What scanner? Advise please

[uraniumnitrate]

to Joanna

Its not that easy beleive me, you people know that i'm not a native so please read between the lines and I never mean to be rude at all but I do like a good discussion.

Occasionaly yes because I work a lot and dont have that spare time like others. Sorry about that. Now it's Crhistmas and it's rather boring here.

My luck of experience in digital doesn't mean that I'm blind and going around with my eyes closed. Got many friends all of them in the digital nowadays and see a lot and learned a lot. i just dont fancy to sitt in the front of the monitor for hours rather being out with my cameras and have fun.

So what kind of printers you people using private, lets see if those are the same as they are using over here or equalent to those. Just to could compare.

[gary mulder]

It was not my intend to get into a digital - analog war. I only shared my experience and try to support Large Format. Now I accept that it was a result of my incompetence, but it felt like degrading LF to MF with the 700 scans. Nowadays when I need to go digital I rent time on a imacon ore drumscanner. The later can easily outperform a optical enlarger. But that way it is rather expensive even with self operating the scanner and drum mounting. For me it is more economical to use a darkroom.
Yes digital rocks, nowadays on the foundation of LF . I hope it allows some color film to stay alive. And not only BW.

[uraniumnitrate]

I rent time on a imacon ore drumscanner. The later can easily outperform a optical enlarger.

Thats correct Gari but than you must have a very expencive printer to outperform the well made optical print. or leave it to Ilford which would charge you a lot again.
Anyway i don't know why I bother as I'm very much into alternative processes and as long as i'm getting invitations to exhibit or get published in international magazines than i shouldn't bother at all. The next one is going to be held In Namibia.
And the latest publishing you can see here
http://www.fotosidan.se/member/portfoli ... ?ID=112917

Also you can see one color pic of me with my camera printed on that so called archival quality which is post to be hold for a 135 years? Its a famous brand and its look like this after 4 years of my indenpendent testing. Observe that i'm not financed by any company.

[scovell001]

Lets get this topic back on track a little:

'm looking for a middle of the range scanner to scan 5x4, 5x7 and possibly 10x8 b+w negs, colour negs and trannies. I would prefer second hand so if one appears on fleabay (or anyone on here has an unwanted one) please point me in the right direction.

The answer to this question (as has already been stated) is the Epson v700/V750 or, the Epson 4990 (which is actually better than the v700/v750). For making quick & dirty (well perhaps not that quick!!) scans for posting on the web, or printing up to A3 this is an acceptable scanner.

Whilst these machines offer extremely good value for money, for anything over and above they have some extremely severe shortfall's. As illustrated on Tim Parkin's website. But, what did you expect for the money?

I note that Joanna state's

When sending a file to Ilford, I have to have spent many hours, or sometimes days, preparing the image to the standards that I know Ilford need to simply take the file and output it to their printer. But the skill doesn't end there;

. With the Epson scanner's, I'm not surprised one is spending many hours/days to get a file up to scratch (photokit sharpener's -digital scanning back - super hires sharpen helps!). However, thanks to the Oce 5000 lightjet's internal scaling, it is doing a lot to help these kind of files.

Joanna, if you'd like to send me a 5x4 tran sometime, I'll happily scan it for you as a sample.

Uraniumnitrate, I can, (in round about terms) see where your coming from. I've seen b&w darkroom prints that have much more of a 3 dimensional feel than a digitally produced print in any form. And its this very substance of quality that I'm currently working on. Prints on a Chromira using Fujiflex seem to be the best so far. It has to be said, from a time/money/ease & repeatability of results point of view, making prints in a darkroom has largely been left behind, its just not an economical way for photographers to spend their time. Especially those who are trying to make money from their work.

I think I speak for the majority of photographers when I say, 'I would rather be outside taking photographs than stuck in doors trying to make prints!'

[Joanna Carter]

I note that Joanna state's

When sending a file to Ilford, I have to have spent many hours, or sometimes days, preparing the image to the standards that I know Ilford need to simply take the file and output it to their printer. But the skill doesn't end there;

With the Epson scanner's, I'm not surprised one is spending many hours/days to get a file up to scratch (photokit sharpener's -digital scanning back - super hires sharpen helps!). However, thanks to the Oce 5000 lightjet's internal scaling, it is doing a lot to help these kind of files.

Actually, I don't have to spend time working on an image because it has been scanned on a flatbed, I spend hours or days working on an image because I tend to be too perfectionist and, just as one of my good friends would sometimes make 27 exposures with an enlarger for one image, I too find it necessary to make many adjustment layers to optimise the negative to my sense of satisfaction. But, I will repeat, I do nothing other than would be expected working with an enlarger.

