What is the killer scanner for everything?

[kevs-2323668]

Is there a great used scanner for both color chrome and Color & BW negative? i.e. with a great resolution -- good enough to make huge prints, i.e. 30 x40 or even much larger.
thanks.

[cabbiinc]

What's your format?
What's your budget?

[kevs-2323668]

4x5, sorry, best bang for the buck lets say for now...

[cabbiinc]

My HP Scanjet G4050 does an alright job with 4x5. I'd like to trade it for an Epson V700 or V750. But if you're really into it maybe a drum scanner is more up your alley. Too rich for my blood though.

[Peter De Smidt]

It basically goes drum scanner, pro flatbed, film scanner (e.g. Coolscan 9000-no large format), Epson V750 (or 700) and down. A consumer flat bed will not give top quality at a 15x enlargement.

[Frank Petronio]

The resolution is only part of the equation, depth and sharpness matter too. Many cheap scanners will offer you high resolutions, it looks good for marketing reasons.

Keep it simple and high quality:

Use Eiger for your exhibits: http://www.eigerphoto.com, he is a perfectionist and has the best drum scanner. He is also local to you.

Get an Epson 700 or 750 for proofing, portfolio and web-sized images, and magazine repro scans. Use this for everyday work and to evaluate what images deserve "the works". Scans from the Epson will do fine for most practical commercial applications, you can easily make 16x20 prints from 4x5. Yes the drum scans from Lenny will look better, but the difference is less pronounced with "smaller" images and most people benefit from "getting things done". If a good drum scan is "100% quality" then perhaps a good Epson scan is "95% quality".

Take a class or hire a consultant to train you on how to use the Epson. If you have prior darkroom experience and moderate Photoshop skills then you can be making decent scans within a day.

If you have money to burn, you can always get a Hasselblad Imacon scanner, which are fairly easy to use and a step in between the Epson and a drum scanner, but they are expensive for what they can do. Some of the well-know commercial photographers who still use film go this route, it is expensive but perhaps the least hassle for "97% quality".

Yes you could always throw thousands at buying an old drum scanner or high-quality flatbed (Creo/Kodak EverSmart or some such) but before you do that, make sure you can see what the differences are and whether it is justifiable for you. The learning curve is higher and while sometimes you can find a used high-end scanner for peanuts, you may need to buy a second one for parts and run a vintage computer to operate it (How much is your time worth?) Most people can not justify owning a higher end scanner for only their own work, at least from a business point-of-view.

And, in the end, I would prefer a scan made by a skilled operator using lower-end equipment over a sloppy scan from high-end equipment. Budget drum scans give you what you pay for, or less.

[Moopheus]

If a good drum scan is "100% quality" then perhaps a good Epson scan is "95% quality".



And to get that 95% means using third-party film holders to get the best film flatness and focus, being careful with mounting and dust, and doing all of your calibrations. It won't be that good right out of the box. And then there's the choice of software, each of which has their strengths and weaknesses. Frank's suggestion of paying for help isn't senseless.

[Kirk Gittings]

If a good drum scan is "100% quality" then perhaps a good Epson scan is "95% quality".
I really disagree with this-if you are talking the best drum scans. I've used 750's since the day they came out. Even with wet scanning in an aftermarket holder compared to one of Lenny's drum scans? Resolution, shadow/highlight detail-maybe 70%-obvious differences at even 16x20. I have access to the latest Imacons-maybe 80%.

[Peter De Smidt]

And it will also depend a lot on the film type used and the density range of the film. Scanning Velvia is much more challenging, for example, than bw film developed to a lowish density range.
The big advantage of drum scanners, imo, is freedom from flare. This allows better tonality than other types of scanners.

[kevs-2323668]

Thanks guys, great posts. Later, when I start BW, I'll definitely get a used Epson for proofs. I think I saw them in just the $200 range when I took a peek a couple of months ago. 1st up are the 4x5 chromes - Fuji Provia mostly. I think you are pointing out that to buy a drum scanner, which is state of the art, (and you might as well do it optimally) --would be a lot of money, but even worse, very draining to learn and do, correct? I will probably take your advice Frank and look into 3rd party. Eiger link looks cool thanks. Seems like a good blend of great quality and competitive rates. If you all have any other similar 1st rate 3rd party options, please send links. thanks Frank, I'll contact you offline if I have more questions as well......

