As mentioned in my other post, just got back my first batch of colour negs and are wondering now how to look at them. My options seem to be;

Drum Scan for 20x16 (80 meg file) $50 each
Imacon Scan raw 80meg scan $15 each
Imacon Scan raw 400meg $50 each

I dont understand why all these places talk in file sizes. Now one thing with drum scanners is I asked what the dpi was and he said 300.... I cant see how a drum scanner can be 300dpi.. they must be confused with the output dpi or something.

So please, what do I do? What is a economical option for this? Seems like getting a good scan done can cost almost as much as getting a analog print done!

Thanks in advance, Im so glad Ive started doing large format.

Daniel.

One more thing. Someone who does LF in my local camera shop says he uses an old Sharp JX 610 scanner since these dont use cold lights like all scanners do now days... and so can punch through really dense negatives.

Can you still buy scanners which arnt cold cathode?

What is your need for a scan? To make a print? Or just view it on screen?

If you just want to view it on screen grab a chep digi camera and your light box and photograph it on the lightbox. Viola. Your proof to view...

If you are going to make a print from scan the 300MB file. But again it depends on the size you want to print.

Check out the new Epson Flatbed Scanners with built in transparency units. Unless you are going to make huge enlargements from your transparencies, one of these new scanners would be a very good thing to own.

Even better, if you can find one (and don't mind the fact that it's a little slow), you might look around for an Agfa Arcus 1200 (used only). These are relatively older scanners, but have a glassless carrier that replaces the paper scanning glass, and will scan 35 mm strips, 2x2 slides (several at a time), 6x6, 6x7, or 6x9 on 120 (single frames, but two openings), and 4x5 (single negative), as well as larger transparencies up to 8x10 on the glass with a mask. I also scan 9x12 cm and Minolta 16 film with adapters I have fabricated to fit the 4x5 opening. Optical/mechanical resolution is 1200x2400 ppi, though I find the interpolation invisible when scanning at 2400x2400 -- which produces a file of more than 90 megapixels from 4x5. The scanner is supported by Vuescan and can also (with appropriate software) scan at 14 bits per channel (which the software upgrades to 16 bits per channel); I find the densest B&W negatives (35 mm Tri-X shot at EI 400 and accidentally processed in Diafine, for instance) appear grainy and are hard to scan well, but I suspect they would be hard to print well too. Focus with the glassless carrier appears to be perfect -- I get scans that are single-pixel sharp if the negative is that good.

Mine, including shipping (for the relatively heavy scanner unit) and a SCSI card and cable to connect it to the PCI bus in my computer, cost me a whopping $150.

As mentioned in my other post, just got back my first batch of colour negs and are wondering now how to look at them. My options seem to be;
Drum Scan for 20x16 (80 meg file) $50 each
Imacon Scan raw 80meg scan $15 each
Imacon Scan raw 400meg $50 each

If I understand you correctly, someone wants to charge you the prices listed above to scan one negative ???? It seems a bit steep given that a new scanner that will do 4x5 is $500-600 and a good used one can be had for 1/2 that.

cheers

This should have been posted in the "gray" sub forum. Hopefully it can be moved so as not to polute APUG.

The drum scanner probably scans at 4000dpi or greater, but that would create a huge file for 4x5. So the lab is giving you a 16x20 image with the dpi set to 300. This is the same as scanning at about (1200 dpi on the scanner). They talk in file sizes because that measurement generally directly relates to their time (expense). My drum scanner takes about an hour to finish a 4x5 slide at 4000dpi. The file is huge, probably bigger than most computers can open. I am sure the prices for the others are based on the same logic. The drum is more expensive than the Imacon because there is time in mounting the film, plus the cost of mounting fluid and an overlay sheet of mylar. From the tests I have seen it may be worth the expense if you are printing large.

A flatbed can do an OK job depending on what you want the scan for. i was never totally happy with the Epson scanners, even with 4x5 film. Their dmax is not that high (not a problem for negatives), and the resolution appears to be lacking even at 1800dpi. I confirmed this after buying the drum. Even scanning at 4800dpi on the Epson and downsizing to 1800dpi the drum at 1800 is still sharper and resolves more detail. No scanner sharpening was used for the tests. So if you plan on having exhibition prints made I would spring for the drum scans. If they are just for the web a used Epson 2450 will be fine.

Of course if you just want a good print made the analog route would be the first I would consider given you are starting from a negative.

L Gebhardt
Is right on the money on all counts.

Some of the Microtek scanners have a higher dmax. You can also scan for higher shadow detail or highlight detail and overlay the images in PS.

If you have PS_CS then read about "CTRL ~" which overlays the top 5% highlight areas from your darker scan and allows you to create a gradient mask for the highlights. It may reduce shadows somewhat so you can erase the areas you do not want affected.

I have a flatbed scanner - AGFA Duoscan T1200 - which scans up to 8x10" film. I have used it a lot, and been quite satisfied with the results.
Then I got an offer of a free scan on an Imacon 848... Sent off a 5x7" transparency I had scanned earlier myself.

I was blown away at the difference. Fortunately (for me) the Imacon costs more than a new car, so there is no tempation to buy one!

Going back to the question of your intent, a 'consumer' flatbed scanner in the price range of 500 USD to 2000 USD will give you all the output you need if you are scanning a 4x5 or larger negative for an eventual print that will be 8x10 or 11x14 or even 16x20 (depending). Once you crop the original or need a larger print then you will need to go beyond the capabilities of these scanners and send your work out to a lab to be scanned.

