AgX Imaging Flextight scans for $10!!! vs older hi-res scanners

[Jonathan Taylor]

I was just about to post a request for recommendations for under $2500 3000 SPI "desktop" 4x5 scanners, when I saw Eric James quip into the Scanner ROI thread about AgX's $10 Flextight scans.

Can anyone comment on quality of this service?

I've been shooting medium format and scanning on my Nikon 9000 for years and have a good "RAW" workflow. I'm making work to exhibit and sell, and I want to break beyond my current 17x22 limit. For weeks I've been slogging through the archives trying to wrap my head around old Eversmarts, Microtek's, or Leafs.

$10 Flextight scans might save me a lot of time and trouble.

[SW Rick]

I used AgX for scans from my 4x5s, and I thought Mike did an outstanding job. He even sent me two versions of one transparency- don't remember the reason he wasn't happy with ver. 1, but he only charged for one scan and sent me both versions. If you want extra spotting etc, I think it's $20. That said, the $10 scans were extremely clean, and I see no reason to go beyond standard service. Mike cares about the scans, not just pushing them thru ASAP.

Plus he charges real shipping rates, not inflated ones like some others. I figure at these prices, I can get 1500-2000 scans before I start to break even on buying one :)

And with the official discontinuance of the 9000 in the USA (Precision Camera in Austin posted today at getdpi.com forum that they were notified and backorders cancelled), you should be able to get a nice price on the 9000 to apply to the equation as well.

If you don't need a drum scan, this is a really good deal.

[Jim Becia]

Jonathan,

While I can't comment on his scans, I can comment on Mike's service. I have used him for some E-6 processing and his service in this category is exemplary. Jim

[Jonathan Taylor]

If you don't need a drum scan, this is a really good deal.

Isn't a Flextight scan equivalent to a drum scan? Won't a Flextight get me to at least a 3 foot wide print with critical detail?

[Frank Petronio]

It's not equal to a good drum scan, but the hardware will outperform a desktop flatbed by a nice margin. You should be able to make a pleasing 3' print. Will it be as absolutely good as the ultimate, best possible drum scan? No, but it will be better than anything else at this level, and better than a lot of people's mediocre drum scans.

As with all of this stuff, the most critical factor is the scanner operator's skill and judgement. It sounds like this guy is quite a bargain, but having done services like this myself, it is really hard to justify doing the necessary time to do a good scan and supply good service for only $10 a pop. What usually happens is that he will get overwhelmed because he is a bargain, but the Flextight can only scan so fast, so quality and service usually declines or the price increases. I can't speak for this guy of course, and we should give him all the benefits of our doubt. Just saying, that's been my experience with good vendors when they under-value their services.

(Figure what your time is worth, plus $20K worth of investment in a system, plus taxes, plus backing up the data and delivering the data (upload or disc?), divided by 15-20 minutes per scan. Add a factor for assholes and screwing up. Lose or damage one piece of film and watch the gates of Hell open.... I bet it it is more than $30/hr.)

[Nathan Potter]

I've done some investigating also and would agree with Frank. The Flextight scanners (X5) have up to 4X5 capability but at about 2000DPI IIRC. 35 mm may be up to 8000DPI with 60X60 somewhere in between. For 4X5 you may be marginally better, resolution wise, than a V750 done carefully but you'll no doubt be better off Dmax wise with the Flextight. Much of what you are after depends on your criteria for a quality print.

I'm pretty fussy so pushing my V750 even with a custom wet mount setup I'm not quite satisfied with my 16X20 quality from the 3880 compared with my enlarger Ilfochromes.

As always I'd advise trying AgX with a sharp 4X5 image it is a heck of a good price.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Digital ICE, multi-scan, and 16 bit hardware capture are tremendous improvements to later CCD scanners, things that were simply unavailable a decade or more ago.

(Flextights have any of these?)

[Jonathan Taylor]

Nobody is answering at AgX-- can anyone tell me do they also do C-41 or are they E-6 only?

[SW Rick]

AFAIK, they only process E-6. Scans can be from E-6 or C-41 (or B&W, I think), the last I heard.

[Matus Kalisky]

Just concerning the Imacon scanners - the X5 edges the Coolscan 9000 a bit, but not much. Nice is that one can get the raw (fff) files and use the FlexColor Software to get out what you want. I pay about €7 per 4x5 scan here in Germany.

[HeinrichVoelkel]

Just concerning the Imacon scanners - the X5 edges the Coolscan 9000 a bit, but not much. Nice is that one can get the raw (fff) files and use the FlexColor Software to get out what you want. I pay about €7 per 4x5 scan here in Germany.


Where do you scan in Germany at this great price????

