DMax for scanners?

[Rob_5419]

Still trying to decide about a scanner and it's well past my bed time, but I trying to make sense of this.

I'm starting to have reservations about the Epson v750 after doing my homework.

I've been looking at the Microtek 9800XL - does anyone have any experience of this?
As well as the Microtek i900.

How come these scanners aren't mentioned as much as the Epson consumer model?

Why is the Microtek scanners Dmax (3.7) worse than an Epson v750 which costs half the price? Is the Epson just a better value scanner for its purpose?

[Asher Kelman]

Still trying to decide about a scanner and it's well past my bed time, but I trying to make sense of this.

I'm starting to have reservations about the Epson v750 after doing my homework.

I've been looking at the Microtek 9800XL - does anyone have any experience of this?
As well as the Microtek i900.

How come these scanners aren't mentioned as much as the Epson consumer model?

Why is the Microtek scanners Dmax (3.7) worse than an Epson v750 which costs half the price? Is the Epson just a better value scanner for its purpose?

Hi Rob,
unless you measured the Dmax of any of these scanners, I wouldn't believe it and if I found 3.7 as a matter of duty, I'd send it to the Smithsonian.

I don't believe any of these figures. the use the A/D converot 16 BIT to get a marketing figure for dMax.

AFAIK, the expected dMax for lower end is about 1.8 ro 2.4. An excellent scanner might reach 2.9 or so. One has to really go to the professional scanner to reach 3.1 or more. 3.7 is way beyond what I'd believe a sub-$1000 scanner can do.

Think what the shadows of your images demand of a scanner. What about the highlights? Send several typical negatives or chromes to friends or services to get scans. Then you will know. Theory will only drive you into the home for the digitally bewildered where people in stained dressing gowns wander like ghosts muttering BIT depth and fourier transform mantras to the other bewildered and lost souls!

You cannot go by specs. Advice from someone who scans their own B&W images for example, if they are like yours in distribution of grey scale will let you have some good idea of what to expect.

Asher

[Rob_5419]

Hi Asher,

I really don't know. I've never scanned anything other than my income tax forms before.

The manufacturer states that the Microtek 9800XL is 48 bit and has a DMax of 3.7 -

http://www.microtekusa.com/sm9800xltma.html

And the Epson at 4.0:

http://www.epson.co.uk/scanners/Epson-Perfection-V750-Photo-Scanner_specs.htm

The Epson is sub-$1000, but I think the Microtek 9800XL is a bit more.


Send several typical negatives or chromes to friends or services to get scans.

I'm Billy-no-mates when it comes to letting someone offer to spill fluid on my negatives and spin them upside down....

Are you saying that, someone who knows how to scan, could get that kind of DMax out, but an amateur to scanning, might only get say, a DMax of 1.0?

Thanks,

Rob

[Ted Harris]

Rob, what Asher is saying is that all the Dmax numbers you see for consumer scanners are nothing mire than marketing hype. The realworld tested Dmax of the V750 is around 2.1 - 2.2. The Microtek i900 is about the same and the 9800 not quite as good. The best Dmax we ever found on a consumer scanner was the Microtek 1800f which was a bit under 2.5 IIRC. Additionally, your ability to attain the maximum tonal range will be somewhat dependent on your skill at setting the endpoints in your scan.

In order to get above these numbers you need to go to the high end scanners which will give you Dmax in the range of 3.9 to 4.2 which exceeds the range of any film. You don't need to fluid mount with these. I never fluid mount unless to hide scratches.

[Rob_5419]

Thanks for making that clearer. I get the impression that it won't matter how much I read up on scanners, since I'm not understanding it anyway.

http://ww3.microtek.com.tw/eu/modules/myalbum/photo.php?lid=2

I looked at that, and wasn't sure if I could scan whole-plate negatives on it. That was the only reason I was put off it a little.

Would it be possible to just stick a sheet of anti-newton glass over the negative on the flat bed and get a scan that way?

Does the i900 compare favourably tothe Epson v750 in your view?

