|
|
|
-
about scanning my transparencies
hey all,
Im posting this question in the grey area since it has to do with scanning transparencies and making inkjet prints from the scans...
here goes...
I would like to make prints from my color transparencies, I shoot medium format 99% of the time and 4 x 5 the remaining. I'd like to make prints that are of sufficient quality to sell and display. Print sizes would be no larger than 11 x 17. I currently own an inkjet capable of outputting this size, however scanning the film is the problem...I know drum scans are the way to go, but researching prices on drum scans, I realized that with the amount of film I already wish to scan for printing, and the amount I will have in the future...I could purchase a nikon coolscan 9000 for the price of what roughly 25 drum scans would cost...(like I said, I have at least that many transparencies I would like to get good scans of) Would the coolscan 9000 be sufficient? or am I looking at this with all wrong?
at this moment, I have several businesses as well as two galleries here in my area that would like to hang my work, so this isn't just a toy for me to play with.
any thoughts or suggestions, or even a smack on the head to wake me up if im thinking aout this wrong would be greatly appreciated.
mike
-
 Originally Posted by michaelsalomon
hey all,
Im posting this question in the grey area since it has to do with scanning transparencies and making inkjet prints from the scans...
here goes...
I would like to make prints from my color transparencies, I shoot medium format 99% of the time and 4 x 5 the remaining. I'd like to make prints that are of sufficient quality to sell and display. Print sizes would be no larger than 11 x 17. I currently own an inkjet capable of outputting this size, however scanning the film is the problem...I know drum scans are the way to go, but researching prices on drum scans, I realized that with the amount of film I already wish to scan for printing, and the amount I will have in the future...I could purchase a nikon coolscan 9000 for the price of what roughly 25 drum scans would cost...(like I said, I have at least that many transparencies I would like to get good scans of) Would the coolscan 9000 be sufficient? or am I looking at this with all wrong?
at this moment, I have several businesses as well as two galleries here in my area that would like to hang my work, so this isn't just a toy for me to play with.
any thoughts or suggestions, or even a smack on the head to wake me up if im thinking aout this wrong would be greatly appreciated.
mike
Mike,
Since you are asking your questions in the context of making inkjet prints I would mention that your question could best be answered on photo.net or some other similar photography forum that caters to color inkjet printing. The grey area is for discussions that relate to making wet process prints using digital negatives.
I think you will get much better answers else where.
Don
-
Mike,
The Coolscan 9000 is ideal for the application you are talking about. It can't do your 5x4s, but you can always send them out for scanning if needed.
Cheers,
-
You could probably get away with the Epson Perfection 3200 and up PHOTO flatbed scanners. They will do up to 4x5 and I think the newest generation will do bigger. You do need to take care you don't get fringes if you scan the neg directly on the glass, emulsion side down then flip in PS to get best results there. The big negs can bow a bit in the holders supplied.
-
Originally Posted by donbga
Mike,
Since you are asking your questions in the context of making inkjet prints I would mention that your question could best be answered on photo.net or some other similar photography forum that caters to color inkjet printing. The grey area is for discussions that relate to making wet process prints using digital negatives.
I think you will get much better answers else where.
Don
Don, you are incorrect. The usage example guidelines for this forum read:
"Some examples would be creating digital negatives for contact printing on photographic paper, or scanning film then outputting that scan to a digital print."
Mike - if you are considering a Nikon 9000, you should probably look at a used or refurbished Imacon 343. It will be a bit more expensive but the results are superior and the software is excellent. It won't do 4x5 though. You'd have to step up to the next level which is beaucoup $$. I tried an Epson 3200 for a year and it was OK for the web and work prints but not good enough for exhibition.
Regards,
Thomas
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
Thomas,
Originally Posted by thomas_m
Don, you are incorrect. The usage example guidelines for this forum read:
"Some examples would be creating digital negatives for contact printing on photographic paper, or scanning film then outputting that scan to a digital print."
Read carefully, "...outputting that scan to a digital print.". A digital print is not meant to be interpreted as an ink jet print. Rather it means a print made from conventional photographic materials exposed with a digitized or rasterized light source.
So inkjet prints are not what is included.
Don Bryant
-
The only person with the correct interpretation of the rules is Sean. Anyway...
Mike, check out this site for a comparison of scanners. You'd be surprised that the latest generation of flatbeds are pretty good. The Epson 4990 PRO in particular is getting pretty good reviews.
http://largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/
Regards, Art.
|
|
Adv Reply
