Scanner return on investment

[Bob Kerner]

I've been tinkering with LF for a few couple of months now and am starting to produce images I actually want to look at and make prints of. My current workflow is: shoot, develop at local lab with contact sheets and then select the keepers based on the contact sheets. Due to space limitations, a home darkroom is not feasible at present. I'd prefer to scan and print from a digital workflow.

I'm trying to determine at what point one reaps a return on investment in something like an Epson 750 versus paying for lab scans which, best I can tell, in my area are around $50 per 200mb scan. I can't imagine wanting to print anything larger than 16x20.

I'm a neophyte, so I'd like to hear others' experience as I try to figure out which path to take:

How often do you scan?

At what point did it make sense to buy your own scanner or stick with having them done at a lab?

I'm a serious hobbiest. I have no plans to sell my work. At best it may hang on a wall somewhere as part of a photo contest. My intuition is that the scanner will pay for itself after the 15th scan, and I can always have that one killer image professionally scanned as needed. I just want to make sure I'm not missing anything in the decision process.

Thanks in advance,
Bob

[Eric James]

Hi Bob, To complicate matters, Mike at AgX Imaging provides Hasselblad Flextight scans for $10.

[Brian C. Miller]

My bathroom is my darkroom, and I also have an Epson 3200 scanner and an Epson 2200 printer. The calculation is something that you will have to put into a spreadsheet and see what comes up. I use my scanner as a tool to do some basic previews and maybe a contact print. I think that it's OK for color work, but I don't like how my Epson printer does B&W, so I stick to the darkroom for that.

No matter what photo scanner you use, LF gives you a huge area to work. For instance, I have a photo of a catenary crane that I photographed with both my Super Graphic and 645 camera. The 4x5 film is not in focus because of a problem with GG registration (since fixed). The 645 is sharp. However, I can read the dinky little signs on the 4x5 scan, after sharpening, because of the massive image area. Size rules, even when something is messed up.

Get a printer profiling and scanner calibration kit, and you'll be set. Vuescan (http://www.hamrick.com/) isn't expensive, and you can try it for free.

[ic-racer]

in my area are around $50 per 200mb scan.

Hey Kodak, $6 a sheet for the T-max 8x10 is looking better. Don't stop making it... I'll buy some! :)

[Frank Petronio]

Just get a good Epson 700-750 and stop fretting, learn how to use it and Photoshop well, save up to get a good archival inkjet.

If you aren't going to have a wet darkroom then why be half-ass about digital? Seize the bull by the horns and take control.

Even if, ultimately, you send out for high-end drum scans at top dollar, you'll want to have the scanning skills you learn from your Epson to work with the scans you'll be getting, and even to know if they are decent scans to begin with. But since you already say you have no desire to go larger than 16x20, an Epson for your 4x5 should be just fine.

[Brian Ellis]

If you pay a lab $50 a scan and an Epson 700 costs say $750 the break-even point is as you say 15 scans, ignoring things like the cost of electricity to run the scanner, gas to get to the lab, the value of your time, the possible cost of scanner accessories such as mounting fluid and a better film holder, etc. And of course you'd need to consider the possibility that the lab's quality might be better than yours.

[Bob Kerner]

. And of course you'd need to consider the possibility that the lab's quality might be better than yours.

Yes.

And No. Even though I'm 20 minutes from New York City, it's hit or miss. My local shop won't even touch LF for developing or scanning. So that means a ride into Manhattan. Even that is hit or miss. There are places that do really good scanning and then there are some that send back crap; stuff I could have done better with a photocopier! I had one place tell me I was incorrectly exposing 35mm HP5 and that's why the scans had too much grain. Took the negative to another place and got a completely different result.

Ok B&H, here I come! Thanks for the input, everyone.

[Nathan Potter]

ROI isn't the only criteria for many of us. I took Petronios suggested approach because I do photography for fun and personal challenge. I even have my own sophisticated darkroom but wanted the added flexibility of a digital workflow. Thus I just went out and started buying equipment as inexpensively as I could. The digital flow has a substantial learning curve if you are completely new to the approach. I've been at it for about a year and can now produce some decent 16X20 prints, less by accident and more by design.

I use a new V750 for LF and a new Nikon 5000 ED for 35 mm. Do both color and B&W. I use a new 3880 Epson printer also. Just this stuff was around $3500! And for that amount of money I started producing the poorest prints I'd seen. Things are getting much better now.

For LF you also need a decent computer and Photoshop - ouch - another roughly $2000; not to mention profiling equipment, paper and ink!

I now scan perhaps 10 4X5 images a month and perhaps 20 35 mm images per month. I print 2 images a week max. Most of my time is spent at the computer trying to decipher some of the more arcane PS procedures. ROI was never a consideration.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[sanking]

ROI isn't the only criteria for many of us. I took Petronios suggested approach because I do photography for fun and personal challenge.
Nate Potter, Austin TX.

And ROI is . . . ?

Sandy King

[Frank Petronio]

If you really want a high ROI buy a Digital Rebel/D40 and use Shutterfly ;-)

[Preston]

And ROI is . . . ?

Sandy King


Return On Insanity! ;-)

To my mind, there are two things that are at play here. One is the return on investment of your time, effort, and the impact on other aspects of your life ('soft ROI). The second is ROI in terms of hard cash.

For myself, I would consider my ROI to be pretty darn good if I could get my photography addiction to pay for itself.

--P

[Jim Jones]

Bob, I'd go for the scanner. It should last a long time beyond the payback point. My Epson Perfection 2450 Photo scanner has given fine service for 7 years. Scans from 4x5 negatives and printed up to 16x20 on an Epson 3800 satisfy me and buyers. Photoshop Elements might not be the best editor, but is good enough. GIMP and Irfanview are even better bargains. Even a modest desktop photo printer should suffice for test prints. There is much satisfaction to controlling the entire photographic process in-house.