[Lenny Eiger]

I think the Aztek Premier is the top of the heap. Am I biased? Uhhh, yeah, of course I am. It's the only one with a 3 micron capability, other than the ICG 380 and above, and I think they have it all down....

If you have questions or just want to chat, I am always happy to be interrupted by photographers...

Lenny

eigerstudios.com
707-763-5922

[koh303]

imacon is the only way to go.
Not too expensive any more, and if you know how to use one of apples computer machines you can get an older one that runs on SCSI for about 2500$. The technology inside has not changed over the last 15 years or so, just the interface speed.

[Frank Petronio]

I really disagree with this-if you are talking the best drum scans. I've used 750's since the day they came out. Even with wet scanning in an aftermarket holder compared to one of Lenny's drum scans? Resolution, shadow/highlight detail-maybe 70%-obvious differences at even 16x20. I have access to the latest Imacons-maybe 80%.

Ha I guess so. And where would you put a Creo flatbed, about or slightly above an Imacon?

Kevin, just a tip, start out with smaller 2-300mb files like you might already be used to from digital to get experience. Even if you shoot something amazing right away, they will still be large enough files for anything practical, and you can always rescan in the future if a certain image becomes famous or needs to go larger. Trying to work on really large files without a really serious workstation can be rather tedious and slow.... everything has to proportionately scale up in your workflow - as you've seen, a heavier tripod, etc.

Also good to think of a naming convention and how you are going to store your rare chromes.

[Kirk Gittings]

Which Creo flatbed? The Jazz that I have about equal with an early Imacon. A Kodak Creo iQsmart 3? As good as a low end drum scanner.

[kevs-2323668]

Thanks guys, I'll call you Lenny as I get closer to finishing this project -- month or two... thanks Frank. I'm leaning toward using Lenny or someone... Like framing I'd rather have someone else do it. But I may bet the low end Epson for BW proofing. Maybe.... I'll get into it for smaller files as you say, so I'll hold onto all the info here.

[koh303]

iqsmart 3 is fine if u have a spake 15k or so...
as far as quality goes they are fine, but an imacon is not a flat bed scanner... no glass. no huge foot print and of course no option for 8x10...

[Trius]

I am using the 750 for web stuff (both 4x5 and 35mm) ... I have pretty good darkroom darkroom experience, so I have a foundation. While I haven't really dialed the Epson in (I use VueScan) or tried printing, I'm pretty happy with it. Seems to work well with VueScan.

[felix5616]

go for an IQ3 smart scanner with a wet mounting tray. I've had 2 ICG drum scanner, sorry i sold them. i had and sold a nikon coolscan 9000 a replaced it with a creo IQ3 smart scanner with a wet mounting tray. Very close to my ICG drum scanner, run via firewire and is easy to use. The scanning software is great and the scan times are pretty fast. You can scan any and all size negatives up to 13x18". There is a 35mm slide holder that holds 40 slides, make your settings and walk away.
I scan 4x5 ektar and it is beautiful. you can get a used IQ3 scanner for $10-12K with the wet mounting tray.

[koh303]

Unless you are planning to scan more then 5X7, the imacon is probably the best quality you can get. even then it is at least half the price of a Qsamrt, and does not require a special computer board to run the software. Flexlight software is also some kind of industry standart, along with the machine it self. super powerful software with the best Dmax range make it that "best" option.

[Kirk Gittings]

You can pick up a good used drum scanner like a Howtek in the 3-5K range that will exceed the capabilities of an Imacon-not nearly as convenient to use however.

[Old-N-Feeble]

You can pick up a good used drum scanner like a Howtek in the 3-5K range that will exceed the capabilities of an Imacon-not nearly as convenient to use however.