[Matus Kalisky]

Here: http://digitalcopy24.de/ Mr. Choroba who is running the business is a nice person to talk to. He also offers scans from 35mm and 120 films with Coolscan scanners for reasonable price. In general I think that the price/quality of his scans is really good.

The good thing is - once you order raw (fff) scans from the Imacon he will also send you the Hasselbald FlexColor software (which is normally free) to work on them.

For those who would like to see a sample scans, go to the bottom of THIS (http://digitalcopy24.de/grossformat.html) page - there are full resolution scans (though JPEG compressed quite a bit) from 6x4.5 Slide taken with GA645. I have actually printed them in 2 different sizes to see what kind of image can be done with well exposed 645 slide.

[8x10 user]

I heard that Slides.com is in the process of adding 35mm and medium format scans to their website. They are using one of those highly regarded Kodak professional scanners with Digital Ice... Their pricing is very very low.

[8x10 user]

For the most part from my experiences I found that almost every scanner has its strengths and deserves respect in its own way.

Regarding newer versus older CCD scanners, there is some room for debate.

Newer CCD scanners use consumer level CCD's while older professional scanners use larger Kodak professional CCD arrays. These are the ones that are still used for the betterlight scan system. Most of the scanners with the kodak sensors have 12, 14, or 16 bit hardware. Some of them output a corrected 8 bit file from a 12 bit pallet.

Some 8 bit files are better then some 16 bit files due to have lower noise, better image processing, or sometimes even better tone spacing. Its possible for the 8bit corrected scans to have less image noise and more shadow detail due to a more sensitive CCD array, and/or a larger number of actual photons sampled by the CCD. Most output devices only output 8 bit files. If an image is uncorrected and/ or the scanner is poorly calibrated then a 16 bit file is useful for making better corrections prior to 8bit output.

The newer imacons, the better Creo-Scitex, and the kodak scanners all produce very good scans as long as there isn't a serious hardware issue:

The imacon and kodak scanners are best for small and medium format but have to zoom out too much for large format where you really want a nice XY scan from something like an Eversmart Supreme or even a drum scan.

Kodak has a version of the HR500 that has two CCD sensors; one is basically a 6k large format back, and the other is for Digital ice4. That would be great for producing high quality, dust free, scans from 35mm and medium formats, without a large amount of post scan image editing.

The better two Imacon/ hasselblad scanners scan at a very high resolution and have an pelter electric active cooling system that brings the temperature of the CCD to below ambient. This greatly reduces image noise which is directly related to CCD temperature.

Two models of the Eversmart scanner (Supreme I and II) also feature this type of cooling system as well as XY stitch technology which greatly benefits the maximum scanning resolution for large format work.

All three of these scanners can do multisampling and I would think multisampling would work better with one the fore mentioned scanners due to the lower image noise to begin with, as well as the sharper/more expensive optics and solid precision mechanics. Remember these scanners had a new price of $20,000-$120,000. Maybe new consumer / prosumer scanners have become more competitive due to the value that is associated with a much lower equipment purchase price. But still the professional scanners of the past were so expensive mostly due to costing soo much more to make. I'd say you get what you pay for when you buy a scanner but these days if you look hard enough you might find a very nice used professional scanner for a very good price.

Also professional scanning services are becoming more affordable.

With the price of the old discontinued prosumer scanners being so high right now I myself would look for a used professional scanner or outsource anyday. If given the choice between a Nikon, a Creo, an Imacon, or a kodak I would choose the Nikon scan last. Drum scans are also good ;)

All this being said the newer Nikon scanners are indeed better then the older ones IMO.






Digital ICE, multi-scan, and 16 bit hardware capture are tremendous improvements to later CCD scanners, things that were simply unavailable a decade or more ago.

(Flextights have any of these?)

[toyotadesigner]

Just concerning the Imacon scanners - the X5 edges the Coolscan 9000 a bit, but not much. Nice is that one can get the raw (fff) files and use the FlexColor Software to get out what you want. I pay about €7 per 4x5 scan here in Germany.

You can get the 64bit (RBGI) TIFF from a Nikon Coolscan 9000 as well by using VueScan. These files can be processed again at any time with VS.

€ 7.00 is an economical suicide. But if they can 'afford' it, the scans can't be perfect scans.

Just calculate the investment for a scanner, powerful computer, the slide cleaner, your time, rent, insurance, etc. - € 7.00 won't cover it, no way.

01. Handling the mailed in slide (removing it from the envelope and sleeve)
02. Cleaning the slide with a Kinetronics StaticVac in a **clean** room
03. Pre scan the slide, set levels and adjustments (a 6x9 needs around 4 minutes)
04. Calculate the resolution or scan with the highest resolution
05. Scan @48 bit, 2x oversampling, Multipass, IR Cleaning (ICE) (about 20-25 minutes, file size around 650 MegaBytes)
06. Post process the image (remove some spots that are embedded in the emulsion)

Roughly 30 minutes of your time. One hour is around 90 Euro, 30 minutes 45 Euro. Plus rent, insurances, depreciation of the hardware, your income, your company profit, etc.

