Howtek 4500-Questions-Software, Comparisons, Etc.

Hi all.

I have some questions about the Howtek 4500 scanner that I hope can be answered here.



1) I have read opinions on the software people are using with the scanner. Some say Silverfast is good, but it does not allow for the better level of adjustments that Trident offers. I have also read comments that Silverfast has trouble scanning negative emulsions and that Trident does a better job. Are these false issues and sanner operator related, or is Trident a better software to use for certain situations and Silverfast better for other situations? Any and all info on the software options available and what to expect from them is greatly appreciated.



2) If using an old Mac-station with the Trident software, how can one scan at 4000dpi with sheet film, or even 120 film if the Mac station does not have the amount of ram that these large files use? Perhaps a different question would be if there is a way to get large files using a system that does not have much ram. An example would be achieving a 4-7gb file from the scan. I know little about the way computers work and handle ram, but logic tells me one needs 4-7gb's of ram to handle this file size. I prefer to work with my regular PC that is loaded with a 64bit OS, quad core cpu, 8GB of ram, and 1TB of HD space, but I am obviously willing to setup an older Mac Station or have a dual boot OS on my PC to run both Trident and Silverfast (see question #1 that relates a good deal to this question #2).



3) With regards to comparisons-At what size print will one be able to see the difference in a proper scan from the Howtek 4500 with 35mm and 120 film compared to the Nikon 9000 or the Imacons?


With sheet film, at what print size will one be able to see a difference between the Howtek 4500 and a flatbed scanner from Epson/Microtek/etc.?



Thank You to all that can help with these questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findingmyway4ever

Hi all.

I have some questions about the Howtek 4500 scanner that I hope can be answered here.



1) I have read opinions on the software people are using with the scanner. Some say Silverfast is good, but it does not allow for the better level of adjustments that Trident offers. I have also read comments that Silverfast has trouble scanning negative emulsions and that Trident does a better job. Are these false issues and sanner operator related, or is Trident a better software to use for certain situations and Silverfast better for other situations? Any and all info on the software options available and what to expect from them is greatly appreciated.



2) If using an old Mac-station with the Trident software, how can one scan at 4000dpi with sheet film, or even 120 film if the Mac station does not have the amount of ram that these large files use? Perhaps a different question would be if there is a way to get large files using a system that does not have much ram. An example would be achieving a 4-7gb file from the scan. I know little about the way computers work and handle ram, but logic tells me one needs 4-7gb's of ram to handle this file size. I prefer to work with my regular PC that is loaded with a 64bit OS, quad core cpu, 8GB of ram, and 1TB of HD space, but I am obviously willing to setup an older Mac Station or have a dual boot OS on my PC to run both Trident and Silverfast (see question #1 that relates a good deal to this question #2).



3) With regards to comparisons-At what size print will one be able to see the difference in a proper scan from the Howtek 4500 with 35mm and 120 film compared to the Nikon 9000 or the Imacons?


With sheet film, at what print size will one be able to see a difference between the Howtek 4500 and a flatbed scanner from Epson/Microtek/etc.?



Thank You to all that can help with these questions.

---

I own a Howtek 4500 and have only ever run the machine with Silverfast, so I cannot comment on Trident at all. However, while there are things I don't particularly like about Silverfast, it seems perfectly capable of producing excellent scans of negative and positive materials. At present, there is another option available for an excellent price - Aztek have a special running on the standard version of DPL for any Howtek for only $500.

In terms of what size will you be able to see the difference: this depends on many variables. With smaller formats compared to dedicated film scanners, the differences may not be as immediately obvious as they are with sheets film comparisons with a consumer flatbed, but they will be there. I pretty sure that you will see differences in an 11x14 printed from a 4x5 drum scan vs a scan from a consumer flatbed.

Thank You.

I appreciate the response and the sale right now on the software. My goal is to see if I can discern differences between a Nikon/Imacon and the Howtek 4500 at the 8X10 print size from 35mm/120 film or if, as you are saying, the differences will become apparent at 11X14 size.

I did a search on your test with 4X5 film vs. 8X10 film and you said the Howtek scan of the 4X5 film looked better than the 8X10 film scanned on the Epson. I forgot the size you mentioned that one showed superiority at, but I think it might have even been 8X10.

I also found your 35mm scan of the black and white photo. It is very impressive. I am curious how that same photo looks when you scan it from a Nikon or similar dedicated consumer/prosumer scanner and compare the prints at different sizes, even from 5X7 on up.

Thank You for your input.

That scan was actually made with a desktop film scanner - a Konica Dimage Scan Elite 5400II... That film scanner has a bit more resolution than my Howtek (5400 vs 4000) - I intend having that shot scanned with an Aztek at 8000DPI because even at 5400DPI, there's still information left on the negative. Note, though, that is not a conventioanl B&W emulsion - it's extremely high resolution film.

On smaller formats, dedicated film scanners do a pretty good job. Drum scans can improve on that a bit because 1. noise is always lower and 2. you can reduce the effect of grain by setting on optimum aperture on the drum scanner. I still use film scanners depsite having a drum scanner too - fast, decent results. If I have a shot with issues, I'll pop it on the drum scanner.

Did you ever try to scan that shot on your Howtek? I would be curious how it looks by comparison. I know the DPI figures are inconsistent, but I have also seen comparisons on websites showing a major improvement on the Howtek vs. a Nikon 9000which many consider to be as good or better than the Minolta 5400.

One quick question: Have you tried the Aztek Standard software available for $500 and if not or if so, can you see any viable reasons for one to go with the pro version instead (just looking at features of both rather than comparing price).

Thank You.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findingmyway4ever

Did you ever try to scan that shot on your Howtek? I would be curious how it looks by comparison. I know the DPI figures are inconsistent, but I have also seen comparisons on websites showing a major improvement on the Howtek vs. a Nikon 9000which many consider to be as good or better than the Minolta 5400.

---

I haven't bothered to scan it on the Howtek because it's obvious that even though the 5400II is extracting almost exactly that real optical resolution, it's still leaving a lot on the negative. The Howtek does a real 4000SPI, so that would leave even more on the negative. Basically, the extra resolution of the Konica scan would be much more apparent than any other major difference. The optical system used to shoot that shot is capable of around 150lp/mm which would require a scan of 8000SPI to extract it all. The film for that shot scans particularly well on film scanners too - very thin emulsion layer, clear base etc, so it's pretty much a best case scenario for a film scanner and because of that, the differences between a scan on a film scanner and a drum scanner are reduced a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findingmyway4ever

Have you tried the Aztek Standard software available for $500 and if not or if so, can you see any viable reasons for one to go with the pro version instead (just looking at features of both rather than comparing price).

---

I have not tried DPL at all - I have only used Silverfast. Those who use DPL, swear by it - I suppose if you've spent $2000-3000 on a piece of software, you'd better be happy with it. I do not have any knowledge of the relative feature sets of the standard or pro versions - I'm sure Aztek could assist you with any queries in that regard - they seem to provide excellent customer service in my experience. Also, join the Scan Hi-end group on Yahoo - it's an excellent source of information on drum and professional flatbed scanners.

Thanks a lot again. I truly appreciate it. That 35mm shot is extroardinary and the points you made make perfect sense with relation to information captured, emulsion used, etc. I hope you will post your results from a scan by Lenny and also a print of it by him. I'm sure he would be equally impressed at what can be done under the right circumstances with even a small piece of 35mm film.

