What scanner? Advise please

[jb7]

Well said DJ,
I did write a reply, but I had to delete it-
so as not to add fuel to the flames-

It was far less balanced and reasoned than your carefully weighted response...

[Joanna Carter]

Well said DJ,
I did write a reply, but I had to delete it-
so as not to add fuel to the flames-

It was far less balanced and reasoned than your carefully weighted response...

Indeed, thank you DJ, and thank you Joseph for your restraint

[uraniumnitrate]

well Joanna as I stated before i have seen the same neg scanned form different scanners and printed on a very expencive "state of art printer" they call it (not Ilford's) compared with an original optical print but its obvious that you havent. Now he states that the resolutions of the drum is outsihne any other scanners and its gets worst when using photoshop. And he talks about that very special image where it still shows. He never tryed negatives only slide and he is not working with 8x10 either

Anyway when making a negative that I need (not final print as that one done here opticaly) a very high resolution not to loosing much (which i havent untill using Kodak duplicate film) which shows well when using a different type of scanner. But the guy is not stupid he brought the drum for a reason. Now the problem is not with the scanner its the other end the printers and the photshop which brings down the quality. you cant beat the optical print there is no way!

The reason why i put this one up its because its well writen and discribes the situation of the investment you got to make and how little you achive compared to an optical print. The 70-80% is about covering the time pressed commercial photographers not artists.

So whats wrong about Ilfochrome? The old Ciba process? Do you know what that is?

[Joanna Carter]

Now he states that the resolutions of the drum is outsihne any other scanners and its gets worst when using photoshop. And he talks about that very special image where it still shows. He never tryed negatives only slide and he is not working with 8x10 either

As DJ states, this was written at a time when flatbed technology was nowhere near as good as it is today.

Now the problem is not with the scanner its the other end the printers and the photshop which brings down the quality. you cant beat the optical print there is no way!

I am a member of Lancashire Monochrome (a club that specialises in B&W photography and where we are more interested in helping each other than taking part in competitions) where we have members who produce prints both in the darkroom and digitally; we even have one member who was a master darkroom printer. The concensus of opinion amongst our members is that there are good darkroom prints and there are not so good darkroom prints; there are good digital prints and there are not so good digital prints.

The reason why i put this one up its because its well writen and discribes the situation of the investment you got to make and how little you achive compared to an optical print. The 70-80% is about covering the time pressed commercial photographers not artists.

Which is where I would agree with DJ that you are simply being elitist, which is not part of the raison d'être of this forum.

So whats wrong about Ilfochrome? The old Ciba process? Do you know what that is?

I am well acquainted with such processes and have had large prints produced on Fuji Crystal Archive, using a Lambda printer, from an Epson 4870 scanner - they were simply stunning and received critical acclaim from the press reviews of my exhibiiton.

[uraniumnitrate]

The concensus of opinion amongst our members is that there are good darkroom prints and there are not so good darkroom prints; there are good digital prints and there are not so good digital prints.

yes I can fully agree with that.

[DJ]

Anyway when making a negative that I need (not final print as that one done here opticaly) a very high resolution not to loosing much (which i havent untill using Kodak duplicate film) which shows well when using a different type of scanner. But the guy is not stupid he brought the drum for a reason.

He bought the drum scanner because :

a) he wanted the very best equipment, and was prepared to accept the trade-offs of using that equipment
b) he could justify the significant cost involved

Because this method is technically superior does not mean that it is appropriate to all circumstances, that any other method is invalid, or that everyone must or can make those same justifications.

Now the problem is not with the scanner its the other end the printers and the photshop which brings down the quality. you cant beat the optical print there is no way!

I would question the validity of that statement. Many big names in the industry who were master darkroom printers for many decades, have openly stated that an inkjet print can exceed anything created in the darkroom, including Ciba/Ilfrachrome. Inkjets can now exceed the DMAX of a chemical print, even alternative processes, inkjets have greater longevity, and (arguably) higher resolution, they are also repeatable. Then there's Lightjet technology as well.

Look at the work of Clyde Butcher, who is known as the "Ansel Adams of the Everglades", was a friend of Ansel Adams and is a master darkroom worker, one of the best in the world. He shoots large format B&W, he prints both digitally and with the darkroom. He embraced digital printing many years ago, and the majority of his prints ( which sell for high prices! ) are digital, inkjets no less.

One could argue that as chemical print technology has remained unchanged for decades, but digital printing technology is evolving year on year, perhaps your knowledge of digital printing is out of date?

So whats wrong about Ilfochrome? The old Ciba process? Do you know what that is?

Yes, but frankly, it can't compare to a good digital print. I have a limited edition Cibachrome by a very well known landscape photographer on my living room wall, created by professional printers who do nothing but printing, it is a beautiful print. I also have a print on the opposite wall, made from a scanned 4x5 transparency and printed digitally with a Chromira LED lightjjet style printer onto Fufi-flex Pearl. Leaving aside artistic merits, the digital print is the better of the two.

[timparkin]

... and the photshop which brings down the quality.

Your statement that Photoshop brings down the quality shows what little you know about digital.

Tim

[gary mulder]

I personally won't mind if this thread is closed. I think all points have been made.

[Joanna Carter]

I personally won't mind if this thread is closed. I think all points have been made.

Good Idea; I have now locked the topic.