Should I Drum Scan, X1 Flextight Scan, or use the Epson V850 w/Aztek Wet Mount Kit?

[Sasquatchian]

The best color negative inversions I've ever seen are and continue to be with Trident, the native software from ColorByte for the Howtek, but, of course, you need a Howtek scanner to be able to take advantage of that. And then, you have to include the ability to match the aperture to film grain which is simply not possible in anything but a real drum scanner, and in that aspect, not all drum scanners are created equal either. You have to look to see what the actual stops are and how many there are, and it doesn't help that some companies label them like #1, #2, etc rather than their actual size in microns. But you only discover these things by actually using the scanners and their related software. And, of course, the other big negative is that Colorbyte, despite my urging when I was beta testing for them, stopped development in the late 90's and it continues to run beautifully, but on Mac OS 9 only.

[interneg]

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words.

Well, here's one from a Hasselblad X5 and HP5+ at (top to bottom) 3000ppi, 2040ppi and 1500ppi. They are all 100% crops of native resolution settings of the scanner. No sharpening, no downsampling. And to make it very clear, downsampling 3000ppi to 1500ppi looks quite different from scanning at 1500ppi in terms of the appearance of the granularity. They demonstrate the threshold for what I would like to see in terms of the reproduction of the original negative's granularity - not perfect compared to an actual enlarger print, but more than convincing.

I'd be interested to see how well the pixel-shift cameras do in comparison. I'm hopeful they'll at least equal the 2040, and I'd be overjoyed if they can equal or outperform the 3000ppi with a 4x5 negative. If anyone wants to throw a drum scan with adjusted aperture in, feel free.

On the other hand, this is what Mr Casals believes 2300ppi from an Epson V7xx scanning HP5+ should look like. I also note that he hasn't uploaded the scan of a copy of a USAF-1951 target he claims to have made on a Hasselblad/ Imacon.

If you're happy with the Epson, brilliant - most people quickly manage to accept that it does have quite severe limitations concurrent with its price and limited technology compared to CMOS pixel shifted scans or high end CCD & PMT scanners and move on to get on with actually making work.

[Sasquatchian]

In my twenty-five odd years of scanning and a few added on top of that when I supervised the commercially made drum scans at prepress houses in L.A. I found through practical experience that if you make incremental steps in your scanning hardware and your personal scanning ability, you'll end up scanning the same images over and over and over again each time you get a better scanner. When I hear people make outlandish claims about really cheap scanners like the Epsons - and they really are cheap at roughly a grand, it just makes me laugh a little, or perhaps cry instead. When I started researching higher end scanners in '97-'98 ish, I really didn't know enough to make an informed decision, but Imacon was nice enough to drop off one of theirs for a few weeks while I had a Howtek 4500 on loan for review. I didn't know until much later about the inflated claims for some of the other brands of drums or about the finer points of scanner apertures or the differences in their software. Probably through serendipity I ended buying the Howtek and then another one (the 8000) a few years later. I always heard "people" talk down about the Howteks and how crappy they were, but it turns out it was they who didn't know how to use theirs to the ability of the hardware. The real point here is that some of you might be happy with an Epson - for now - but as soon as your experience increases or your needs increase or your appreciation of what really makes a great scan comes into focus, you'll be pissed off at all the time you wasted on cheap, crappy hardware. But if you think you'll settle for mediocrity for quite a while, then you'll be happy with Epsons and others like it. Personally, I don't like to have to make excuses for the quality - or lack of - in my equipment or spend my life trying to convince people that it's something it's not - if you catch my drift.

[Pere Casals]

On the other hand, this is what Mr Casals believes 2300ppi from an Epson V7xx scanning HP5+ should look like.

Mr Lachlan Young, LOL... My god....

The image you link is ultra fine grain Delta 100 in a fine grain Xtol developer https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592...5/34949184821/ (see description!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Look, how you compare that granularity to HP5+, boy?

In the other hand it's seen from a mile far that is not HP5+ but tabloid (Epitaxial) fine grain. Aren't you able to see it? What kind of film photographer are you, Lachlan?


You have yet an address to send me a negative, send it and we'll do a fair side by side.