That translates into a minimum of 65 Euro per scan.

What I don't understand: people invest a lot of funds into their equipment to get 'perfect' results, but they want big savers, discounts and rebates in the post production process. All I can say is: stay away from hi res photography and stop the yadayada - it's all hot air and smoke. Grab a tiny digicam and be happy with the results - for cheapos it's more rewarding, really.

No wonder that I've seen many small companies coming and going very soon the last years. If undercutting prices is the goal, they performed well, but if first class service and perfect results are the goal as well as a willingness to survive, they failed.

Just check Lenny Eiger's site for prices - he is one of the few realistic and very knowledgeable professionals in this sector:
http://www.eigerphoto.com/pricing_policy_ep.php

BTW, I wouldn't even touch a Coolscan 9000 scan job for less than 65 Euros because I want perfection and no risk.

[Matus Kalisky]

- toyotadesigner -
there are plenty photographers who do NOT reach to point (for whatever reason) of selling the prints. Still - they may be interested of getting nice prints for themselves or their friends and can not afford to pay 65 € or $ or whatever per one single scan. Actually from what I have seen ion Germany a drum scan of 4x5 at some 2400 spi would be € 100 - 200.

So - then scanning services come into game who offer reasonably good scans without the color corrections and dust spotting per hand. I buy that. So I am able to get scans for about 1,5 - 2 € for 6x6 made with Coolscan 9000 or 7 € for 4x5 made with Imacon X5. Are these scans PERFECT? No, but they are 90 to 95% from what the machine can deliver. And still MUCH better than my flatbed scanner.

The guy who does the scanning mentioned does it for living for several years. Obviously for him this is not an "economical suicide". He does offer more work to be done with the scans for more price. If you want hand-made dust spotting or exact color matching I guess he would do that too - at some agreed XXX € per hour.

I guess that artists doing gallery-grade prints get their scans done elsewhere for much more to get the quality they want or need.

On the undercutting - there are actually rather few decent scanning services in Germany (at least those which I manage to locate via internet) - mostly much more expensive than those in US. I was personally in contact with a guy who does drum scanning - he does not even advertise it on his webpage (does not need obviously). He told me that as he was considering to offer "cheaper drum scans" done without wet mounting. He did a sample scan for me (with 2 methods - dry scan and scan made with dedicated copy-stand with digital camera) - and based on my comments he came to the conclusion that it does not make sense. The dry drum scan was worse than the "quick" Imacon scan - and still much more expensive.

Yes - I did invest a few thousand € in my photography equipment, but if I want to print more than 5 large prints a year I am can not pay €100 per scan. Should I become "good enough" and be able to sell some prints than I may consider getting higher end scans.

______
EDIT: There is indeed a caveat with the Coolscan 9000 - namely to get the film flat inside the film holder. The guy mentioned is fully aware of this and offers scan with glass holders, but these are supposed to take off a bit of the sharpness. I did experience 6x6 scans with unsharp edges - but I was sending him single 6x6 frames which are probably harder to keep flat than film strips.

I would not pay 65€ for a Coolscan scan - for that money I want either well done one with X5 or Creo or Screen.

[toyotadesigner]

The guy mentioned is fully aware of this and offers scan with glass holders, but these are supposed to take off a bit of the sharpness.

Not true. Depends on the operator. It all depends... today's cheapo society rules, and if they are happy with what they get, it's fine with me. But then I don't want to hear/read comments like 'aren't my images fantastic'...

I want and need perfect results. Hunting for a bargain might mean to lose a client, which will be more costly than an upfront investment into perfect results. 90% or even 95% is a lousy result if you are using LF equipment.

[Matus Kalisky]

... It all depends... today's cheapo society rules, and if they are happy with what they get, it's fine with me. But then I don't want to hear/read comments like 'aren't my images fantastic'...

OK, now I see. You have a valid point about "cheapo society", but we do not live in black and white world. "Everything or nothing" is equally wrong philosophy as "everything as cheap as possible".

I am not looking for the cheapest service - I am looking for a service that does what I need - not more and not less. If you need in this particular case a perfect results - go for them. I just need better than my flatbed and not necessarily as good as drum.

It sounds like you yourself are a scanner operator. If that is your case - how many of your customers are amateur photographers who want to hang a nice 50 x 70 cm print on their wall (which costs about €10 to print by Epson ink-jet scanners) from their 4x5 slide?