Thanks again and I'll be in contact with Aztek, though it sounds like the software does extremely well. As you pretty much put it, one that pays that kind of money should be getting the best software available for the scanner.

Thanks a lot for the advice on the scan times and also what to look out for with regards to the smell, etc. stuff with a drum scanner.

Here's why I like the idea of the drum scanner=I know a person with a Nikon 9000, though I have only talked to him via email correspondence. He has been shooting 6X7 for years and to this day, still finds no reason to go to digital since his work with the 6X7 is really outstanding. One thing, though, is he is not able to pull out the denser information from his slide film with the Nikon 9000 and has to drum scan for these types of emulsions. Likewise, I have heard many users of high end flatbeds, short of maybe the IQSmart 2/3 explain that they are not able to get the information from slides or chromes out like they can with a drum scan. On anything negative based, the pro-level flatbed users tend to feel the differences are very little or even similar...but also better than the Nikon 9000.

I plan to shoot a lot of 4X5-5X8 film, with 5X8 being the largest size and primary format. I also want to have 35mm and/or even an MF rangefinder system for more on the fly based shots. So my work will likely consist of 35mm-5X8 sheet film.

Thanks

Just a note. I spoke with Evan at Aztek the other day.
He said that the DPL Standard edition is on sale for $500 until the end of October.
Hopefully if there is enough interest, they may extend it.

I just bought DPL for my 7500 and im trying to dig out a pc. Being a mac man this is hard thing to do!

For those interested in Trident. I have used it for many years and it great. I can probably answer any questions you may have.
PM me or send me an email.

Trident is simple to use and very flexible. The limit is OS9 which i dont mind but i figured if im doing this for a living, I have to try DPL. I only have a few OS9 machines that still work.
The 2gb file limit on Trident has to do with the way the product was complied.
Trident was complied under os 8 which had a 2gb file limit. The limit was removed in os 9 but Trident was never re compiled to take advantage of the new limit.
For Trident users who have trouble with that odd dialog box that pops up for sub 2gb files.
Its something like "not enough ram", here is a solution. (Only for sub 2gb scans) Dont rotate the file.
If you rotate the file, not only does it take almost twice as long to scan but it creates a swop file in ram and on the HD thats double the intended file size. This drove me nuts for a few weeks until i figured it out.

DPL doesnt have the 2gb limit. Its 4gb for an 8 bit and much larger for 16 and 24 bit (IIRC).
DPL also addresses the Howtek's PMT's directly and downloads curves to them to gibe a full histogram.
As apposed to the way Trident and Silverfast does it. Im cant remember if its called LOG AMP or something else.
And for $500 you cant go wrong. Its less than half the price!

-ian

<<With the Nikon 9000 I get a new prdct, is supported by the mfr>>

On their web site Nikon says that they will not be updating the Nikon Scan software to run under Leopard (it does but not because of anything they've done). That suggests to me that in fact, they will not be supporting the scanner any longer.

I understand your points. The Terrapin photo comparison has a Howtek 4500 vs. Nikon 9000 (may be an 8000) scan and the Howtek makes the Nikon look soft by comparison. The Nikon also shows up issues of pixellation/banding/etc. when it starts to get grainy. These are only online screenshots and not real life prints, so what the tests above prove is nothing more than showing the Howtek besting the Nikon very handily.

I am pretty certain Daniel Buck from this forum has a Howtek 4500 and he tested an Imacon, claiming they had come a long way (2006), but...


"For the money, the best 8X10 scans will come from a Howtek 4500, which are getting pretty inexpensive these days. So far superior to Imacon that it's not even worth discussing. A bit of a learning curve to fluid mount to the drum, but far less dust to take care of and perfect focus everywhere. Hey, everyone's got different standards. I demoed Imacon and bought a Howtek. Never regretted it."


One thing about working with a drum scanner, favoreably, is that in spite a scan can take a long time, one can prepare the next scan by proofing the next piece of film to be scanned and put that waiting time into preparation/perfecting the next scan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findingmyway4ever

prove is nothing more than showing the Howtek besting the Nikon very handily.

---

I am very familiar with this scanner - I had one. I now have a Premier, the 8000 dpi older brother of the 4500.

I would say, without question that the 4500, IMO, is the best bang for your buck out there. it is one of the sharpest scanners you can find. I have compared it against many other drums scanners (including a Tango which it beat handily) and it does extremely well. There isn't a flatbed, or other CCD scanner that can match it.

I prefer the Digital PhotoLab software by a very long shot. It's more expensive, but IMO worth every penny. It's a professional tool. I don't think the other choices can claim that in any regard. The statement may be a little rough on Silverfast, but I just don't think it compares - even if Silverfast could get a good scan out of the machine it doesn't have the ease and clarity to make this easy for you.

If you are doing b&w I would suggest getting the PRO version. One would hope they have a special on that as well. The customer CMS feature goes one step farther than any other software. You create a custom setup for an image and the software loads that setup into the firmware of the scanner and the scanner scans that way. This is very different from doing a RAW scan and then applying your changes. I do this for every b&w image that I scan.

I scan all kinds of things for my clients, but only 4x5 and 8x10 for myself. You will be amazed at what the scanner can do with a piece of large format film.

There are a lot of folks who add that mounting can be hard, etc, even tho' they haven't done it. Ridiculous. Mounting is just mounting. Yes, one has to learn it, and it helps to have an Aztek mounting station which is tensioned properly.... and someone to show you your first time. But it is just a technique you have to get used to, just like knowing where the emulsion is in the dark, and loading a holder, or remembering to close the lens first and then taking the dark slide out - or any number of other tasks we all have to perform regularly.

One last thing - Did I read that you want to test this with an 8x10 print? You won't see a difference at that size - heck, you could even use a 3 megapixel digital camera and get a decent print at that size. Enlarge it to 40 inches, then crop a 10 inch piece of that and take a look...

If you want some more help you can contact me directly...

Lenny

Found another post by the same user this year and he now has the 8000 scanner. Not sure who this person is, but they said the Howtek 4500/8000 are flat out in a different league than the 9000 "but", that as with all things, it is user operated where he said he could do a better 9000 scan (since he knows the machine so well) better than he would be able to do a first time or 10 time try with a Howtek 4500/8000 scanner. Another person responded about the 9000 saying the same thing coming from an Epson in how it took time to learn to properly use the 9000, but it's in a different league than the Epsons.

I don't mind the wet based mounting with drum scanners and would be wet-scanning anything on a 9000 or similar dedicated film scanner or even the IQ2/3. But wet-scanning on the 9000 vs. working with the chemical process of a drum scanner is likely a much different process and a nicer one for the chemically immune:)!

One thing mentioned in this thread, I believe, is the scan quality from different scanners and how everything changes once it goes to print. That an Epson can look excellent on screen, but most will say it and even large format film, is not good on print at anymore than a 3X size. Some might even consider the 3X w/Epson vs. a drum scan or off an Imacon to look worst. But from online scan testing with the Epson, it seems to show that it can print very well at 5-6X (with sheet film).