[Ted Harris]

Rob, yes you can scan whole plate on the i900, you can go up to 8x10. No, IMO, it doesn't compare favorably with the V750. Additionally, the i900 has been discontinued. It has been replaced by the M1 (F1 the UK) which does compare favorably with the V750. My preliminary review is in the January issue of View Camera. I'm not through testing the M1 but my bottom line is that it is slightly better than the V750.

We conduct intensive, hands-on scanning and digital workflow workshops that might be of interest if anything brings you to this side of the pond. Also working on scheduling one in Europe late this year.

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks for making that clearer. I get the impression that it won't matter how much I read up on scanners, since I'm not understanding it anyway.

Rob,

We all succesfully use technology we don't understand if we can limit our search to what we really need. I'd ask what your kind of photography is and what's the purpose of your scan. If you are scanning for family albums, then any $100 to $400 flat bed scanner will make you happy. If you are making prints to sell from MF or 4x5 film then what are the requirements? Do you make highly technical B&W pictures with delicate shadows and detailed highlights. If so, you might do better as a start to send your images out to be scanned for you likely also need expertise in scanning even if you were given the best rebuilt Cezanne scanner.

If you have an image in B&W or color to share then it might help guide what advice people can send your way. That, what you intend to do with the files, the actual planned output print device, print sizes and market will define everything you need pretty well beyond further discussion.

Asher

[Rob_5419]

Ted -

I wish I could find View Camera here. I get fed up of reading the English magazines here.

Asher -

The thought of a workshop on digital workflow would do my brian in! I like high quality contact prints with luminous detail - I'm pretty much retired, so I don't have anything to prove about my photography. I like optical printing, although I've seen some drumscanned stuff which looks really nice.

[Asher Kelman]

Ted -

I wish I could find View Camera here. I get fed up of reading the English magazines here.

Asher -

The thought of a workshop on digital workflow would do my brian in! I like high quality contact prints with luminous detail - I'm pretty much retired, so I don't have anything to prove about my photography. I like optical printing, although I've seen some drumscanned stuff which looks really nice.

Hi Rob,

If you can afford the cost in time and money, a short course would be invaluable if you are not already familiar with getting the most out of a digital file. With just a V750 and a good instructer, you will learn to get the most out of this equipment. You might then separately scan for highlights, mid tones and shadows and combine for a great image. You need to get over scanning essentials. You could, of course, do it yourself as most of us do, but a course saves having to be frustrated. It's not difficult at all, really!

Just write to the instructor, here Ted, for example, and let him/her know your kind of work and what machine you need instruction for and they'll tailor things to cover your needs or else let you know where you can get that support.

To make the most use of this:

What will you do with the file? What and how will you print? You have a printer? You'll send it to a lab for Lightjet?

If you can define these needs, then a workshop or course would be perfect.

Without defining what you will do with the file, the file cannot be made to any specifications! Without defining this your instructor cannot focus attention on what will solve your problems. Now you will find a variety of people in a course, some with sophisitcated needs. Still the instructor will love to be able make sure your particular flatbed is covered if at all feasble. Without that, you might not get much out of a course and then think you need a $5,000 rebuilt scanner, when you don't. The little secret is that digital has that "d" for disease" it's an affliction of worrying, looking at specs and never delivering pictures! That "d" can cause photographic paralysis!

Honestly, you could be even happy with a $400 scanner. Likely the V750 with the respectable Epson service, will serve you well.

A lot of guys do this and then send out the few difficult scans to a specialist.

Asher

[Ted Harris]

Rob, finding View Camera in the UK shouldn't be too hard. Mike Walker is the distributor, drop him a note http://www.walkercameras.com/.

As far as digital workflow goes ..... there is absolutely nothing that I do with a scanner/photoshop/printer that is not analogous to what I used to do with an enlarger/chemistry/paper processing in a darkroom. The major difference is that what I used to do standing up in the dark I ow do sitting down in the light.

[Brian Ellis]

Just curious - what's putting you off about the 750? I own its immediate predecessor, the 4990, and have been very pleased with it when my prints are in the 16x20 range or smaller.

[jetcode]

if a scanner requires 3 passes to get the dynamic range of a piece of film I would carefully consider how much time it takes per image times the number of images you have to scan. Asher's approach sounds like a LOT of work.

