Digital BW, The Print

I am setting up an epson 1280 and using Paul Roark's MIS variable inks.
I am looking at a scanner. Is it worth it to get a drum scanner or will 
a Nikon or other scanner work.  I need medium format capability.
John

We had a drum for years. Now have an Imacon 848. I'd only go back to the
drum kicking and screaming. The prep and dust made me nuts. The Imacon
is wonderful and very fast.
S..
 
 

Stan Shire
Associate Professor/Department Chair
Photographic Imaging
Community College of Philadelphia
Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
Author: Hands On Photoshop 7: Tutorial Workshops

215 751-8320
sshire@...

-----Original Message-----
From: brigapig <jcwphoto@...> [mailto:jcwphoto@...] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 4:18 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] scanner


I am setting up an epson 1280 and using Paul Roark's MIS variable inks.
I am looking at a scanner. Is it worth it to get a drum scanner or will 
a Nikon or other scanner work.  I need medium format capability.
John




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor	

ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2814790.4175286.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1705
019182:HM/A=1328027/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4870030;7586687;u
?http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01> 	
 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=234081.2814790.4175286.1925585/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=1328027/rand=326080273> 	

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . 




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

John,

>... looking at a scanner. Is it worth it to get a drum scanner or will
>a Nikon or other scanner work.  I need medium format capability.

I am very happy with the Nikon 8000.  With a high resolution test slide, it
essentially hits the theoretical top resolution in the vertical direction
(80 lp/mm) and is about 25% below that in the horizontal direction.  (The
row of LEDs presumably causes more flare in that direction.)

At this point, I would not want a scanner that did not have the grain
reduction and dust removal capabilities.  The dust removal only works with
color film technology (dye clouds), including T400CN.  The grain reduction
does work with silver grain film.  With it, medium format (645) Tech Pan
does 24x30 inch prints that are close to grainless.  Very nice, indeed.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

I just got an Imacon Photo Scanner, and I think it is a great 
scanner; the perfect blend of drum and desktop technology.  The 
price is right between the two as well.

As far as I understand it, there is a pretty sharp learning curve to 
a drum scanner, but the Imacon is so easy to use that you will 
be getting excellent scans within hours of setting it up; I know I 
did.  At any rate, it is difficult to get a bad scan from my Imacon, 
and I am getting better quality than I was getting when I was 
paying my local service bureau for drum scans.  However I 
suspect that they weren't very good at operating their scanner 

The 3200 optical ppi is more than enough for 120, but might 
appear to be a little low for 35mm.  However, I have found that 
file from a slide scanned at 3200 ppi on my Imacon is better 
than the 4000 ppi scans I was getting from the original Polaroid 
4000 Sprintscan.  Even after I step up (interpolate) the file size to 
be equal to what I was getting out of the old Polaroid, the Imacon 
files are nicer, (less noise, more shadow detail, better prints). 

Imacon does have dust removal software, but it is horrible; 
completely softens the image.  I once read someone who said 
that the best dust removal equipment is a good chair and a CD 
changer. (was that Mark Tucker?)  I agree with that, but then 
again I haven't tested the newest ICE which is shipping with 
scanners today.  I have no experience with grain reduction 
software.

One more thing I will say in favor of the Imacon: it is FAST.  It 
takes about 12 miuntes to get a 3200 ppi 16 bit scan from a 6x7 
trransparency.  That is about a 380mb file.  The film holders are 
wonderful as well.  You can line up your negs or transparencies 
right on the supplied light table and never have to worry about 
rotating in photoshop.

I would seriously consider an Imacon if it is in your price range.

Justin



> 
> >... looking at a scanner. Is it worth it to get a drum scanner or 
will
> >a Nikon or other scanner work.  I need medium format 
capability.
>

I can't speak for medium format scanners but my experience is that
some of the low end scanners are still very good. It appears that our
own skill level, especially using Photoshop, is much more a limiting
factor than the scanner. I figure that by the time that my Minolta DS
II is the major limiting factor in the quality of my prints, there
will be some newer model scanner out anyway. And it will be cheaper so
that I can throw away my $325 scanner and still be money ahead. 

