - joe

[Dave Jeffery]

Quoting Bob;
"My experience tells me......... have a deep understanding of the whole process."
I love the way your post condenses : )

Thanks for explaining how the scan decisions translate to the final print. Greatly appreciated.

Now if I can just figure out how to get 20 years of experience in 2 years.