This is the truth about the X5 resolving power for LF: https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1554205

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1554278

When I hear people make outlandish claims about really cheap scanners like the Epsons - and they really are cheap at roughly a grand,

I'm not really inclined to spend a grand right now to see how Epson's scanners have improved since I last owned own a quarter century ago but I might have to just to see. What I think might be happening is that our friend here has never actually seen anything better...

Half a grand, in fact. (https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1553653)

You admited you have not seen an Epson in the last 25 years, so you speak about pre 1995 Epsons, not post 2006 when the V700 was released, so you have quite a flawed criterion.

[Jim Andrada]

@ Sasquatchian

Well said. It's exactly how I arrived at using the Creo instead of the Epson. I thought about a drum scanner and spent some time with Lenny in California and I finally concluded that while I was unsatisfied with the Epson, the drum workflow wasn't something I felt I wanted to get involved with. My conclusion after using the Creo for several years is that it's definitely a real scanner and not a toy, albeit maybe not quite up to what a drum scanner can do.

Having said all that, the Epson is certainly better than nothing. I have images that I originally scanned with the Epson and later re-scanned with the IQsmart 2 and I think I made rather nice prints from each one - but it was easier with the output of the IQsmart. So while I get (and agree with) your points, I don't know that I'd go so far as to label the Epson as "Crap" - I think I'd just sum it up as representing one end of a price performance spectrum where "price" includes time and effort as well as $$$. Drums and high-end flatbeds are pricey and bulky and are definitely not for everyone. Having the Epson as an option is really valuable in so far as keeping LF within reach of a lot of people so I'm really glad it's around. I just wish Individual "X" weren't quite so vocal about how it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[interneg]

Having the Epson as an option is really valuable in so far as keeping LF within reach of lot of people so I'm really glad it's around. I just wish Individual "X" weren't quite so vocal about how it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

That's about the sum of it.

[interneg]

Pere, it matters relatively little what you used for the negative for that scan, at that resolution it should have some visible, clean, crisp granularity, not whatever odd, soft, aliased horrors are floating around in the sky area. If you'd kept it and your claims to 1200ppi to perhaps a little bit more ppi of useful resolution from the Epson, you'd discover that most people would probably agree. If I was feeling a little more charitable than your usual mode of belligerent condescending nonsense is making me, I'd prepare some samples of Delta 100 and Acros at 2040 and 3000ppi. But I think such things will have to wait until after you bother to post your mythical scan of a USAF-1951 copy from an Imacon.

[sanking]

Jim has expressed my opinion almost to a word.

One more thought. Don't feed the trolls.

“So long as an opinion is strongly rooted in the feelings, it gains rather than loses in stability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it.”

― John Stuart Mill, The Subjection of Women


Sandy

[Chester McCheeserton]

The best color negative inversions I've ever seen are and continue to be with Trident, the native software from ColorByte for the Howtek, but, of course, you need a Howtek scanner to be able to take advantage of that. .

just curious have you tried aztek DPL? or does it not work with your howtek?

I don't like working with PCs and I never used the Trident software but for me the Aztek DPL software, despite its numerous quirks is the absolute best for scanning color negative film.

[Sasquatchian]

Chester - Yes, I've used DPL. I actually bought it and paid Aztek $800 for a day of "training" if that's what you want to call it. I used it every day all day for thirty days and gave it back. It was inferior in every way then (may be better now, I don't know) and it was not color managed in any way shape or form. Well, yes, it did have the controls for color management but they literally did not do anything. What they did was just copy the interface from Photoshop and there was no functionality. So, yes, all you need is a PC computer to run the software. The scanners, Howtek and Aztek are identical except for some improvements that Aztek made - like a military grade drum bearing and a hand aligned optical path, both of which they did to my scanner. Aztek was also using an alternate brand of PMT so the Buhle's that were OEM from Howtek. It's unfortunate that Colorbyte stopped Trident so long ago. They told me that it would cost them too much in development time to write the SCSI tables for OSX and there was no existing database of Howtek users worldwide to have at their disposal to market to. I think they told me there were approximately 4000 scanner produced over the years.