I have a Howtek 4500 heading my way and wanted to get an idea of what to expect quality wise if I am shooting 35mm-sheet film. Sheet film will be my main format, but with the obvious costs/light/etc. factors involved, I like to have some faster alternatives with 35mm and MF.

Thanks to all that have been very helpful and it sounds like in the end, there are pros/cons with all of these scanning tools once one starts getting into the more spendy machines.

[QUOTE=Van Camper;400835]"Thanks to all that have been very helpful and it sounds like in the end, there are pros/cons with all of these scanning tools once one starts getting into the more spendy machines."

I agree 110&#37;. As a side note, I found out something interesting. When doing a comparison, not only is it important to match up exposure, but also get the color exact. Taking the Howtek and Nikon 8000 scan again. I adjusted the Nikon scan a bit in curves (slight pull in middle to lighten it), then I adjusted the red to match closer to the Nikon scan. Not only did curves lighten the shadows, but so does the color adjustment. So all these tests were seeing are really not so simple. Even the Tango came out behind the Nikon, and I highly doubt this to be true. With the curves and color adjustment (and a slight bit of sharpening), I could not see a difference between the howtek or nikon. Then again, I'm looking at something at 100% on a screen, with less then 100ppi compared to a print at 300ppi.


Hehehehe:)


Work on that Howtek scan and make it look the best to your eyes and then compare your 8000 version with your 4500 version. It'd be great to see your version of that 4500 scan so we can compare the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

"Hehehehehe....Work on that Howtek scan and make it look the best to your eyes and then compare your 8000 version with your 4500 version. It'd be great to see your version of that 4500 scan so we can compare the two."


Well......hehehehe....why don't you try improving the Howtek scan yourself? Kill yourself trying, I know the result...both look equal, although this doesn't really matter because we both have different needs (I don't do 5x8).

---

;)...not about a pissing competition or anything like that. Do not mean to come off seeming this way as it is beside the point.

Point is, we have no way to know what an on-screen scan really means. I'm sure you could fiddle with the Howtek scan to make it look similar, equal, and maybe better than the Nikon scan. Likewise, one cannot look at the LF forum's scanner test with any grain of salt as there are flaws in the tests. That Cezanne scan, for example, has a horrid yellow casting over it. There is a mixture of colors between the scanners, the flatbeds either not sharpened or over-sharpened, etc.

Again, as already discussed, what is on the print is what matters most.

Perhaps the better question about scanning 35mm-120 film would be at what size is the Howtek scan showing superiority to one done with a Nikon/Minolta machine? Or, is the Howtek not actually superior to these machines? OR, is the print size where the Howtek does show its superiority one that a person only prints a few images to, and would rather have it coming from a sheet of even the smallest LF size=4X5, etc. etc...


My goal is to have a machine that gives excellence with all formats. I do not have the money for multiple scanners/equipment for each format, and if I can get results equal to, or even superior to the Nikon/Minolta (for 35mm/120) using the Howtek 4500,then it represents the best value in my virtual checkbook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findingmyway4ever

;)There is a mixture of colors between the scanners, the flatbeds either not sharpened or over-sharpened, etc.

---

I would say a couple of things. The first is that you shouldn't bother to compare scanners by color. The color is a factor of how the operator set up the scanner to do the particular scan. More important would be ho much detail can be pulled out of the shadows - or dense highlights.

Second, the Tango is an OK scanner. The optical resolution of a Tango is around 4000 ppi. The Premier is twice that, at about 8,000. It's also fixed at 11 microns, which is ok for b&w negs and chromes, but useless for color negs. West Coast Imaging is service where they put it on the drum and scan it, at whatever resolution you ask for. It's a business. This is very different from going to someone who is a photographer themselves that does scans for a living - to exacting standards, who will talk to you and make sure to get you the scan you looking for.

Finally, drum scanners use PMT (Photo Multiplier Tube) technology to do their work. They will always best the CCD scanners, which use the same type of sensor chip that is in a digital camera to do theirs. PMT's have a much higher dynamic range, are more sensitive within the range and go directly to a sensor to read, whereas all CCD scanners go thru another lens. Some of those lenses are excellent and some are plastic, depending on the cost of the scanner.

Lots of folks don't need this kind of optical resolution. They make prints no larger than 17 inches, or have an aesthetic that doesn't require it. Some folks shoot with lensbabies or soft focus lenses. However, many of us have super sharp lenses, go to all lengths to carry around large cameras, learn our Scheimpflug rules to get every last bit of sharpness, maximum depth of field and everything else - and my opinion is that those folks ought to be using a drum scanner whenever possible.

Lenny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

"Perhaps the better question about scanning 35mm-120 film would be at what size is the Howtek scan showing superiority to one done with a Nikon/Minolta machine? Or, is the Howtek not actually superior to these machines?

---

The Howtek is superior to a film scanner. I'd say a 16x20 would easily show the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

Well, both the Howtek and Nikon are rated at 4000ppi, and I doubt either obtains that, though the Howtek I expect to be slightly closer.

---

The Howtek is rated 4094 Optical. Films scanners will be around half that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

I agree, we each must look at our needs. For you the key was 5x8, while for me I didn't want mounting. Where drum scanners win are when smaller formats can use 8-11000ppi for very big prints from 35mm. For everyone else, your Howtek or a 9000 isn't working very hard....rarely over 2400spi for most work with larger film.

---

Not wanting to mount is well, it shouldn't be a factor. It just isn't that hard. I would agree that film scanners, especially with wet mounting accessories do a pretty good job. Not as good as a drum, but alright. For large format film, a drum scanner does amazing things. If one has bothered to buy good lenses and learn their swings and tilts and had to carry all that stuff around, they deserve a good scan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

Photomultiplier technology is actually old technology I've had on my old Macbeth color analyzer from 35 yrs ago. It is good, but when compared to a IQ3 you gain very little when put into perspective.

---

This is simply not true. It's old technology, but so is a car. They still work very well. CCD technology is still in its infancy and doesn't supply the same quality. Have you compared an IQ# to a Premier?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

It matches or exceeds the Tango (not the best) which most of us are happy with. I would expect only the ICG or Aztek premier are the only match. This is why prepress, and everyone else are dumping them....too old, when a IQ3 is enough to handle everything. The only benefit is attaining higher resolutions to 8000ppi plus, while the IQ3 is limited to 5300ppi.

---

Yes, but not 5300 optical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

Unless your making humungous prints from very small negatives, I don't see the point when for most of us when even 2400ppi is often too much. I also expect the CCD to soon surpass the drum on all fronts because there is a demand for them, therefore advancements will continue.

---

The CCD scanner won't be developed because of the same reason that PMT scanners won't be developed. Film is going bye-bye. We all know it, most of us here don't like the idea, but it's just a matter of when. 5 years or 10? There may be a manufacturer or two who will continue to supply the small market, but certainly not a reason for someone to spend a lot of R&D on scanners.

You're making a lot of statements about one thing being good enough, or something else being not so much better. I really don't want to be rude, but you aren't speaking from experience. You don't have a drum scanner. How could you know? Having WCI scan for you is not a good measure. Youfr conclusions are conjecture.

I have done the tests, and while its truly unfortunate that many can't afford a drum scanner, at 2500-10K, they are clearly superior. Everyone has to have that place where something is sufficient for what they need, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm looking for a Sironar-S 300mm lens in good condition. I can't afford a new one. But I am not going to say that all lenses are just as good when they clearly aren't. They are what I can afford right now and in some cases they suffice.

