Digital BW, The Print

Hi Tyler-

Wish I could see the show- Let us know when it comes East!

I have yet to see a CCD scan that did not show significant noise in smooth
3/4 tones. As far as the quality of the light from drums vs. flatbeds, there
is a difference and different people can prefer different things. I have
noted various reasons why the OP might want a flatbed.

One other reason why they might want a drum is the significant advantage IMO
offered by Digital PhotoLab when scanning problematic negs, which given the
age  cited by the OP we can assume at least some are. I have a print I show
in my studio, of Chinese soldiers at the Longmen caves in China. The photo,
taken by my Grandfather in 1937, is a hand-held 4x5 taken inside the cave,
with only light coming from the cave entrance. Needless to say, some of the
negative is rather thin [G]. It is a beautiful image; the only problem is
that I didn't know from looking at the film that the soldiers on the edge of
the frame were even there! The negative looks completely blank. I even
printed it silver several years ago, and I still didn't know it was there.
It was only when I scanned it that I noticed something, and only when
scanned with DPL was I able to bring out the image. Before I bought DPL, I
was frankly a skeptic about the differences between it and other scanning
software. I have demonstrated over and over to myself its advantages, and
can confidently claim that I can achieve results with it possible with no
other scanner/software.

Of course, it's advantages are reduced when scanning perfectly exposed
studio film, needless to say.

Bill

PS Thanks to Mark and Tyler for re-emphasizing the importance of the scanner
operator!

On 7/12/07, Tyler Boley <tyler@...> wrote:
>
>   Bill, with all due respect to your knowledge and experience, I've come
> to some conclusions over the years about things like this.
> There is no question that on a purely technical basis a drum scanner
> will outperform a ccd scanner, flatbed, flextight, or otherwise.
> That's the science. But there's also the art/craft. I say this as a
> dedicated drum scan user- for B&W ccd scans of negs well within the
> density range of the scanner (that would be the vast majority of B&W
> negs) can make great big beautiful prints that will hold up with no
> shame next to a a drum scan print.
> I defy anyone to go to this show and tell me which were drum scans,
> flatbeds, or Imacons-
>
> http://www.benhamgallery.com/exhibit/2007/05_Corwin-Pavloff-Boley/Corwin-Pavloff-Boley_Exhibit.html
> -and believe me they are all there. (Not hyping the show yet again,
> but you really do have to make these determinations looking at real
> world prints, not the monitor, or the specs)
>
> Much depends on the size of the film, the particular scanner, and most
> of all as mentioned, the operator.
> In fact, there are circumstances that a drum scanner may not be the
> what the tasks requires at all.
> Again, I have and use a drum scanner for everything and fully
> apreciate it's capabilities, but often wish I had a high end ccd
> scanner as well. I've had occasion to open old files that are hi bit
> flatbed scans, work them just a bit, and reprint. The best ones have a
> quality I can not get with the drum scanner without a lot of work,
> much more like an enlarger lens and diffusion head, instead of the
> d**n collimated light look. And believe me, I know and use all the
> aperture tricks, etc..
> I've also had way too many bad flatbed scans in here, so we all need
> to learn our tools well.
>
> The more I do this stuff, the more I find I have to let go of the hard
> and fast suppositions. It seems the answer to most, if not all,
> yes-or-no questions, is... it depends.
>
> Tyler
> www.custom-digital.com
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Bill Morse"
> <Bill.Morse@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mark-
> >
> > Ha! No doubt. However, after years of trying to do fine-art scanning
> with
> > both a scitex and a Nikon 9000, and after directly comparing scans
> of the
> > same high-quality neg on both an Imacon and a drum (Howtek 6500 in
> my case),
> > I know the statement to be factual. On the other hand, as I also pointed
> > out, not all uses require that level of quality, expertise, and effort.
> >
> > As an aside, it continues to amaze me that people who spend the
> time, effort
> > and $$ to do large format photography then content themselves with
> flatbed
> > scans.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > On 7/11/07, Mark Savoia <mark@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill,
> > > You are going to piss off lots of people with that statement, careful.
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > On Jul 11, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Bill Morse wrote:
> > >
> > > > As others have said, drum scanning is absolutely the best way to
> > > > go; any of
> > > > the flatbed and Imacon scanners will have significantly more noise,
> > > > flare,
> > > > and will be less sharp across the film plane than a good drum scan.
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Bill Morse
> > Wm. Morse Editions
> >
> > (617) 429-3298
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>  
>



-- 
Regards,

Bill Morse
Wm. Morse Editions

(617) 429-3298


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]