Sharpening is not a great issue with negs scanned using the Better Scanning mounting station; the image is sharp enough to only require minimal work in that respect.

Joanna, if you'd like to send me a 5x4 tran sometime, I'll happily scan it for you as a sample.

Thanks Ian but I've already had comparison scans done by Hasselblad and found them to be disappointing, not even as good as those I could get out of my V700, with which I am more than happy to print at up to 40" x 32".

I think I speak for the majority of photographers when I say, 'I would rather be outside taking photographs than stuck in doors trying to make prints!'

I think we would all like to have more time to take pictures but, whether it be in the darkroom or at the computer, without such time all those pictures would never reach their intended audience

[Joanna Carter]

Anyway i don't know why I bother as I'm very much into alternative processes and as long as i'm getting invitations to exhibit or get published in international magazines than i shouldn't bother at all.

If you are into alternative processes then you obviously don't have as much use for digital printing but, not everyone is interested in such processes, either that or, as with myself, I do not have the room or other resources to create a darkroom, thus I have learnt how to produce prints to a sufficiently high standard that, even darkroom workers, are happy to pay money for my prints.

And the latest publishing you can see here http://www.fotosidan.se/member/portfoli ... ?ID=112917

Sorry but all I get from that link is a login screen; my knowledge of whatever language the site is written in is not good enough to know how to circumvent that.

[uraniumnitrate]

its just not an economical way for photographers to spend their time. Especially those who are trying to make money from their work. I think I speak for the majority of photographers when I say, 'I would rather be outside taking photographs than stuck in doors trying to make prints!'

I agree as a majority of my friends working commercially doing broshures you know those which they put into your mailboxes to inform you about extra prices of rostbeef. Well fotunately i don't had to do that.

I agree on that one to as what I'm really doing is some 8x10 working copy on RC paper of my negs and the real printing begins when I decide that the print is that good so its worth it to show on exhibition. Usualy those working copies appires on the net.

[uraniumnitrate]

sorry but all I get from that link is a login screen; my knowledge of whatever language the site is written in is not good enough to know how to circumvent that.

Sorry Joanna I thought it works, it does when I klic on. It's stange very strange. Let me investigate this

[uraniumnitrate]

Please try this one tell me if its works or not. And the site is writen in Swedish.

http://www.fotosidan.se/gallery/view.htm?ID=112917

[DJ]

The answer to this question (as has already been stated) is the Epson v700/V750 or, the Epson 4990 (which is actually better than the v700/v750).

That's interesting, what drew you to that conclusion? I owned both a 4990 and a V750, yet I found the V series to be superior, not least because it has the dual lens system.

Also the supplied holders were leagues ahead on the V series, the ones supplied with the 4990 were awful ( and neither as good as the Better Scanning one. ).

[DJ]

Sharpening is not a great issue with negs scanned using the Better Scanning mounting station; the image is sharp enough to only require minimal work in that respect.

Sharpening done properly can enhance a print significantly, even when sourced from something as sharp as a drum scanner, which is as sharp as it gets.

Ian's suggestion of the Photokit Sharpening approach is a good one, they ( Bruce Frasier ) developed the three stage sharpening workflow. Input Sharpening, Creative Sharpening and Output Sharpening. I rarely ever use a Creative Sharpening stage, but I rarely ever make a print without Output Sharpening of some kind, and use Input Sharpening a good deal of the time. The Photokit Sharpener package has a preset for Large Format Film scans in their input sharpening which is very good, and both Inkjet and Continuous Tone presets on their Output Sharpening as well one for Screens and another for Offset Printing. It's good software, not too expensive and has a free 7 day trial. http://www.pixelgenius.com/sharpener/

Thanks Ian but I've already had comparison scans done by Hasselblad and found them to be disappointing, not even as good as those I could get out of my V700, with which I am more than happy to print at up to 40" x 32".

That's surprising, since the Hasselblad can out-perform the Epson I can only think the operator of the Hasselblad didn't give your scan the attention it deserved.

[uraniumnitrate]

If you are into alternative processes then you obviously don't have as much use for digital printing but, not everyone is interested in such processes, either that or, as with myself,

Yes I have much use of digital printing not to create images but many of my larger than 8x10 duplicate negs are made that way. Sice Kodak stoped manufacturing duplicate negs there is no other way for me to get big negs. Also I got to use the originals which I dont fancy to do, and than sizes only from 8x10 down to 4x5. It would be also impossible to do anything from my 6x24cm panorama negs

[uraniumnitrate]

So Dave, (to get back to the topic)

The conclusion you can draw from all this is that flatbed scanning is a joke and if you read this by all means the most professional way to describe todays situation you will understand it more than well

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... cans.shtml

Now if you can't lay your hands on a used cheap drum scanner than you should be after a Hasselblad as some people already stated its outperform the others and it will do I know that for sure as my friends used to have the Epson to.
Of course if you just use the scanner for commercial work its okay more than perfect but for art you should hire yourself a drum scanner and use a very good quality printer and even than you are not going to outperform a good quality optical print.