[Nathan Potter]

Yes, ROI = Return On Investment; business speak. Return on Insanity is very good - never heard that.

Preston, to paraphrase your words: "If you want nice fresh prints you have to pay a fair price. If you can be satisfied with prints that have been through my digital workflow; that comes a little cheaper".

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Preston]

Nathan,

We Texan's do think alike, don't we?


Return on Insanity is very good - never heard that.

Nathan, I made that up after reading this thread. :-)
*****

Bob, purchase a good scanner. If you make good exposures on your film and it is processed properly, you will be able to realize the size prints you want. Also, a flatbed is useful for making copies of paper documents for which you want to archive in a digital format.

For those rare occassions when a drum scan is required, you can have it done by a reputable service bureau.

My scanner has well paid for itself over the years. If I had drum scanned everything, even at modest sizes, I'd be broke by now. Besides, by the time I've finished a short cup of Joe, my scan file is ready to import into PhotoShop.

--P

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Return on Investment suggests you'll see a financial return. That will only happen once you start selling your work. If that's your intent, why not first take several of your very best images to a lab, have them professionally scanned and printed-- in order that you might show them to galleries or folks you know to get a feel for the marketplace?

Investing several thousands of dollars on a computer/scanner/printer/software with steep learning curves-- before doing that crucial piece of legwork-- would not constitute a good business decision.

Now if you just wanna have fun with it-- well then, have at it! Don't need anybody's permission. As to whether a scanner pays for itself in that scenario, yes, perhaps you'll spend less money, but only if you stick with it. To have the most fun, you probably don't factor to too fine a point the value of your time, software administration, color management issues, equipment upgrades and the like.

[Greg Blank]

Better yet to pay for you and have decent standard of living.


Return On Insanity! ;-)
For myself, I would consider my ROI to be pretty darn good if I could get my photography addiction to pay for itself.
--P

[Preston]

Better yet to pay for you and have decent standard of living.


I heartily agree, sir. However, I gotta' start somewhere and work my way up.

--P

[pdmoylan]

Nathan hits the mark with cost issues, though PS Elements 8 is perhaps adequate. For more than 10 years I carefully culled through my images and obtained drum scans of those I thought would sell. There is good discipline there and you know you are obtaining the best scan results possible using a reputable lab (I have used Taylor Photo in Princeton NJ for more than 20 years- they get consistently high marks for Aztec scans and Chromira prints - for $65 you get a 140mb file or greater scanned to CD and a 20x24 print - a good deal in my book). Until the economy starting slowing in late 2007, sell through was good - not much inventory left, which means I generally chose wisely.

When I had accumulated over 200 worthy images not previously scanned with demand to present dozens more, I tried to negotiate a reduced scan price with a lab employing a Durst Sigma FB scanner. At $25 per scan and only 140MB files I could not justify the cost; hence the purchase of an Epson 750 in May. After much trial and error and many hours of frustration with an unskilled operater (me), I can safely say that the scans I am producing are excellent to 16x20. Beyond that size prints from the 750 are adequate but fine detail declines. Getting correct color and density (brightness and contrast) is a much greater challenge for me than resolution. You must have plenty of patience and time to get optimum results. Good luck.

[Noah A]

Return on investment implies that you're making money on your work as others have said. However even if photography is a hobby, you may see a cost savings after a while by doing your own scanning.

The way I see it, you may not want to consider your computer and Photoshop as part of your scanning investment, since you'll need those things even if someone else does your scans.

I am a professional so when it came time to decide whether or not to do my own scanning, it was a fairly simple choice. I do around 3-400 archive and agency scans a year. Decent drum scans in my city are $50 for 6x7 and $75 for 4x5. While my agency only needs 50mb scans, I tend to scan everything larger since I also do big exhibition prints. And my scans serve as a backup should my film archive be damaged.

I found a lightly used Howtek 8000 scanner with all accessories and a computer for less than a third of what my annual scanning bill would have been. Even figuring in preventive maintenance, I'll be ahead of the game financially. There was a small learning curve but it only took a few days to get scans of equal or better quality as ones I was getting from the lab.

It gets a little more complicated when you compare home epson scans with lab imacon or drum scans, which are typically not of the same quality.

[Bob Kerner]

It gets a little more complicated when you compare home epson scans with lab imacon or drum scans, which are typically not of the same quality.

The scans I've got in the past were certainly not on high-end scanners. If they were, the people operating them should be ashamed because they looked like they were done on a photocopier.

"Investment" is a relative term. I don't directly make money from my photography but I do use it in my day job and so quality is important. What I was getting at with my use of of the term ROI is "Does it make sense to buy a scanner or pay someone else to scan, running the risk that the paid scan could amount to crap compared to what I could do myself?" If the end product is better because I wrestled the best image possible from the hardware (compared to some tech doing hundreds a day for $45 a pop) then it makes sense to buy it and learn to use it.

The fundamental struggle at this point in my LF journey is that I don't have an end-product to measure my progress or show to others. I can't show someone a negative and say "Look at that beautiful image." Without a way to either print it in a darkroom or digitize it, the whole damn endeavor is just a field exercise. So with that perspective, a scanner is a necessity...as I've come to learn.

If I'm gonna pay $40-50 per scan or $60 an hour to rent a scanner, I might as well buy the best pro-sumer scanner I can, teach myself the craft and be able to do it at my pace in the comfort of my home. At least that's my thought process today!

[Noah A]

If your lab isn't doing a good job then it's a no-brainer. Get a scanner and do it yourself.

Spending money on good scans is one thing, but spending money on bad scans is never a good investment.