Digital BW, The Print

Hi,

I want to scan 6x7 black&white negatives. Then I want to print them to A3+ size (max). I need to buy a -cheap- scanner. I want to get good/very good quality in my prints. I read about the Epson perfection 3200 photo scanner. Is it good enough to do this job, or do you advice another one?

Second question: I read about Vuescan software. Is this software really advisable above regular scanning software?

Thank you for your help/advice!

Ben Albu
Belgium

I have an Epson 3200 scanner and find that for doing 6x6 B&W negatives it  
is perfectly adequate. So 6x7 should be even better. I have done several  
scans that I have printed to A3 equivalent size and they have turned out  
great. For 35mm negatives, however, the 3200 just isn't really  
satisfactory. I have an old Cannon FS-4000 that I use for those. The 3200  
is not a current product so if you can find a used one it would work and  
probably wouldn't cost a fortune. The newer models of Epson scanners would  
be better but more costly. Epson doesn't have a Windows 7 64 bit driver  
for the 3200 so I would definitely recommend Vuescan. Actually, I would  
recommend Vuescan for any system. It gives good results and has a  
consistant interface no matter what scanner you use.

Steve

  On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:20:30 -0700, reallybelgium  
<reallybelgium@...> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I want to scan 6x7 black&white negatives. Then I want to print them to  
> A3+ size (max). I need to buy a -cheap- scanner. I want to get good/very  
> good quality in my prints. I read about the Epson perfection 3200 photo  
> scanner. Is it good enough to do this job, or do you advice another one?
>
> Second question: I read about Vuescan software. Is this software really  
> advisable above regular scanning software?
>
> Thank you for your help/advice!
>
> Ben Albu
> Belgium
>
>
>
-- 
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Hi Ben: I rarely post on this group, but do follow it daily. My advice is to use a relatively inexpensive scanner e.g., an Epson flatbed with the free software it comes with. Then, when you decide what truly needs to be scanned, find someone who has an Imacon or a drum scanner and beg, plead or do whatever it takes to get a scan from one of those systems _ ASSUMING that you have high dynamic range images. I've used Nikon, Polaroid,  Minolta, Artiscan, etc. and there is NO comparison in capturing the full dynamic range, IMHO! And I've used Silverfast throughout. You can find an older Imacon that also requires an older computer, for a reasonable price. There is simply no comparison as I learned after thousands of dollars spent.

Be really selective about what you want to scan and don't settle for the cheapo's.

Jerry

On 04/17/2013 02:20 PM, reallybelgium wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to scan 6x7 black&white negatives. Then I want to print them to
> A3+ size (max). I need to buy a -cheap- scanner. I want to get good/very
> good quality in my prints. I read about the Epson perfection 3200 photo
> scanner. Is it good enough to do this job, or do you advice another one?
>
> Second question: I read about Vuescan software. Is this software really
> advisable above regular scanning software?
>
> Thank you for your help/advice!
>
> Ben Albu
> Belgium

Ben,

The Epson scanner models after the 3200 improved in the sense that the 
lighting in the scanner lid went from a stationary one to a moving one 
that synchronises with the moving optics under the bed. The light is 
used more efficient that way and less heat builds up in the scan area. I 
have both the 3200 and the V700 but the model in between 4870 (if I 
recall it correctly) already has that feature. Check what the V600 does 
in price, it will do medium format but not larger frames like the V700 
does. Check betterscanning on holders for wet mounting etc and an 
article there that I wrote to get best results with that method on an 
3200. Written before I had the V700 but I still use the same method on 
the V700. If I do not use the Nikon 8000 for MF when for example a B&W 
negative is too thin in density, the Epson usually catches some detail 
in thin (shadow) parts better than the Nikon.

The V3200 actually does a better job on reflective originals than the 
V700, color and texture, the reason I still have it.

I like Vuescan and the DNG "RAW" Tiff export to ACR (can be done to 
Lightroom too) but you can always upgrade to it later on.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst Dinkla

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2012: 500+ inkjet media paper white spectral plots.

Ben,

The V500 is even lower priced than the V600 and will scan 6x12 cm film.

I am not familiar with their qualities compared to the V700, I think 
they use LED lighting instead of the CCFLs of the V700/750. Check 
reports like:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V650/page-1.html
but read the comments on tests like that in the forum there too. An 
advice based on an earlier experience with the V700/750 test there.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst Dinkla

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2012: 500+ inkjet media paper white spectral plots.