One mor ething, beware of the claims of consumer scanners regarding both resolution and Dmax. Figure they deliver around 2/3 the advertised resolution and around 60% of the advertised Dmax. Imacon and drum scanner claims are less inflated but still not necessarily what they claim.

One more thing, beware of the claims of consumer scanners regarding both resolution and Dmax. Figure they deliver around 2/3 the advertised resolution and around 60% of the advertised Dmax. Imacon and drum scanner claims are less inflated but still not necessarily what they claim.


Also very true. I would add that sharpenss of scanners which do not scan through glass and especially those that control the flateness of the scan (such as the imacon and drums) are generally very noticiably sharper.

For personal use (not museum or commercial quality results) I've been using a Canon 9950F flatbed scanner with pretty good results. All the images in my gallery were scanned using that scanner. The latest one, Big Sur Stream, was a reflective scan of an 8x10 Cibachrome print. The others were scans of negatives or positives.

This latest Canon scanner is cheap (well, compared to an Imacon - I got mine for <$300) and does very well with large format negatives. It does shoot through glass, and I do occasionally get newton rings. Generally when that happens I scan again and the problem goes away. It was designed as a photo scanner, and includes holders for 35mm roll film, 2.25 roll film, 4x5 sheet, mounted 35mm slides, and individual 2.25 (6 x arbitrary) images.

I've also been happy with its 35mm scans. Better than I expected. My photo, Yin and Yang, was from a 35mm Velvia slide.

Generally, you won't need to scan a 4x5 above 1200 dpi, though the Canon will scan it at 4000 dpi. But that file size is not useful for anything other than billboard sized prints. For viewing on the screen, you can scan at much much lower resolutions.

The provided software with the Canon is not the greatest. I use VueScan, which is a much more functional scanning solution that you can download (there is a free trial version, which watermarks the scans. You have to pay for the full version, but it isn't very expensive).

The provided software for the Canon is very useful for quick scans for creating proof sheets, working with snapshot quality material, and for handling your non-photo related scanning (general document copying, etc.)

Sorry if this has turned into a Canon review. But for the price of just a few drum scans, you can own one and get a lot of day-to-day mileage. Once you find an image that is worth an expensive drum scan, you can always take that one slide to the professional scanner. (Or just slip it into your trusty enlarger and make a REAL print! :-)

-chuck

Oh, I should mention one more very important part of the equation if you are going to do your own scanning: color management.

This is a substantial discussion, and I won't try to cover it all here. There is plenty of info on the web about it.

But you must profile (color manage) your monitor and scanner if you want to scan photos. Ideally, you will also profile your printer, though this is not nearly as important as the monitor and scanner.

You need to purchase software to do this. Packages will include a device that is placed over the monitor to read the light coming from the screen. The software will walk you through making adjustments until the monitor is set properly. Then a software file will be created to tell image editing programs (like photoshop) how to tweak the pixels of the image so that it looks correct on your monitor.

For the scanner, you will be provided a variety of scan targets (slides on various films, like Velvia, Provia, etc.) which are scanned on your scanner and then compared by the software to the values that should have been produced. The software will then create a data file that tells your system how to tweak scan results automatically to have the correct color.

I highly recommend Profile Mechanic from Digital Light and Color (www.dl-c.com). I have no connection with them other than as a user of their product.

Of course, I also highly recommend a darkroom and an enlarger to get the most enjoyment out of photography!

-chuck

Some (myself included) would not put much emphasis on profiling your scanner (calibrating and assuring focus -- yes), but monitor calibration is a must.

I'd be happy to send a pdf of some tests I've done comparing the Epson 4870, Nikon 8000 and TANGO from a tight crop on a 35mm Velvia chrome. In fact, I am printing the files at the moment for my class this weekend. Shoot me an email if you're interested.

Thanks all, seems like a cheap scanner for proofing is the go, with analog prints for the keepers. Im joining a camera club which has some LF members and a darkroom. Maybe theyll do color too. For some reason I always thought color enlarging was really hard and never thought to do it myself.

One last question, Im not sure I understand the rules correctly for posting, since this post was moved to the "gray forum" ?? I didn't mean to polute apug.. is basically anything digital not to be discussed in any of the forums here?

Are there any other large format forums one can recommend?

daniel.

For some reason I always thought color enlarging was really hard and never thought to do it myself.

Your post today prompted me to try color printing from negatives (I have done Ilfochrome before) tonight. I had shot some Kodak 100UC last summer and never had the negs printed because I thought it would be very difficult. I used the Kodak Supra Endura at the box filtration and the prints came out perfectly color balanced. I was amazed. I will try dodging and burning and try to make a final print soon. So no, it isn't as hard as we all make it out to be before we try it.


One last question, Im not sure I understand the rules correctly for posting, since this post was moved to the "gray forum" ?? I didn't mean to polute apug.. is basically anything digital not to be discussed in any of the forums here?

Are there any other large format forums one can recommend?

daniel.

Sorry if I was a bit brisk earlier. Many people here get upset reading anything about digital, including scanning. I think there is a page that describes the rules. But, it is safe to post this sort of question to this gray area subforum. You can ask to be subscribed and you will see all the posts here in the new posts list. There is dedicated large format forum at http://www.largeformatphotography.info/ which is very good. There are lots of threads over there on scanning, inkjet printing as well as largeformat cameras.

Even though I am interested in, and use digital methods quite a bit, I fully support the digital ban for APUG. I don't think any of us want this to turn into a place like photo.net:p