As I said before, not wanting to mount is not a reason to use a drum or not. The issue is quality. I don't want to lug around a large format camera, either but that's what I need to do to get quality. If you have enough dexterity to slice an onion, you can mount film on a drum.

Lenny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

I see your point, but it is still a new product, parts available, still mfrng them in batches to meet demand. That's far better then buying an old discontinued drum with parts costing a fortune. It runs on Leopard, and Vista/XP, so were still doing alright (modern stuff)....far better then a slow G3/G4. Also, with the qty of Nikon scanners out there, I expect companies like Silverfast to keep up where Nikon left off.

---

Nikon supports Vista/XP 32-bit, but so far they are saying that they have no plans to support 64-bit Windows. More's the pity, because a full-resolution scan of a 6x9cm color negative or transparency from the 9000 is huge.

LaserSoft (the SilverFast folks) won't come to the rescue, because they rely on the Nikon drivers. No Nikon driver, no Silverfast version. I've seen speculation that VueScan will be able to run the 9000 under 64-bit Windows using some sort of generic driver; I don't know if that's true, or what functionality it will support if it is.

I have no idea whether any of the drum scanner software runs in 64-bit.

Hi, I thought I'd make a few comments on this thread based on my personal experience.

I use a number of scanners including a Nikon 5000 and a Howtek 4000. I tend to use the Nikon for mounted slides as it saves the hassle of undoing and redoing the slide mount, otherwise I use the Howtek. With properly exposed 35mm film the Nikon gives excellent scans, however they do show more grain than the equivalent scan from the Howtek, presumably as a result of the wet mounting. With anything other than properly exposed film though the Howtek wins easily because the Nikon does suffer from noise in the shadow areas (as most CCD devices do).

As a relatively recent convert to drum scanning I think the difficulty in mounting is very much overstated - it is easy once you have done it a few times, even easier once you have seen the video on the Aztek website (which I hadn't when I started wet mounting).

Lastly I don't think it is worth being concerned about whether the software works in 64-bit environments or not unless you are limited to just a single computer. I agree that the files created by these scanners are huge, at least compared to the majority of files from digital cameras, however this is only an issue for image editing not for scanning. I use older (and therefore cheap!) PC's to run my scanners. They work just fine, even when scanning a 4x5 slide at 4000spi, as the actual flow of data from the scanner is relatively slow. I then use much more powerful 64-bit PC's to process the images where the higher throughput is better appreciated.

David Whistance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

Hi Lenny, just to make myself clear, I have been arguing two points. One, I never said that a Nikon 9000 will match a top end drum scanner (everyone knows this). I also mentioned I expected the Howtek 4500 to be slightly better then the Nikon 9000, perhaps a bit more resolution (although many here have commented otherwise after getting back drum scans), with the real advantage in shadows that drum scanners are noted for. However, the Cezanne, Eversmart Supreme , and IQ2/IQ3 will blow the 4500 away. So does that mean the 4500 is no good? Try telling all the pros in here using their Eversmart Pro/proII (rated at 3175spi) that you need a drum scan when really what they need is only a 2400ppi scan for some huge prints from 4x5. All these products are going to do the job, and the Nikon 9000 rests in the same circles with good performance…not the best, but very good. Two, I have several times pointed out that for some of us another option exists. If you can compromise on 612/617 for large format work (using stitching), you have solved the scanner dilemma (which one) we all go through. It does superb quality cheaply, fast, XP/Vista, is new, warranty, low repair costs, no need for an old Mac or Scsii, no dust during loading, easy to find 120 film in most stores, no loading 4x5 at motels/truck stops, easy processing at home on stainless reels. When you consider how often you crop your 4x5 landscapes to 612 anyways, you can save at least 50% in film/processing costs. For the times you needs 4x5 or larger try renting time on a Imacon 848 at most pro labs or pay your $79 for a drum scan (eg- WCI,Calypso, etc).

---

An IQ will not blow the 4500 away - the 4500 is rated by Aztek at 4094 and the IQ is at 3175. Take a look at Scannerforum.com. also, PMT technology is better than CCD technology. More sensitive, color for color, and better shadow and highlight detail. If you want to use 612, that's your perogative. I don't get enough quality out of it, for me. We are obviously doing different kind of work. Everyone gets to choose the tools that are right for them. Is med format easier? Sure it is. But personally I have no interest in stitching, if I can avoid it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

The lowest number I've seen was based on actual tests done by Sanking (2790ppi) and I remember him saying his friend did a test and reported approximately 3000ppi (from memory). But most have stated values between 3300-3800ppi. Ted himself had always stated it was close to a true 4000ppi. But frankly, even if you want to stick to your guns, a value of 2000ppi still will give a 10000mp file (4x5), and 14000mp for 617 formats (lengthwise). That's still a 33 or 46 inch print (at 300ppi) depending if you use 612 or 617 formats.

---

I think the Nikon is higher, I would agree, that figure was for most flatbeds. I have great respect for Ted and Sandy. I sincerely don't mean to insult either of them, but I don't agree with some of their conclusions. It doesn't line up with my own. Your own numbers are incorrect, a 2000 ppi scan of a 4x5 is 8,000x10000, or 80 megapixels, not 10,000. I scan at 4,000 and get a 320 megapixel file from those. A 5 inch piece of film at 2000 is 10,000 pixels. That will get 300 dpi to the printer at 33 inches, if one doesn't crop, or 27.7 at 360.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

so it's not about digital totally eliminating film sales…..but rather the market rebalancing for a new competitor in town. scan backs are useless in the field, and try matching 8x10 or larger formats, and what about those of us who love contact prints and require 8x10 or larger formats.

---

I very much hope you're right. In this economic climate, I wouldn't be surprised if Kodak discontinued film tomorrow. Ilford's another story. Will they survive? Efke? I don't know... I also think that the folks that use Betterlight's would disagree with you about scanning backs being useless in the field. I do agree that nothing compares with an 8x10 piece of film... or larger, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

If the CCD is no longer developed, then it will be something better, but we have markets that will always need pro flatbed scanners. The CCD and PMT are two different animals, the PMT will disappear as pro flatbeds continue to improve that can copy film/paper/artowrk. Perhaps newer flateds will approach 8000spi, at which point drums will have no use at all.

---

I don't think there is a demand for this. I suppose it depends on what you think will happen to film. My sources tell me that there is little or no research being done on chip technology, they are spending all their efforts getting as much out of consumers as they can. The Bayer chip has obvious problems and I haven't heard of any serious effort to advance past it (doesn't mean there aren't any).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

Well, based on those low resolution values you gave the Nikon 9000, you're certainly not talking from experience? My experience stretches from owning Epsons and the Nikon 9000, many hours on Imacon 848 at Pitco Labs (Toronto), drums scans I've had done, but more importantly trusting my critical eye when things look more then "good enough" (not the best….for that I want an ICG). Either way, tell it to those who love their Cezannes, Eversmarts, Imacons, Creo IQ2/3, Nikon 9000……that only drum scans are enough for their professional work. Also telling me other labs (Calypso, WCI, Nash) are not a good measure is not true….many top names use their service.

---

I know all these people, I know their approaches. Each one of them has things they are excellent at. None of them has a handle on all of it, takes too long.