Probably a better test of the V600, at least they mentioned the focus tweak:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/V600/V600.HTM
One would expect that Vincent of Photo-I learned something of the 
V700/750 tests.

The I-R test mentions resolutions based on the Epson specs. Epson 
actually quotes sampling per inch numbers which is something else. If 
the sensor well size is wider than the well pitch distance and sensor 
stepping distance you can never achieve the same optical resolution 
numbers that the sampling per inch suggests. However the technology 
Epson uses (and Umax used) is called oversampling and it has its 
advantages in reducing noise and (by that) increasing the dynamic range. 
There are good and bad pixels, quantity does not tell all. On top of 
that drivers like Vuescan and Silverfast can add multi-sampling  and/or 
a second scan with longer exposure that is stacked with the normal scan 
to increase the dynamic range even more. www.Image-Engineering.de has a 
PDF of test results for the Silverfast feature, older Nikon and Epson 
scanners.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst Dinkla

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2012: 500+ inkjet media paper white spectral plots.

Ben,

We have 5 scanners here and the Epson is the lowest of the 5 in tested quality. Yes you can make "good" prints from the Epson data but If you are serious about making fine prints, get drum scans. 
--Fred Fischer
   Lab Manager

 Tom Fritz Studios, Inc.
2930 W. Clybourn Street
Milwaukee, WI 53208-4104

414.344.8300
414.344.6155 fax

Fred@...
www.tomfritz.com




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

Hi,

Thank you all for your answers.
I have been reading a lot last days, and I found out that there is a lot of buzz on the net about scanning.

I will put some statements here that I found and that I think are correct.

"Ask yourself why do you shoot medium or large format? To get truly fine prints, the whole chain must be right - from good technique during image creation and capture, through good processing, to good scanning, and on to good digital file processing and final output. If you're going to stick a thoroughly amateur device like a flatbed scanner in the middle of this process, you're going to have to expect thoroughly amateur results. The Epson simply isn't sharp, suffers from colour banding issues due to its cheap sensor, and offers poor shadow penetration." (source: http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/15/About+Scanning+Resolution)

"Because those 'resolution' numbers are sheer fantasy. Sure, the file sizes coming out of those scanners are huge - e.g. 1 gigabyte file from 35mm - wow, that must be a great scan, right? Of course not. They may be huge but they are not optically sharp. They are full of useless pixels containing no real detail." They are full of interpolation."

"The key issue with sharp prints is real resolution - that is, how much fine detail is actually in the image - as recorded by the capture system (camera or scanner), or originated by the image maker in digital production - and how much of this true detail can be actually expressed in a print. It's also important to separate detail itself from apparent sharpness (i.e. edge definition), as poor use of the unsharp mask so often demonstrates that fine detail and apparent sharpness are two very different things."
(source: http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/32/Resolution+for+really+sharp+prints)

I think I will follow the advice of Jerry and buy a cheap scanner (the one that Ernst proposed -Epson V500- seems to be ok) to have a good impression on the negatives. 

Then, for real scanning, I'll go to a lab in Brussels.
(http://www.limelightlab.com/)
They have a Hasselblad Flextight X5 and they scan for 2,5 euro, or for 12,5 euro, per scan. What I read about the high quality of this scanner (excellent optics, no plastic lenses like in the Epson range) is that a lower resolution scan of the Flextight X5 has better quality then a 'high quality scan' from an Epson scanner.

Later on I can eventually buy a second hand drum scanner.

Best,

Ben Albu




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "reallybelgium" <reallybelgium@...> wrote:

>
> Hi,
> 
> I want to scan 6x7 black&white negatives. Then I want to print them to A3+ size (max). I need to buy a -cheap- scanner. I want to get good/very good quality in my prints. I read about the Epson perfection 3200 photo scanner. Is it good enough to do this job, or do you advice another one?
> 
> Second question: I read about Vuescan software. Is this software really advisable above regular scanning software?
> 
> Thank you for your help/advice!
> 
> Ben Albu
> Belgium
>

Ben,

Your print size is A3+, roughly 33x48 cm, lengthwise 45 cm will be 
usable. My experience says that 450 PPI is the optimal resolution to 
feed a printer, there is not much to gain beyond that considering inkjet 
technology as it is today. Often half of that will still be satisfying 
with the right upsampling tools. Over the length you need 8000 pixels, 
on the width 5844 pixels. With borders for matte mounting on the print 
you will need less pixels than that.