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "brigapig
<jcwphoto@j...>" <jcwphoto@j...> wrote:

> I am setting up an epson 1280 and using Paul Roark's MIS variable inks.
> I am looking at a scanner. Is it worth it to get a drum scanner or will 
> a Nikon or other scanner work.  I need medium format capability.
> John

Hi,
     I've been reading with great interest Clayton Jones' articles on
Black-Only printing and I think I would like to give that a good try
before I invest in some sort of Quad Ink system.  I currently  use a 740
which I get pretty decent color prints with, but the black only setting
leaves a lot to be desired.  I guess it's because it's old tecnology
with big droplets.
     So I'm wondering:  For a modest $100.00 investment, if I was to
purchase an 820, would I get the same results as I would with a 1280?  I
know the maximum print size is less, but in my case - I'm just trying to
see if the B&W results will be satisfying so large prints are not an
issue.  According to Epson's site, they even rate the 820 at 5760 DPI as
opposed to only 2880 for the 1280.  That may not mean anything in
reality, but I see nothing in the specifications that indicate that the
820 should not do the same job as the 1280 for smaller prints.  Even the
number of nozzles is the same.  Am I missing something?
 
Thanks,
Ed
http://lightandsilver.com <http://lightandsilver.com/>  


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

Hi Justin,

> I just got an Imacon Photo Scanner, and I think it is a great
> scanner; the perfect blend of drum and desktop technology.

Congratulations!  You should be pretty happy with it, it's one of the best
CCD scanners out there.

Not to poo poo it in any way, as it is an exceptional scanner, but I've
never really thought of it in any way like a drum scanner though...as the
technology is completely different.  That "line" is more advertising than
reality...  When they say that, they are referring to the curved film
mounting only, as far as I know.  Does anyone here have any first hand
experience with whether the Imacon curved film mounting actually helps, and
if so, with what formats?  I assume it does 4x5?

> The film holders are
> wonderful as well.

Do you have to mount each frame individually, as in cut each frame out of a
strip?

Regards, and Happy New Year!

Austin

I have a Nikon 8000ED which will do medium format up to 4000ppi it 
is generally a very good scanner, but does have one major drawback 
relating I think, to its light source. It has extremely narrow depth 
of focus; if your film isn't completely flat you will see fall-off 
in the sharpness. That in turn means you really need that $250 glass 
neg carrier for medium format, so factor that in if you're checking 
this one out. Perhaps someone out there can compare the other two 
current medium format 'mid-price' scanners in this regard, I'd be 
curious to know if the Polaroid and the Minolta are as finicky as 
the Nikon?

Steve K
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "brigapig 
<jcwphoto@j...>" <jcwphoto@j...> wrote:
> I am setting up an epson 1280 and using Paul Roark's MIS variable 
inks.
> I am looking at a scanner. Is it worth it to get a drum scanner or 
will 
> a Nikon or other scanner work.  I need medium format capability.
> John

Hi Ed;

No, you're not missing anything, the 820 is essentially the same 
technology, it should give you good results. My second printer is a 
780, it was replaced by the 820, and my BO tests that I compared 
with Clayton's were similar at 1440 and smoother at 2880, though you 
do have to do a bit of density adjustment as you go up in dithering 
dpi. We've been wonderingwhat the new 960 will do, it's down to 2 
pickle-eater<G> drop size. I have to wonder though if you can run 
pigment ink through a nozzle that small. 