I have compared a lot of different scans that people have brought me from almost every piece of equipment, I've done test against Cramer's Tango. I haven't had the opportunity to look at every single scanner, but I am pretty familiar with most of them. An ICG won't beat a Premier, BTW, altho' it can get close, and at that resolution the differences are pretty small. The film scanners do have better resolution than the 2000 I mentioned, that was for the consumer level flatbeds, and it was kind at that. I have direct experience using the 750 and wouldn't recommend it at all for pro level work, it was slow and blurry. Of course, if focus and detail are not important, then it doesn't matter.

There is a difference working on one's own and sending things to a lab. Many labs simply have someone put something on a drum and scan it. Often its not a photographer, or its a beginner. That's very different from having someone who understands what you are after and tailors the scan to your purpose. I wouldn't suggest your $75 scan, I don't do things that way, charging by the megabyte. I give people the whole amount that the scanner is capable of. I'm not interested in saving the 10 minutes more of scan time.... I want to give someone the best scan I can deliver. It's a different focus from a volume-based business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

Do you honestly believe the Cezanne, Creo IQ3, Eversmart (Pro II) can't produce quality from large film formats?Your argument does not support the countless happy people using eversmart pros, creos, Nikon, etc.

---

I don't think the quality is the same on large prints. I have seen scans from a Cezanne and they are not as good as they could be. One of my clients has one and does all his testing on it, then sends his portfolio negs for me to scan(4x5's). He sees a huge difference. There are things they can do, certainly. The Nikon is good, but doesn't compare to a PMT scan. It depends on how much quality one is looking for. Some people are more concerned with the content and don't care about fine printing at all. Aesthetically, this is just as valid an approach as the opposite. Everyone gets to choose.

Happiness is not a factor. Last month people on this forum said wonderful things about prints from Walmart. They were "happy". Doesn't express quality, which is what we are talking about. In the 80's I worked at a b&w lab printing images for "top" photographers. I was flabbergasted to find just how many of them had no idea how to make a negative. The constant "can you get me some detail in the shadows" while looking at a neg as clear as Saran Wrap was unbelievable. There is only so much one can do with hot developer and Q-tips... Artist tend to test things, and know more about what they are doing vs commercial photographers, altho' this is a very general statement. However, you can't assume just because someone is famous that they have skills as a technologist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

Also, I often use up to 6 scans to create one image and I cannot predetermine all the time what I may need regarding choices for sky, birds, animals, etc. So doing mounting on an as needed basis would get frustrating. Paying for drum scans would be prohibitive in this instance, and doing it myself would drive me nuts.

---

I agree, I think drum scans would make sense for you - only if you had your own scanner. If you don't want to mess with it, that's ok. But the results would be better than your 4990. Most folks I work with don't stitch, don't composite, and want to get the whole image in one neg. They are looking for every last bit they can get out of a piece of film. But it isn't the right approach for everyone.

This is a long post, I responded to it yesterday and it didn't make it up to the forum somehow. I am also really annoyed at something else and if I sound annoyed it's not about anyone here, or anything that was said here. I just wanted to get this response finished before I go do what I gotta do... apologies in advance if I was harsh anywhere.. if I disagree I mean to do so respectfully.

Lenny

[QUOTE=Lenny Eiger;403270]
Last month people on this forum said wonderful things about prints from Walmart. /QUOTE]

That was Costco, not Walmart.

Don Bryant

[QUOTE=D. Bryant;403284]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger

Last month people on this forum said wonderful things about prints from Walmart. /QUOTE]

That was Costco, not Walmart.

Don Bryant

---

I stand corrected.

Perhaps useful, just not museum quality.

Lenny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

Hi Lenny, I do agree with what you're saying, and a high end drum scanner will outperform. But at the same time I also believe so long as you're using big negatives .... So I guess it boils down to one thing>>enlargement size desired. If you considering over 8x, then go for a drum.

---

There are obviously things that can be done with large negs on lesser scanner. I'm not sure I would go as far as 8x, or that I would use a consumer machine vs a pro one, but there is definitely some wiggle room here.

Of course, I have this drum scanner that I scan for others on - I obviously am going to use it myself...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

I also learned something, that you are interested in the very best work. All my scans on drums have been off a Tango, so next time the need for a really big print comes along I will consider your service.

---

Whenever you're ready... you'd be welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

I think your rating of the IQ2/3 at 3175 is wrong. I find it interesting that most museums are using an IQ3, when they could afford the best.

---

I think manufacturer's claims are extremely hard to navigate. I think the only way to figure out which one meets your needs is to have test scans done on each machine in question by an expert operator. Many folks that use flatbeds spend a lot of time learning their sharpening techniques. Good technique can make up for a lot of imperfect scanning - or at least look like it does. It's very hard to quantify what one is losing, has a lot to do with what kinds of prints are being made, etc.

As far as museums go, your comment reminds me of my wife shopping for food early in our relationship. She would often buy something in the meat/fish counter like a piece of salmon wrapped around something, or some other prepared object. Invariably, I always grimace while eating it. I am an amateur cook myself and it was almost always horrible. Whole Foods has some of the worst cooking one can imagine. Sorry for the digression - but she trusts these people to make food better than she can. In fact, they don't. My point is that museums are some of the worst offenders. These people have forced the worst photography upon us for the last 20 years, often in the name of Post-Modernism. There are some notable and appreciated exceptions, but most museums don't deserve any respect whatsoever - especially from this crowd. I will stop before - they should all be line up and shot - but I do hate what they have done to photography, the market, galleries, etc. So I am not surprised they can't choose a decent scanner. I've actually been involved in negotiations with a museum in San Francisco about a scanner and the decision wasn't based on the facts or needs but on political issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

I have been pushing two main points. First, film is not dead, as I explained earlier it has become a pro medium for those that understand its virtues.

---

I sure hope you are right...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

Second, 612/617 in combination with a Nikon 9000/8000 is a very affordable choice to enter into large format landscape photography. When 4x5 is cropped your down to 612 anyways, and save almost 2/3 in film and processing costs.

---

We are talking about Art here. Cost is not really an issue. None of us could justify 1/10th of what we do by financial analysis. Medium format is very different form a view camera. You are talking about square inches of film and whatnot, but the real difference is the way of working, approaching a subject, one piece of film a t a time, etc. It's very different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

For the few times you need a more square ratio you can use a V700 Epson flatbed or rent time on a Imacon 848. For others doing larger format the Cezanne, IQ2/3, Eversmart series are great options for superb quality, and unless you need prints 30x40 and larger, you can get fantastic results which the pros in here are also using. Implying only a Premier scanner is good enough, or implying we all need drum scans just turns off new comers to large format, either because of the higher cost of drum scanning, or the inconvenience.

---

Here's the meat of it. I do NOT want to imply that a drum scan is the only thing good enough. However, when you use the words "superb quality", "fantastic results" and the like, how is it that you would describe the step in quality, presumably represented by a drum scanner, that is higher than that. The results are not the same, they are different, there is no question. If an IQ3 is "fantastic", then what is a Premier - "super fantastic?

There are certainly levels of quality. Some people want more than a flatbed will deliver. I am not going to say they are wrong, either. How is it that one would describe those levels if the middle is superb?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

Good luck with your scanning service. Hope to use it soon.