A  6x7 measures 56x72 mm, the 72mm length can vary in practice depending 
on the camera but I start from the Linhof ideal format. To get 8000 
pixels over that length you need a scanner that resolves about 3000 PPI. 
The Epsons in the V class can not do that but will do more than 2000 PPI 
with proper methods. On the length you will get 5670 pixels, on the 
width 4410 pixels. The dynamic range is usually sufficient for B&W 
negatives, it is different for slides.

Proper upsampling and sharpening tools will help.

I would say get an Epson, possibly the V600 or a secondhand V700 and 
build up experience. A good operator is worth a lot, both on an Epson 
and on a drum scanner. If you can afford and maintain a secondhand drum 
scanner later on then that is the way to go if you want to stay with 
film. The Nikon MF scanners are no longer made and cost a lot secondhand 
and in my personal opinion the Flextights are not better in their 
performance while they are going at an even higher price new and secondhand.

With a Nikon D800 camera and more like that to come the hybrid 
analogue/digital route is questionable anyway.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst Dinkla

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2012: 500+ inkjet media paper white spectral plots.

Hi Ernst,

Thank you for your reply.

You are right about the 3000PPI for the A3+ scan. (or the 2000PPI with the proper upsampling and sharpening).

BUT: I want to go for bigger prints in the future, after I learned to print on A3+ in a qualitative way (with custom inksets, ..). I don't know if I will do these prints by myself (I don't think so), but I want to understand the whole process.

In this matter it's good to target to the better solutions, even if they are a bit like overkill now. (A3+ scenario)

Yes, you're right that the V600 would be a better solution then the V500. The price is even almost similar.

I don't think the analogue/digital route is questionable already.
Not for medium formats. A D800 gives you 36MP, an analogue 6x7 has a lot more MP (with a decent scan) > for big prints. And the price of a D800 is still 5 times as high as an analogue MF camera with multiple lenses.

The medium format digital cameras are far to expensive now. 15.000 euro and +, so I think the analogue MF way is still a good option for a few years. Or not?

Ben Albu
Belgium












--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <e.dinkla@...> wrote:

>
> Ben,
> 
> Your print size is A3+, roughly 33x48 cm, lengthwise 45 cm will be 
> usable. My experience says that 450 PPI is the optimal resolution to 
> feed a printer, there is not much to gain beyond that considering inkjet 
> technology as it is today. Often half of that will still be satisfying 
> with the right upsampling tools. Over the length you need 8000 pixels, 
> on the width 5844 pixels. With borders for matte mounting on the print 
> you will need less pixels than that.
> 
> A  6x7 measures 56x72 mm, the 72mm length can vary in practice depending 
> on the camera but I start from the Linhof ideal format. To get 8000 
> pixels over that length you need a scanner that resolves about 3000 PPI. 
> The Epsons in the V class can not do that but will do more than 2000 PPI 
> with proper methods. On the length you will get 5670 pixels, on the 
> width 4410 pixels. The dynamic range is usually sufficient for B&W 
> negatives, it is different for slides.
> 
> Proper upsampling and sharpening tools will help.
> 
> I would say get an Epson, possibly the V600 or a secondhand V700 and 
> build up experience. A good operator is worth a lot, both on an Epson 
> and on a drum scanner. If you can afford and maintain a secondhand drum 
> scanner later on then that is the way to go if you want to stay with 
> film. The Nikon MF scanners are no longer made and cost a lot secondhand 
> and in my personal opinion the Flextights are not better in their 
> performance while they are going at an even higher price new and secondhand.
> 
> With a Nikon D800 camera and more like that to come the hybrid 
> analogue/digital route is questionable anyway.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst Dinkla
> 
> http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
> December 2012: 500+ inkjet media paper white spectral plots.
>

Ernst,
I was suprised to see your comment at the end regarding analog to digital... :-)...made me smile.. So your seeing possibility.. I've have been playing with this for some time (almost 2 years now)  and am now certain that real possibility is their.. even if one is after larger images  (within reason). 

The raw files when shot properly out of current DSLR's are much better then most would think when moving film to digital.. It's a tight process but the controls available to us now with current software and raw files in my opinion offer more flexibility & surpass most of the software were used to with our drum scanners.. Anyway, who know's where it'll go but I'm honestly embracing it.. ...I'm have been experimenting with 4 exposures on 6x7's and stitching .. it workaable.. but I'd rather use the drum scanner .... I am honestly after a quick quality process for 35mm that is my target and I'm serious about it....