No need for bitterness. I actually regard highly everyone who is doing their best to deliver the best service or product.

____
Jonathan I apologize for going out of the scope of this thread.

[8x10 user]

[QUOTE=You can get the 64bit (RBGI) TIFF from a Nikon Coolscan 9000 as well by using VueScan. These files can be processed again at any time with VS.

€ 7.00 is an economical suicide. But if they can 'afford' it, the scans can't be perfect scans.

Just calculate the investment for a scanner, powerful computer, the slide cleaner, your time, rent, insurance, etc. - € 7.00 won't cover it, no way.

01. Handling the mailed in slide (removing it from the envelope and sleeve)
02. Cleaning the slide with a Kinetronics StaticVac in a **clean** room
03. Pre scan the slide, set levels and adjustments (a 6x9 needs around 4 minutes)
04. Calculate the resolution or scan with the highest resolution
05. Scan @48 bit, 2x oversampling, Multipass, IR Cleaning (ICE) (about 20-25 minutes, file size around 650 MegaBytes)
06. Post process the image (remove some spots that are embedded in the emulsion)
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I have checked into it and wonder about the value in using a prosumer scanner with a high end 64 bit workflow. For me I just don't see it...

Silverfast also has a 64 bit HDRI scanning mode... With 35mm slides it will give you 12 scans per hour...

I saw an early draft of the place with HR's pricing table and it showed 500 scans for $125... that is $0.25 a scan. Running an HDRI workflow on that many slides would take something like 40 hours or more.

Personally I don't think it would worth anyones time to scan with that workflow without including the initial investment. Also, the right drum scanner will do that many slides in less time, so why not just buy a drum scan, top end flatbed scan, or buy your own high end scanner and get better results in similar time?

I'm not sure what the speed figures are for medium format but if the place charges $0.25 for a 35mm slides I couldn't see them charge more then $2 for a high res medium format scan, maybe less if you are having an uncut roll scanned. In general its going to be much cheaper to have medium format scanned as an uncut roll.

Another thing to consider is each company is likely to have their own workflow and color management philosophy. Some companies use specialized look up tables for different types of chromes, some run a raw scan and correct later, some use auto correction during the scan phase, some just use the same preboxed settings for every slide, and some offer multiple workflow choices for additional costs. The fellow with the HR scanner has 20 years of experience in film output and should be considered an expert at customized color look up tables.

With the right look up table there is really little need for making corrections unless the slide is messed up to begin with. If corrections are made during the scan it would be done in a 12 bit environment. On Kodak professional scanners the 12 bit environment is created by an initial calibration procedure so the bit spacing (basically gamma and endpoints) is ideal. I would think that many "16 bit" consumer level scanners might not have and adjustable base environment and if base environment is poorly optimized then the 12 bit calibrated environment might produce a better histogram and superior end results. Also as I mentioned before bit integrity comes into play when you consider the noise level.

So basically everything can be more complicated then one might think and there are strengths and weakness in many workflows. In the end if the scan operator knows how to make his or her workflow work well then they can produce very similar results. There is nothing wrong with a workflow that ends in an 8 bit file if done correctly.

[8x10 user]

[QUOTE=BTW, I wouldn't even touch a Coolscan 9000 scan job for less than 65 Euros because I want perfection and no risk. [/QUOTE]

Actually for 65 Euros you could get a damn fine drum scan from the place with the HR scanner... Most of their drum scans were priced at 30-55 USD but that doesn't include in depth post scan work like dodging and burning in Photoshop (mostly a subjective task anyway). I do believe the scans include ICC color management and spotting for dust. Fluid mounting (drum or flatbed) is the way to go for the absolute best quality.

Doing your own scans on a consumer scanner does not seem like a good value to me. I guess if you are looking for "value scans" for $10 per 8k scan from a 4x5" isn't too bad. For medium format and smaller I would definitely check out the place with the HR500. The place with the HR scanner competes directly with the lowest price consumer scans out of India and can beat them on price (quality too I would think). Unless you feel your time is worth $3 per hour or less I would say go for online value / volume scans or purchase / do your own drum / high end flatbed scans. Scanning with the hr500 is very efficient which helps the scan provider pass a lot of value down to the customer.

How fast are those Epson scanners with 4x5's? If you can do 4 or 5 per hour on your own then maybe its worth doing your own 4x5" "value" scanning.

[8x10 user]

Scanners without digital ice may require post scan scratch and dust removal.

Dust and scratches are reduced by fluid mounting (drum and some flatbed scans) and most drum and high end scan pricing includes spotting for dust.

Most of the the time I think you have to pay extra for dust spotting with flextight scans.

[8x10 user]

It looks like Slides.com finally put some scanning information on their site. I know the owner; it should be a good service.