---

Thank you,

Lenny

I found these links to be interesting.

http://graphics1.kodak.com/gc/produc...tific_research

http://graphics1.kodak.com/us/produc..._for_archiving

http://graphics1.kodak.com/gc/produc...rs/testimonial

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8x10 user

I found these links to be interesting.

---

I find them to be less than useful. Once again, a manufacturer wants to make claims regarding optical resolution that are clearly false.

Lenny

I'm not sure, I have done 5,600 PPI microfilm scans with the Eversmart Supreme and I thought every pixel contained valuable resolving detail. I didn't see any pixel spill over or softness when viewing the "actual pixels". The scans were fluid mounted on a brand new base glass, I used the MaxDR function and the final image had no detectable noise, and almost no grain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8x10 user

I'm not sure, I have done 5,600 PPI microfilm scans with the Eversmart Supreme and I thought every pixel contained valuable resolving detail. I didn't see any pixel spill over or softness when viewing the "actual pixels". The scans were fluid mounted on a brand new base glass, I used the MaxDR function and the final image had no detectable noise, and almost no grain.

---

I you have good results, that's great. The Air Force test target is what people use to compare things with. My sources tell me that their claims are false, with the optical at roughly 3200. I don't have the time to test these things myself... PMT also has other benefits in addition to resolution, that the CCD type scanner cannot match. That's basic physics.

I have never liked Kodak as a company, and don't automatically trust them. Of course, as I said, if you have great results that's what matters. Of course, it begs the question of what things would look like on a high end drum, how would it be different?

Lenny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger

I you have good results, that's great. The Air Force test target is what people use to compare things with. My sources tell me that their claims are false, with the optical at roughly 3200. I don't have the time to test these things myself... PMT also has other benefits in addition to resolution, that the CCD type scanner cannot match. That's basic physics.

I have never liked Kodak as a company, and don't automatically trust them. Of course, as I said, if you have great results that's what matters. Of course, it begs the question of what things would look like on a high end drum, how would it be different?

Lenny

---

Lenny,

I am familiar with the results that Aztek posted on various scanners. I don’t think that the comparison is fair or accurate. Like I said before my own results shows that it lives up to stated resolution. My guess is that who ever did the scan for Aztek was inexperienced or did not understand the scans purpose. There are a number of things that could of caused a bad result

*The scan may not of been done with the MaxDr on which would of really hurt the D-range

*The Scan may have been done at a lower resolution

*The scanner has a grain removal setting which it can default too if not set properly, the features works be physically unfocsing the image. This is ideal for screened images but really should be turned off for other work. At 5,600 the default setting is near its maximum.

*There could have been a focusing error caused by dust hair or scratches in or around the film/glass

*The scan may of not been oil mounted which would seriously effect image quality in a large number of ways.

*There could have been dust, on the lens or other optics

If you want you could send me an ortho-microfilm target to scan to see what my results are.

This debate may be a little off topic because an Eversmart Supreme would certainly cost a lot more then a howtek 4500 but still I think that your claim that howtek 4500 is going to beat every CCD scanner in the world is accurate.

I have heard a lot of strange theories about the drum vs CCD debate. Some claim that all CCD scanners are flawed because a larger section of the film is illumined. As if it caused the light from different sections of the image to strike the sample pixel on the CCD. That would be the case if the scanner did not have a lens. Of course without a lens there would be not image forming light to scan unless the array was very very close to the film so that it could “contact scan” the image. The lens in the scanner prevents pixel contamination from light from different sections of the film by “sorting” the light by the direction it came from rather then where it was heading to.

To really understand what makes the Eversmart supreme so good you have to know all of the factors in a CCD scanner that can lead to image degradation.

One factor is the known as CCD blooming. These is when a ray of light hits the CCD then is absorbed by the atoms in the CCD. Some of the atoms will rereleases this energy in the form of new light. The Eversmart Supreme has the most expensive antiblooming CCD array of all of the flatbed scanners.

A second factor is optical flare, which is caused by uncoated, scratched, or dirty optics. I did notice some light scattering with my old antireflective baseglass however when I upgraded to a new oil mounting glass I never saw the problem again.

A third factor is CCD noise. The Eversmart Supreme is one of a few scanners that features an actively cooled CCD array; this improves sensitivity while reducing noise. At smaller apertures the amount of light that a drum scanners PMT receives is really quite small. Small amounts of light mean small signals from the pmt. With most electronics Background noise (from electromagitic radiation and such) remains a constant level, generally, extremely low singles are avoided because the outside inference is more noticeable. Its like trying to listen to a radio station when the single is not strong enough. There is too much static and when you increase the volume you only increase the noise. One of the best features of the Eversmart is the maxDR setting, which scans film multiple times at different exposures then combines the data to create a scan with incredibly high dynamic range and virtually no noise. You cannot change the scanners exposure with a pmt scanner, you can boost the single strength (which amplifies noise) or you could use a more sensitive PMT. The howtek 4500 was on the low end of the drum scanners and don’t think it had the best possible components however the Eversmart Surpeme was meant to be the best possible flatbed scanner without any regard to costs.

All of the Eversmart line of scanners use the kodaks 8000 line trilinear sensor. Some scanners use a sensor with more lines however in order to increase the sensor density they have to reduce the size of each individual sensor which increase noise while reducing sensitivity (for example compare full frame to smaller framed digital cameras). The Kodak trilinear sensor is very highly regarded. Most of the highend flatbeds and the new imacons use it. It is also the same sensor used by betterlight however theirs is not actively cooled.

The four factor is the scanning resolution which with the eversmart is achieve with a very very good lens and a xy system that allows the scanner to scan large piece of film in smaller sections.

The fifth factor is comes from how well the image data is handled after it leaves the CCD. The Eversmart supreme is a true 16 bit scanner from analog to digital conversion through image processing and straight to the final file. All the components are top notch a single board in the Eversmart can cost more then 5k to replace. I think this is another reason why it is going to produce better results then a low-end drum scanner.

I decided to start a new thread entitled Eversmart vs drum scanners & Aztek plateau. Please post your responses to this message there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8x10 user

Lenny,

I am familiar with the results that Aztek posted on various scanners. I don’t think that the comparison is fair or accurate. Like I said before my own results shows that it lives up to stated resolution. My guess is that who ever did the scan for Aztek was inexperienced or did not understand the scans purpose. There are a number of things that could of caused a bad result

This debate may be a little off topic because an Eversmart Supreme would certainly cost a lot more then a howtek 4500 but still I think that your claim that Howtek 4500 is going to beat every CCD scanner in the world is accurate.

I have heard a lot of strange theories about the drum vs CCD debate.
I decided to start a new thread entitled Eversmart vs drum scanners & Aztek plateau. Please post your responses to this message there.

---

I think it is difficult to get good data. The tests at Scannerforum were done by someone independent, but I don't know much more that that.

I think the issue for me is the abilities of a PMT sensor vs a CCD, rather than a 4500 vs a flatbed. From what I understand, the PMT has a similar effect to an audio amplifier which stretches out the light and increases its sensitivity. I need/want a lot of sensitivity because I can't get as much out of black and white film as I used to. Frankly, experiments with consumer flatbeds have been a joke. I expect the high end ones to be better but not match a PMT.