  Then  theirs the 80MP Leaf / Mamiya back..  oh and one more and this one honestly should raise a few eyebrows.. Lets remember you can do what's called multishot with a digital rig.. Hasselblad has a 200MP multishot (6) rig .. their doing this with a 50MP sensor .. http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20066021-264.html  .. I think we can sort of see the future now ..It's just not affordable as yet for most of us.... :-)..

jimbo

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ernst Dinkla 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 1:54 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Affordable scanner + Vuescan software


    
  Ben,

  Your print size is A3+, roughly 33x48 cm, lengthwise 45 cm will be 
  usable. My experience says that 450 PPI is the optimal resolution to 
  feed a printer, there is not much to gain beyond that considering inkjet 
  technology as it is today. Often half of that will still be satisfying 
  with the right upsampling tools. Over the length you need 8000 pixels, 
  on the width 5844 pixels. With borders for matte mounting on the print 
  you will need less pixels than that.

  A 6x7 measures 56x72 mm, the 72mm length can vary in practice depending 
  on the camera but I start from the Linhof ideal format. To get 8000 
  pixels over that length you need a scanner that resolves about 3000 PPI. 
  The Epsons in the V class can not do that but will do more than 2000 PPI 
  with proper methods. On the length you will get 5670 pixels, on the 
  width 4410 pixels. The dynamic range is usually sufficient for B&W 
  negatives, it is different for slides.

  Proper upsampling and sharpening tools will help.

  I would say get an Epson, possibly the V600 or a secondhand V700 and 
  build up experience. A good operator is worth a lot, both on an Epson 
  and on a drum scanner. If you can afford and maintain a secondhand drum 
  scanner later on then that is the way to go if you want to stay with 
  film. The Nikon MF scanners are no longer made and cost a lot secondhand 
  and in my personal opinion the Flextights are not better in their 
  performance while they are going at an even higher price new and secondhand.

  With a Nikon D800 camera and more like that to come the hybrid 
  analogue/digital route is questionable anyway.

  -- 
  Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst Dinkla

  http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
  December 2012: 500+ inkjet media paper white spectral plots.


  
  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6253 - Release Date: 04/18/13


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

On 04/19/2013 01:34 AM, jimbo wrote:

> The raw files when shot properly out of current DSLR's are much better
> then most would think when moving film to digital.. It's a tight process
> but the controls available to us now with current software and raw files
> in my opinion offer more flexibility & surpass most of the software were
> used to with our drum scanners.. Anyway, who know's where it'll go but
> I'm honestly embracing it.. ...I'm have been experimenting with 4
> exposures on 6x7's and stitching .. it workaable.. but I'd rather use
> the drum scanner .... I am honestly after a quick quality process for
> 35mm that is my target and I'm serious about it....

> jimbo

Ask Paul here. I think he made the step from 645 to fullframe digital + 
the best lenses around + stitching and stacking methods 2-3 years ago. 
The progress made in full frame DSLRs since must be 1.5x, not just 
resolution but also in noise reduction at higher ISO settings. Getting 
close to 6x7 then.

The main issue with scanned B&W film is that you get two information 
levels and related noise types, the (aliased) grain and the pixels. In 
sharpening, noise reduction, tone control, resampling it makes things 
more difficult than an image build from first generation pixels.

Tim Vitale's PDF on film grain is still good information.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst Dinkla

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2012: 500+ inkjet media paper white spectral plots.

Ernst wrote:


> ...
> Ask Paul here. I think he made the step from 645 to fullframe digital +
> the best lenses around + stitching and stacking methods 2-3 years ago. ...
>

Yes, I was going to comment about my current printing experience with the
medium format film compared to my current Leica M9 (18 MP CCD with no AA
filter).  An increasingly important factor is the optics.  (Forget old
retrofocus and zooms for top off-axis performance.)

Basically, only the Bronica RF645 (rangefinder) with 45mm (great) wide
angle (non-retrofocus) and with Technical Pan film files, of those I have,
are in the same league with the M9 (or other good full frame digital
cameras with top lenses).

I'm printing for the September show I'm having in Los Olivos (California),
using nothing but an Epson 4000 with the Epson-Noritsu dyes in it.  This is
on Red River metallic paper.  That medium is incredibly un-forgiving.