I paid a lot for my scanner ($6k reconditioned) but I get great dynamic range from film the first time. In fact I just printed an image where you can see shadow detail across a range of shades 2-5 in the zone system (daylight sun), in fact some shadow detail might considered zone 1 as the values are near 0 but not zero and you can see detail in the print.

If I were going to do it again I would either send out for scans or take the plunge but I wouldn't buy a mediocre scanner and expect great results.

[Rob_5419]

Am I being taken in by all of the pleasant sales talk about the Microteks:

http://www.camera-shop.co.uk/acatalog/Microtek_Flatbed_Scanners.html

See what they say about the Artixscan - it just sounds great.

Brian - the scans from the Epson v750 which I've seen (and I've only seen two) are okay. I suppose I'm thinking that if I am going to get a scanner, I will either get a proper one or stay with my fax copier/scanner.

The grand ideas about getting a scanner may probably all fall flat. I've seen drum scanns of 5x4" which are very different from traditional optical printing. I'm not sure I've acquired the taste of scanned negatives and slides yet. I'm still thinking..

[jetcode]

Am I being taken in by all of the pleasant sales talk about the Microteks:

http://www.camera-shop.co.uk/acatalog/Microtek_Flatbed_Scanners.html

See what they say about the Artixscan - it just sounds great.

Brian - the scans from the Epson v750 which I've seen (and I've only seen two) are okay. I suppose I'm thinking that if I am going to get a scanner, I will either get a proper one or stay with my fax copier/scanner.

The grand ideas about getting a scanner may probably all fall flat. I've seen drum scanns of 5x4" which are very different from traditional optical printing. I'm not sure I've acquired the taste of scanned negatives and slides yet. I'm still thinking..

lots of numbers like 9600x4800dpi optical resolution (on a $300 scanner) - yeah, like that's possible - marketing is designed to move product, the buyer has to live with the product - big difference

of course you could always buy one and see for yourself

[Rob_5419]

Asher -

thanks for your thoughts. I think I understand what you're saying now.

The angle from which I'm approaching a scanner for my wishes (not needs), is based on the optical print.

That's unfortunate, but it's how I'm guaging the purposes of a scanner. I've seen drum scans, and I quite like the look of colour Velvia slides printed on drum scans, although it isn't Ilfochrome. I still like R types and C types, but I can't find a lab that can be bothered doing anything other than Fuji Crystal Archive.

The Epson v750 scans aren't anywhere as good as the Imacon scans I've seen, although the Imacon scans still don't match the drum scans.

How do we all live with a scanner, knowing that another machine could scan it better?

I don't really have that issue with my optical enlarger. My optical enlarger set-up, is a constant, and if I needed another apo-rodagon s lens, then I would just add it on. I guess I'm the limiting factor in the optical printing method.

With digital scanning, knowing that I'm the limiting factor again, is less reassuring when I think of how much better a dynamic range my images could produce just by a hardware upgrade (not that I'd ever want a drumscanner to sit in the patio).

Over 20 years, I've kept the same enlarger, same camera and lenses. Added a little baby Leica to it. And suddenly, thinking about going digital, I might have to 'upgrade' scanners each year to produce ideal quality, rather than just being able to accept that the hardware is a constant which can churn out images as I improve my printing..

Don't know if that makes any sense, but it makes me reluctant to but a scanner at all!



I wouldn't buy a mediocre scanner and expect great results.

Pretty much sums up what I think, except that I'm not in the know, to know what 'mediocre' is when it comes to scanners. I think I know what great results are, and I'm still expecting to get them from a scanner which doesn't require me to send out and pay a fortune, just because I fancy printing a 40x50" print for fun. I don't earn from photography anymore being retired, so maybe a scanner just isn't for me?

In my somewhat simplistic way of approaching scanners, any scanner I would settle on, would have to produce 'great' results and be affordable and hold up against wet prints in terms of quality: namely, to reveal something extraordinary about the print, which the digital scanning medium yields, which optical methods cannot. Maybe this is 'magic silver bullet' chasing, but why compromise on image quality, after going to effort of shooting large format if the scanner is limited in this way?

Not sure if that makes sense...if not, forget it since I'm just working this out for myself and thinking out aloud...