I'd have to sell an awful lot of stuff to afford a $6-12K scanner. I'll probably never shoot enough worthwhile images during the remainder of my life to pay for one so I'll probably just pay for drum scans of the handful of images that I might, or might never, make. But... $3K is more tempting... ;)

[adam satushek]

Imacon's are nice and convenient and do a decent job. I made 40x50 inch prints from single sheets of 4x5 on a 949 and an X5 for several years. I was pleased with the results, though I never liked resing up the files....or all the dust.

Recently I acquired an Aztek DPL 8000, and I can say its a vast improvement. Beautiful and huge files, and the option to scan 8x10. Granted it was not cheap, but it really seemed like the way go and I have no regrets. And I was able to set it up on a modern PC, with modern SCSI card, and modern software (DPL), so I am very happy with the investment.

Oh, and while wet mounting is not as easy as the Imacon magnetic holders, it is really not as hard as many think, and I think its rather fun. And now my dust spotting time is like 1/5th of what it used to be.

Anyway, Just my opinions of course...

[SergeiR]

My HP Scanjet G4050 does an alright job with 4x5. I'd like to trade it for an Epson V700 or V750. But if you're really into it maybe a drum scanner is more up your alley. Too rich for my blood though.

well.. 4050 isnt all bad sharpness wise. (1:1 crop)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7057/6837629574_0f40d6a0b0_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/6837629574/)
Untitled-1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/6837629574/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

(1200 dpi scan from ilford, vuescan)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7060/6983751761_52765736bd_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/6983751761/)
scan0002www (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/6983751761/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

but it does have issues with DR - Epson is a bit better. I just went this route too.. after having two epsons dying, i got 4050, and then finally microcenter had decent deal on v700 .. ;)

[J Vee]

I have a beautiful ColorGetter 2 Pro drum scanner, used for customers film from 35 to 11 X 14 in chromes almost dailyD. Nothing else beside another drum scanner even comes close. I just finished a series of landscapes (Nepal) at 30 X 20 in on Canson Baryta from 35 mm (Delta 100) with wonderful tonality, detail, and almost invisible grain for example. On the other hand, it takes a real commitment in time to learn to make the "elephant sing", as well as $, technical skills and space.

[cabbiinc]

SergeiR, I'd say that HP's G4050 isn't unusable for web use and is actually really good for proofing/viewing your negatives. But if you want to pixel peep you may want to move up to a much more expensive model. The HP scanner is however a great price for those that want something new that scans 4x5 (or 8x10 even), keeping in mind that any museum prints would be made from other scanners/services. Having a properly exposed and developed piece of film really does help though.

[David Higgs]

plus 1 to Frank

Epson 750 for up to 22inchx18 Black and whites - once you are on the top of the learning curve, colour I tend to send out for drum scanning - the Dmax is so much better, but monochrome does pretty well on a flatbed

none of the gallery owners or punters can tell the difference at this size - larger images I drum, but that only means 20 drum scans a year - more time for making pictures

[Brian Ellis]

I am using the 750 for web stuff (both 4x5 and 35mm) ... I have pretty good darkroom darkroom experience, so I have a foundation. While I haven't really dialed the Epson in (I use VueScan) or tried printing, I'm pretty happy with it. Seems to work well with VueScan.

Almost anything will work fine for the web. It's printing that shows the importance of a good scan. I assume you bought your 750 with the intention of eventually printing because VueScan and the 750 are major over-kill for the web (and IMHO major underkill for printing 35mm except possibly postcard sizes).

[Old-N-Feeble]

Slightly OT (maybe): I keep seeing reference to D-Max and I know what that is. But I have a question about it. Why can't one extend scanner D-Max by making two scans... one for shadow detail and another for highlights... then do a simple two-image HDR composite?

[David Higgs]

silverfast and vuescan have optinos for doing this - multipass, however you don't always get lucky as the V750 isn't that accurate with its scanner carrier - so multiple passes can lead to blurred images

[Old-N-Feeble]

That's too bad about the V750 multipass inaccuracies? Are no fixes available for that?