I'm running into medium format film files that looked great as 16x20 matte
prints and look horrible on this dye-metallic medium.  I'm having to
re-scan a high proportion of the files that were made before I bought the
Nikon 8000.  Much below that is going to have problems.  For top negatives,
I am considering drum scans.  However, I'm finding problems with the film
negatives that probably can't be cured by a good scan.

In general, while MF film can possibly capture more ultimate fine detail
(though probably irrelevant to 17" wide printers), the signal to noise
ratio (image detail to film grain) is not close to the digital capture
files.  Tech Pan has the fine grain, but with all of the films, there are
noise patterns that emerge in addition to the grain that limit the image
quality.  (And I was about as fanatical about my film & development
technology and processing as my digital printing.)

I like to present the viewer with a window to B&W reality.  I like the
cleanest window I can find, and I like the viewer's eyes to be the limiting
factor in the detail.  With the the 17" paper width and dye/metallic medium
I'm printing for this show,  the most carefully taken and processed full
frame digital files are way ahead of all of the medium format (currently
available) film I've used.  MF rangefinder Tech Pan is the only medium
format I've used that appears close.   (I still have a stash of frozen Tech
Pan, by the way.)

Today's solid state technology is way ahead of film with developer sloshed
across it.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com


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

Hi Ben, I would suggest you look up Tim Parkin, a friend of mine, here in the UK, he does very reasonably priced drum scans, albeit that you have to do your own dustspotting. His website is http://cheapdrumscanning.com. I should say that although I have seen lots of his scans I don't use him myself as I run my own drum scanning business.

David Whistance

Sent from my iPad

On 18 Apr 2013, at 15:40, "reallybelgium" <reallybelgium@...> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Thank you all for your answers.
> I have been reading a lot last days, and I found out that there is a lot of buzz on the net about scanning.
> 
> I will put some statements here that I found and that I think are correct.
> 
> "Ask yourself why do you shoot medium or large format? To get truly fine prints, the whole chain must be right - from good technique during image creation and capture, through good processing, to good scanning, and on to good digital file processing and final output. If you're going to stick a thoroughly amateur device like a flatbed scanner in the middle of this process, you're going to have to expect thoroughly amateur results. The Epson simply isn't sharp, suffers from colour banding issues due to its cheap sensor, and offers poor shadow penetration." (source: http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/15/About+Scanning+Resolution)
> 
> "Because those 'resolution' numbers are sheer fantasy. Sure, the file sizes coming out of those scanners are huge - e.g. 1 gigabyte file from 35mm - wow, that must be a great scan, right? Of course not. They may be huge but they are not optically sharp. They are full of useless pixels containing no real detail." They are full of interpolation."
> 
> "The key issue with sharp prints is real resolution - that is, how much fine detail is actually in the image - as recorded by the capture system (camera or scanner), or originated by the image maker in digital production - and how much of this true detail can be actually expressed in a print. It's also important to separate detail itself from apparent sharpness (i.e. edge definition), as poor use of the unsharp mask so often demonstrates that fine detail and apparent sharpness are two very different things."
> (source: http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/32/Resolution+for+really+sharp+prints)
> 
> I think I will follow the advice of Jerry and buy a cheap scanner (the one that Ernst proposed -Epson V500- seems to be ok) to have a good impression on the negatives. 
> 
> Then, for real scanning, I'll go to a lab in Brussels.
> (http://www.limelightlab.com/)
> They have a Hasselblad Flextight X5 and they scan for 2,5 euro, or for 12,5 euro, per scan. What I read about the high quality of this scanner (excellent optics, no plastic lenses like in the Epson range) is that a lower resolution scan of the Flextight X5 has better quality then a 'high quality scan' from an Epson scanner.
> 
> Later on I can eventually buy a second hand drum scanner.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Ben Albu
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "reallybelgium" <reallybelgium@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I want to scan 6x7 black&white negatives. Then I want to print them to A3+ size (max). I need to buy a -cheap- scanner. I want to get good/very good quality in my prints. I read about the Epson perfection 3200 photo scanner. Is it good enough to do this job, or do you advice another one?
> > 
> > Second question: I read about Vuescan software. Is this software really advisable above regular scanning software?
> > 
> > Thank you for your help/advice!
> > 
> > Ben Albu
> > Belgium
> >
> 
> 


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