FWIW, in correction, I have a Premier, not a 4500. I used to have one and it gave me great results.

I have had many conversations with Aztek about the Plateau. I was very impressed with the technology they brought to bear. (I almost bought one but the project that would have funded it did not materialize.) They have been very frank about it and clearly said that the result from their top end flatbed could not match that of their top end drum.

Lenny

Just speaking practically, I got sick of spending $50 on Eversmart Supreme scans, which were great but expensive. I strongly considered a Nikon 9000, but I shoot a lot of 4x5 and 8x10. So the best bang for the buck for me was to get a Howtek 4500 drum scanner with Silverfast. Cost me $2000, i.e. the same (or less) than a Nikon 9000. Shipping it took a lot of work, it takes up space, it takes a long time to get to know how to use it and how to mount film effectively.

But if you want to own your own high end scanner, there's just nothing better for the money, and that would be true even if there's some evidence of equivalence or superiority among the high end CCDs. It's a moot point because they cost tens of thousands of dollars.

I used a Microtek i800 (comparable to an Epson 4990) prior to getting the Howtek. And honestly even on screenshots for web sharing I can see a dramatic difference between the Howtek and the Microtek. Not in terms of resolution, but in terms of color fidelity, sharpness, dynamic range, noise, and shadow detail.

That said, I had great success scanning 4x5 color negative film on my Microtek i800 and making large prints. My largest was a 24x30" print scanned from 4x5 Portra 160NC, which is ungodly stunning from inches away. Maybe it would be better on the Howtek, but not enough to keep that print from being a showstopper.

Could someone tell me if the transmissive image size is absolute? The image area of my 5x12 negatives is about 11.8", which is the specified maximum of many howtek drum scanners. But actual negative size is closer to 12"...So would I need a larger drum scanner to even fit the negative in a drum?

Also, is it a pain to mount long skinny negatives in a drum?

What made me look hard at a drum scanner after thinking an Epson Y750 would be good enough for 4x5 was some tests that show good general detail from high end flatbeds but poor shadow detail.

The more I looked at that the more it was obvious that the flatbeds were not really there for gradation into the dark areas.

I have a deal on a Scanview Scanmate 5000 pending and although it's going to be a pretty big hack I am pleased. Windose software and a SCSI card should do the trick. Anyone know anything about them? They seem to be fairly highly regarded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Graham

But actual negative size is closer to 12"...So would I need a larger drum scanner to even fit the negative in a drum?

---

Not sure the size of mine, I'm pretty sure I can do 11" on the longest side but others here would know better.

Quote:

---

Also, is it a pain to mount long skinny negatives in a drum?

---

They're a lot easier. I never get bubbles with 135 or 120, but with 4x5 and 8x10 it takes work to avoid long bubbles along the edges.

Thanks for the info Paul. I'm hoping to avoid the step in price and size of the larger drum scanners.

I appreciate that there are "mere mortals" here. I can't buy anything at the moment either... However, I think what is important is the truth of what the real difference is.

Philip Beaurline prepared this comparison and I decided to put it up on my site. I've contacted him for a bit more detail....

http://eigerstudios.com/scancompare.html

Take a look...


Lenny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger

http://eigerstudios.com/scancompare.html

---

The V750 scan when sharpened doesn't look too shabby to me. Inferior for sure, but not the night and day some here make out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Best

The V750 scan when sharpened doesn't look too shabby to me. Inferior for sure, but not the night and day some here make out.

---

All depends on what one's definition of quality is.

Lenny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger

All depends on what one's definition of quality is.

---

My reference is prints (compared to everything else I've seen). If there's a problem I attempt to fix it and, failing that, throw more money at it. Most people in the real world do the same. For the rest, there's pixel-peeping.

It should be said that I don't have a V750, nor intend buying one. But good luck to those that do and try and make it work for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Best

My reference is prints (compared to everything else I've seen). If there's a problem I attempt to fix it and, failing that, throw more money at it. Most people in the real world do the same. For the rest, there's pixel-peeping. snip - But good luck to those that do and try and make it work for them.

---

Of course the reference is prints. But how does one compare? There are many that have made statements that they are happy with their prints from the consumer level scanners. I don't have a problem with this. However, there are a couple of questions when it comes to suggesting their path to others. The first is are they good printers, would they know the difference (no offense to anyone intended, just a general question)? The second is if they had a great scan and made a print from it, would they still be satisfied with the lesser scan?

I don't get a commission when someone buys a used drum on EBay. I'm just interested in being fair. If I were to ask if there was a difference between an inexpensive lens and a Leica lens - or a Planar 80, there wouldn't be any question. I fully understand the resistance to one more expensive thing we now have to pay for. I don't like it either. But just as there is a difference between that Leica lens and cheaper alternative, there is a difference in low end and high end scanners - and yes, in the print.

And I, too, wish everyone luck...

Lenny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger

Of course the reference is prints. But how does one compare? There are many that have made statements that they are happy with their prints from the consumer level scanners. I don't have a problem with this. However, there are a couple of questions when it comes to suggesting their path to others. The first is are they good printers, would they know the difference (no offense to anyone intended, just a general question)?

---

I don't know about you but I regularly visit public and private galleries plus look at the work of the best photographers/printers in the country (mostly working in traditional/alternative media). I set my own standards, not against those posturing on the 'net.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Best

I don't know about you but I regularly visit public and private galleries plus look at the work of the best photographers/printers in the country (mostly working in traditional/alternative media). I set my own standards, not against those posturing on the 'net.

---

Stephen, I have a lot of experience. Over 40 years in Photography - I have a masters degree from Pratt Institute in NYC and I studied the History of Photography extensively. I also taught there for many years, at Parsons, Cooper Union, New School, etc. In addition to museums, I used to go to the auction houses the day before an auction and look at vintage prints. I got to see a lot of very wonderful things. Of course, I like very little that I see in galleries these days. Mostly post-modernism, which rubs me the wrong way, or other content-less photography with some notable exceptions.

Here's a question: If one day someone comes in your office with a set of Walker Evans's negatives and asks you to do a portfolio, are you going to do it on a 750?

Lenny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger

Here's a question: If one day someone comes in your office with a set of Walker Evans's negatives and asks you to do a portfolio, are you going to do it on a 750?

---

As I said, I don't have a V750, nor have plans of getting one. To answer your question, I'd use what I had but, if I thought the client demanded different than I knew I could achieve, tell them to go elsewhere. While I welcome the challenge of giving the best possible results from great originals, I however tend to spend more time educating clients so as to raise their expectations and improve the quality of their originals. I doubt this is different to how you do business. But I stand more on results (exhibitions I've done etc) that the specifications of the equipment I use.

I agree with a lot of what you say - it's true that I do my best to help people get the best results they can on their film before they get to me. However, I approach things a little differently than many companies in this trade. I have made it a point to acquire the finest equipment and test all the top materials. I have positioned myself to get the account for a Walker Evans portfolio, or similar work, should it come my way. It isn't a businessman's perspective, its the way an artist looks at things. I don't think its very smart, a little more bread-and-butter work in the mix would be smarter, but its the way i am wired.

I also agree that specifications are meaningless, I have tested everything that I use and gathered every bit of knowledge I could from my colleagues. I would never buy a scanner based on what a manufacturer said about it.