Steve K

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Mathews" 
<ed@l...> wrote:
> Hi,
>      I've been reading with great interest Clayton Jones' articles 
on
> Black-Only printing and I think I would like to give that a good 
try
> before I invest in some sort of Quad Ink system.  I currently  use 
a 740
> which I get pretty decent color prints with, but the black only 
setting
> leaves a lot to be desired.  I guess it's because it's old 
tecnology
> with big droplets.
>      So I'm wondering:  For a modest $100.00 investment, if I was 
to
> purchase an 820, would I get the same results as I would with a 
1280?  I
> know the maximum print size is less, but in my case - I'm just 
trying to
> see if the B&W results will be satisfying so large prints are not 
an
> issue.  According to Epson's site, they even rate the 820 at 5760 
DPI as
> opposed to only 2880 for the 1280.  That may not mean anything in
> reality, but I see nothing in the specifications that indicate 
that the
> 820 should not do the same job as the 1280 for smaller prints.  
Even the

> number of nozzles is the same.  Am I missing something?
>  
> Thanks,
> Ed
> http://lightandsilver.com <http://lightandsilver.com/>  
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
To: "DigitalB&WPrint" <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 11:18 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] scanner


> John,
>
> >... looking at a scanner. Is it worth it to get a drum scanner or will
> >a Nikon or other scanner work.  I need medium format capability.
>
> I am very happy with the Nikon 8000.  With a high resolution test slide,
it
> essentially hits the theoretical top resolution in the vertical direction
> (80 lp/mm) and is about 25% below that in the horizontal direction.  (The
> row of LEDs presumably causes more flare in that direction.)
>
> At this point, I would not want a scanner that did not have the grain
> reduction and dust removal capabilities.  The dust removal only works with
> color film technology (dye clouds), including T400CN.  The grain reduction
> does work with silver grain film.  With it, medium format (645) Tech Pan
> does 24x30 inch prints that are close to grainless.  Very nice, indeed.
>
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com

If ICE can't be used there's the Polaroid scratch and dust removal software
on the Polaroid site.
A stand alone application.

With the fluid mount carrier of the 8000 that I have build, the scratches
and dust on the film (including old B&W films) are much reduced. The grain
is also visible in many cases. Polaroid 665 negs are resolved to nearly the
grain over the entire surface scanable (6x9) and that is a fine emulsion. It
is an indication of what the Nikon 8000 is able to. That it also can reduce
the grain is another advantage.

Ernst

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ernst Dinkla" 
<E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
> 

Hi Ernst; Could you elaborate on the fluid mount carrier? Is it 
based on the Nikon glass carrier, and does it use the smae fluid as 
a drum scanner? 

Steve K

> With the fluid mount carrier of the 8000 that I have build, the 
scratches
> and dust on the film (including old B&W films) are much reduced. 
The grain
> is also visible in many cases. Polaroid 665 negs are resolved to 
nearly the
> grain over the entire surface scanable (6x9) and that is a fine 
emulsion. It
> is an indication of what the Nikon 8000 is able to. That it also 
can reduce

> the grain is another advantage.
> 
> Ernst

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
>To: "DigitalB&WPrint" <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 11:18 PM
>Subject: [Digital BW] scanner
>
>
> > John,
> >
> > >... looking at a scanner. Is it worth it to get a drum scanner or will
> > >a Nikon or other scanner work.  I need medium format capability.
> >
> > I am very happy with the Nikon 8000.  With a high resolution test slide,
>it
> > essentially hits the theoretical top resolution in the vertical direction
> > (80 lp/mm) and is about 25% below that in the horizontal direction.  (The
> > row of LEDs presumably causes more flare in that direction.)
> >
> > At this point, I would not want a scanner that did not have the grain
> > reduction and dust removal capabilities.  The dust removal only works with
> > color film technology (dye clouds), including T400CN.  The grain reduction
> > does work with silver grain film.  With it, medium format (645) Tech Pan
> > does 24x30 inch prints that are close to grainless.  Very nice, indeed.
> >
> > Paul
> > http://www.PaulRoark.com
>
>If ICE can't be used there's the Polaroid scratch and dust removal software
>on the Polaroid site. A stand alone application. [snip] Ernst

This was posted previously, and I followed up on it on Polaroid's web 
site. There I learned, but only _after_ the hassle of ordering it, 
that it's _still_ not available for the Mac. So what's the best 35mm 
film scanner for a Mac? My impression is that it's probably the 8000, 
but I don't need medium-format capability. Should I just wait for the 
4000 to catch up or is it already as good as the 8000 for 35mm on a 
Mac?