Now, I know that colorists and advanced amateurs who never been good or can't print are a most defenders of the digital system cause they want a piece of the cake and never bothered to do any printing before just leaved all to the lab. Some lazy photographers goes into this category as well.

Commercial photographers are different they got to earn a living and time is money. So they got no other choice. In their case the digital is okay as very often for a printing you only need some 300dpi. Here you hardly see a difference between a better cellphone ( now with Zeiss optics) and 8x10 neg.. so it's saving them money time and costs and not only for them but to their costumers to. it's a hard competition and reality out there.

But good luck to you in anyway your choice would be. Frankie..

[Joanna Carter]

The conclusion you can draw from all this is that flatbed scanning is a joke and if you read this by all means the most professional way to describe todays situation you will understand it more than well

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... cans.shtml

I'm sorry but your conclusion doesn't even agree with what Bill Glickman writes in the article that you link to…

What seems to be a good compromise for most people is as follows. Buy a low-end flatbed that fully meets the requirements of 70-80% of your scanning work. This will enable you to do a lot of your own work while saving money and controlling the entire process of scanning and printing. Then for the remainder of the work that requires more scanning horsepower to meet your requirements, outsource for drum scans for those special images.

Scanners like the Epson V700, and even the 4990, when combined with the Better Scanning mounting station, are very capable of satisfying the "70-80%" of prints that most people want to produce, whether they be to inkjet or lightjet printers. Above all, flatbed scanning is not a "joke" it is a very viable alternative for those of us who don't have the room/money for either a darkroom or a massive drum scanner of our own.

[DJ]

So Dave, (to get back to the topic)

Well this wasn't really the topic... the original poster requested advise on a "middle of the range scanner", so the advise has been pertinent to that request. Neither drum scanners nor Hasselblad can ( in any way, shape or form ) be construed as "middle of the range", they are high end scanners which require a significant investment of money and time to use properly.

The conclusion you can draw from all this is that flatbed scanning is a joke and if you read this by all means the most professional way to describe todays situation you will understand it more than well

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... cans.shtml

Now if you can't lay your hands on a used cheap drum scanner than you should be after a Hasselblad as some people already stated its outperform the others and it will do I know that for sure as my friends used to have the Epson to.

You're at risk of your comments being interpreted unfavourably again here...

To start with, the article you mention was written almost 10 years ago, and flatbed scanners have improved a great deal in that time, in particular since the launch of the V700/750 from Epson. It was I who suggested that the Hasselblad will outperform the Epson, and yet I would not recommend it to the OP as it is a significantly expensive option, more expensive in fact than a used drum scanner in some cases.

Neither would I recommend a drum scanner to the OP since they are troublesome, difficult to use and time-consuming. Yes the results best even the Imacon/Hasselblad scanners, but there are trade-offs. I know this as I own both the Epson V750 and a drum scanner.

Can drum scanners outperform Hasselblads? Yes. Can Hasselblads outperform flatbeds? Yes. Neither are relevant to this discussion.

Of course if you just use the scanner for commercial work its okay more than perfect but for art you should hire yourself a drum scanner and use a very good quality printer and even than you are not going to outperform a good quality optical print.

Now, I know that colorists and advanced amateurs who never been good or can't print are a most defenders of the digital system cause they want a piece of the cake and never bothered to do any printing before just leaved all to the lab. Some lazy photographers goes into this category as well.

You're on thin ice here Frankie, your comments are easily interpreted as "elitist" and I don't believe that's what this group is about. The UKLFP is open to all, professionals and amateurs alike as well as "artistes", we do not discriminate, we offer help, advise and friendly discussion to everyone, and to denigrate a workflow which is perhaps less exacting than your own as "a joke" will not be well received...

People have different needs, different styles, different goals, different tastes, different budgets, different abilities. All are valid. Some may be doing this for a living, some may be doing it to become recognised in their field, some may be doing it to "change the world" with their art, and some may be doing it just for fun. All are valid.

It is also worth pointing out that many high profile, highly respected photographers who have for many decades produced "optical" prints as you call them, have openly stated that the digital printing technology available today is capable of outperforming anything created in the traditional darkroom, even with the best equipment and materials. If you're going to dismiss them as "colorists and advanced amateurs who never been good or can't print" then I believe this may affect your credibility...