Lenny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

I agree with most of what Lenny says, but I also believe that you do not need the best scanner (Premier) unless your printing extremely big and push the scanners numbers. There are a range of pro class scanners that give great results....
Don't get caught up believing only a drum scanner is good enough.

---

Van,
I think film scanners are pretty good. I don't think that a drum scanner is the only way to go. I think if one has the opportunity to pick one up, that's great. A Premier is obviously a huge luxury. However, if one wants to get as much as possible out of smaller negs, it fits the bill. It's not something to be scared of or avoid.

The issue for me is - what's the truth about this quality stuff. I think its important to be as informed as possible. A consumer level scanner is not "great", it's ok, and it may suffice for what someone needs at a particular time. A film scanner and/or professional flatbed is better and a drum is better than that. I've had lenses that were superb and others that weren't. The drum scans will give better quality. Not everyone wants a 12" Sironar-S, is willing to pay for it, or is willing to carry it around.

The issue is not one thing is bad and one is good. B&W inks are clearly better for black and white prints. If someone wants more b&w out of their printer than they are getting, then there is an option they can try. If someone wants a sharper film original, then there is something they can do. Same with a scan. It's a hierarchy of need and solutions to fit that need.

Lenny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

Your low values you gave the IQ2/3 (3175ppi) are not reasonable (I'd like to see the source). Many of us in here know what a quality print is, have had drum scans done and made their own comparisons, but a Howtek 4500 is not the cats meow when several pro flatbeds WILL outperform it (Cezanne, Creo, Eversmart Supreme). The only issue is affordability.

---

Van,
With all due respect, I don't think you are correct. Obviously, our sources tell us different info. I had a 4500 and it was amazing with large format negs. I had a chance to look at a number of scans from the Cezanne and they weren't as good as I had expected (and did not compare to my 4500 scans or the same size film). There is the issue of optical resolution and there is also the business of a PMT and its abilities vs a CCD. I also don't believe its more convenient. I don't think we are going to solve this without a high level of independent testing, which doesn't exist, so I hope its ok with you if I disagree.

Lenny

Lenny,

Just curious. You cite sources. Care to divulge who they are?

By that I mean, where can I see the data from these sources?

I am just a bit curious. You sent a message recently to the Scan Hi-End group, Where's that Comparison" asking for comparison data on the Epson V750 and a 4500 drum scanner. Frankly, if you are that curious why not just do the tests yourself? Really not that difficult you know! In fact, given the considerable authority with which you speak on this subject I would have thought you would have already made the tests yourself rather than be looking around for 3rd party validation of your opinions?

Sandy King

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger

Van,
With all due respect, I don't think you are correct. Obviously, our sources tell us different info. I had a 4500 and it was amazing with large format negs. I had a chance to look at a number of scans from the Cezanne and they weren't as good as I had expected (and did not compare to my 4500 scans or the same size film). There is the issue of optical resolution and there is also the business of a PMT and its abilities vs a CCD. I also don't believe its more convenient. I don't think we are going to solve this without a high level of independent testing, which doesn't exist, so I hope its ok with you if I disagree.

Lenny

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sanking

Lenny,
I am just a bit curious. You sent a message recently to the Scan Hi-End group, Where's that Comparison" asking for comparison data on the Epson V750 and a 4500 drum scanner. Frankly, if you are that curious why not just do the tests yourself? Really not that difficult you know! In fact, given the considerable authority with which you speak on this subject I would have thought you would have already made the tests yourself rather than be looking around for 3rd party validation of your opinions?

Sandy King

---

I posted a comparison of the 4500 and a 750 just recently. I have made these tests myself, I've used both of these scanners. I test all the time, but my focus is not to test the usability of scanners. After my round of testing I settled on one that I like... I am also more interested in getting my software, film and b&w inksets to do what I want. That doesn't mean that I will write it up in an article for publication. Like many others I have a tough time with this economy, and have to focus on work, rather than testing.

I am certainly open to being wrong about anything, I welcome it. However, I am careful to state something only what I am confident I "know" vs "suspect" (unless its clearly identified that way) as people will spend money based on what gets said here. People get to gauge my level of experience, and every one that's participating in a discussion, and make up their minds for themselves.

I am sorry if what I have concluded after my experiences with these tools is different than yours. You also speak with authority and I have nothing but respect for your life-long experience. I see no reason to question your motives, or your personal integrity. I think you should extend me the same courtesy.

Lenny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van Camper

...A Howtek4500 is a great choice if you don't mind a mounting station and 1 hr scans....

---

Van, I have used a 4500 for years, not sure I've ever had a scan take an hour... maybe the rare huge piece of film at full res? So, what does this refer as a characterization of 4500 general behavior? I realize other models may be faster, but...
Tyler

You appear to have a real raw nerve. I am not aware of saying anything that questions your personal integrity, or motives for that matter. I do respect your knowledge, in general, but when you make claims comparing one scanner to another I expect some evidence, not just affirmations.

Saying that does not mean that I question either your motives or integrity. What I question is the validity and professionalism of some of your advice. I also find that you make a lot of statements that are not based on your own testing, which was the reason for the past message. For example, have you ever compared a Howtek 4500 or 6500 to an EverSmart Supreme or to an IQSmart3 scanner? My understanding is that you have not, yet in message on another thread I saw that you referred to the EverSmart Supreme as a "mediocre" scanner. I am interested to know if that opinion is based on your own personal comparison of the Howteks with the EverSmart Supreme, or if it comes from another source. That is a simple question, not a statement that should question your integrity.

I make no attempt to speak with authority on these matters. However, whenever I have offered information comparing one scanner to another the information has been offered as a result of my own personal testing, or of testing that I have carried out in collaboration with someone else. For example, on the Hybrid forum earlier this year I posted some files that compared scans of the same color negative made with a Howtek 4500, 6500 and an EverSmart Pro. I offered an opinion, but the reference data is there for others to see and evaluate for themselves.



Sandy King

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger

I am sorry if what I have concluded after my experiences with these tools is different than yours. You also speak with authority and I have nothing but respect for your life-long experience. I see no reason to question your motives, or your personal integrity. I think you should extend me the same courtesy.

Lenny

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sanking

For example, have you ever compared a Howtek 4500 or 6500 to an EverSmart Supreme or to an IQSmart3 scanner? My understanding is that you have not, yet in message on another thread I saw that you referred to the EverSmart Supreme as a "mediocre" scanner. I am interested to know if that opinion is based on your own personal comparison of the Howteks with the EverSmart Supreme, or if it comes from another source. That is a simple question, not a statement that should question your integrity.
Sandy King

---

Sorry if I misunderstood you. I was just down at Aztek last month and had some conversations about the Eversmart Series of Scanners. They tested them, and had some very specific issues with them, but I won't quote them because I haven't. I trust their assessment because they are friends of mine... but they aren't my results, as you say.

My assessment comes from 2 particular items. One is analysis of the capacity of the Cezanne, which was quite lacking in comparison to a drum, and 2) my understanding of the differences between CCD's and PMT's in general (which I think is considerable). I understand that the Cezanne is not a Supreme. I look forward to someone coming over with a Supreme scan. It occurred to me yesterday that I have a colleague who has one locally and when I get some time I will go over there... and do a scan I hope this sets the record straight.

Lenny