[Noah A]

Adam is totally right. The Imacons/Hasselblads do great scans. They're fast, convenient and I've made 40x50in. prints from 4x5 Portra 160 and they look great. I think my Howtek HR8000 drum scans are a tad sharper, a tad less grainy (because of the wet mounting and the ability to use the aperture to minimize grain). More importantly, the drum scans seem to provide a better distribution of tones and they're easier to print.

We have a rental facility in my city with ridiculously low rates for renting their Hasselblad X1. So my workflow right now is to scan my loose edit on the X1 and use those files for my website, publications and small portfolio prints. Later on, I'll make a tighter edit and scan those on my Howtek for my final exhibition prints.

Adam is also right about the dust. Drum scans seem less convenient because the Hasselblad magnetic holders are so fast and easy. But I'd rather spend a bit more time scanning and less time spotting. Wet-mounting on the drum fills in small scratches in the film that show up in the Hasselblad scans, and there is far less dust in my drum scans.

[cabbiinc]

Slightly OT (maybe): I keep seeing reference to D-Max and I know what that is. But I have a question about it. Why can't one extend scanner D-Max by making two scans... one for shadow detail and another for highlights... then do a simple two-image HDR composite?
There's a few things to consider, but it's not unheard of to do this. In some scanning software there is a multi-exposure or iHDR function.... where available. This is based on whether the scanner is capable of both varying the exposure time per pixel line and also being able to line up a second pass with the first pass. If it can't do both then you've got to manually intervene. If you can't line both images up but can manually adjust the actual time that the scanner exposes per line (as opposed to just increasing the values after it's been scanned in software) then you can make 2 scans and use software like Photomatix to create an HDR, with the autoalign feature turned on. But that usually results in a softer image. You'll also have to factor in the amount of digital noise that a given scanner will produce either in general or with the lower timed scans.

To have a scanner with a higher d-Max in the first place both produces a sharper scan and only uses one pass, cutting scanning times by more than half when compared to multi-exposure scans.

[Old-N-Feeble]

The amount of time per scan isn't an issue for me but the overall quality certainly is.

So the consensus seems to be... if we want truly HQ huge digital prints from 4x5 film then we have no real choice other than to pony-up $3K plus for a used drum scanner or just pay for that service.

[David Higgs]

yes

having been through the V750, X1, Drum scan route - like many I epson-it, and then pony up on the good ones

[Lenny Eiger]

The amount of time per scan isn't an issue for me but the overall quality certainly is.

So the consensus seems to be... if we want truly HQ huge digital prints from 4x5 film then we have no real choice other than to pony-up $3K plus for a used drum scanner or just pay for that service.

Yes. It turns out that Photography is a very expensive hobby. No matter which way you slice it. If you want to make prints in a darkroom, you have to buy an enlarger, or do alternate processes. But then you have to have a large camera. You can do gum bichromate, which is dirt cheap, but you won't get the quality of the other stuff. Its not bad, just different...

When you want to put images on to the computer, it is also expensive. Either you have to shoot with a digital camera, with a variety of prices, or you have to scan. The difference between a consumer level scanner and a 3K drum is enough so that it would easily be worth three times the amount. Of course, once the images are in the computer, you have a very expensive program - photoshop - and a big learning curve. You will probably want to upgrade the RAM in your computer, possibly the storage... etc.

Then you have to buy a printer to output with. If you buy a printer that is smaller, you have plastic components. The 24 inch and larger have much more metal in them, which leads to more consistency, more capacity to control them, etc. Might be a little easier to get refillable's for, etc.

At each point there are choices to make. Not always, but usually a little more money means a little more quality.

Lenny

[Trius]

Almost anything will work fine for the web. It's printing that shows the importance of a good scan. I assume you bought your 750 with the intention of eventually printing because VueScan and the 750 are major over-kill for the web (and IMHO major underkill for printing 35mm except possibly postcard sizes).

My serious printing will be optical/darkroom still. Yes, it's overkill for web, but there are still valid reasons for getting a 750 even for web and inkjet printing. The primary reason for the 750 was that I didn't want a scanner that required 2 passes for a 4x5 or larger negative, and I wanted the fluid mount option. There were other reasons as well.