Sam McCandless             samcc@...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Sam A. 
McCandless" <samcc@v...> wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@v...>
> >To: "DigitalB&WPrint" 
<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> >Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 11:18 PM
> >Subject: [Digital BW] scanner
> >
> >
> > > John,
> > >
> > > >... looking at a scanner. Is it worth it to get a drum 
scanner or will
> > > >a Nikon or other scanner work.  I need medium format 
capability.
> > >
> > > I am very happy with the Nikon 8000.  With a high resolution 
test slide,
> >it
> > > essentially hits the theoretical top resolution in the 
vertical direction
> > > (80 lp/mm) and is about 25% below that in the horizontal 
direction.  (The
> > > row of LEDs presumably causes more flare in that direction.)
> > >
> > > At this point, I would not want a scanner that did not have 
the grain
> > > reduction and dust removal capabilities.  The dust removal 
only works with
> > > color film technology (dye clouds), including T400CN.  The 
grain reduction
> > > does work with silver grain film.  With it, medium format 
(645) Tech Pan
> > > does 24x30 inch prints that are close to grainless.  Very 
nice, indeed.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > > http://www.PaulRoark.com
> >
> >If ICE can't be used there's the Polaroid scratch and dust 
removal software
> >on the Polaroid site. A stand alone application. [snip] Ernst
> 
> This was posted previously, and I followed up on it on Polaroid's 
web 
> site. There I learned, but only _after_ the hassle of ordering it, 
> that it's _still_ not available for the Mac. So what's the best 
35mm 
> film scanner for a Mac? My impression is that it's probably the 
8000, 
> but I don't need medium-format capability. Should I just wait for 
the 
> 4000 to catch up or is it already as good as the 8000 for 35mm on 
a 
> Mac?
> 
> Sam McCandless             samcc@v...



I believe the Nikon 4000ED is the same gen/technology as the 8000; I 
had some 35mm scans done on one before I bought the 8000, and they, 
in fact tipped the scales for me toward the Nikon.

Steve k

Hello Austin,

you wrote:
> Not to poo poo it in any way, as it is an exceptional scanner, 
but I've
> never really thought of it in any way like a drum scanner 
though...as the
> technology is completely different.  That "line" is more 
advertising than
> reality...  When they say that, they are referring to the curved film
> mounting only, as far as I know.  Does anyone here have any 
first hand
> experience with whether the Imacon curved film mounting 
actually helps, and
> if so, with what formats?  I assume it does 4x5?


I believe that you are right when you say Imacon are only 
referring to the curved film mounting when they compare their 
products to drum scanners.  From my experience, the curved 
film mounting really does help.  Not only can you see even 
severely curved film snap into a perfectly flat plane when you 
bend the film holder in your hand, but I am getting edge to edge 
sherpness I wasn't seeing when I did tests with the Polaroid and 
their standard film holders; I have no experience with the glass 
holders.

The Imacon Photo model will do 35mm up to 6x18.  It can do 
4x5, but it takes two passes.  It would take too long to explain 
here exactly how it fits, but a 4x5 will fit in the 6x18 holder and you 
need to run it through the machine twice and stitch it together in 
Photoshop, which is really simple.  All the other Imacon models 
will scan a 4x5 in one pass.

> Do you have to mount each frame individually, as in cut each 
frame out of a
> strip?

Yes, sort of.  If the frame you want to scan is at the end of a strip, 
you can mount that frame in the holder's window and let the rest 
of the strip dangle out of the machine as it does the scan.  It 
really isn't as awkward as it sounds when I describe it.  However 
if you want to scan a neg that is in the middle of a strip, you will 
need to cut it; but only one cut is necessary because it just 
needs to be at the end of a strip, not necessarily an individual 
frame.

Hope that answers your questions,
Justin

----- Original Message ----- 

From: <stevek@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] scanner


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ernst Dinkla" 
> <E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
> > 
> 
> Hi Ernst; Could you elaborate on the fluid mount carrier? Is it 
> based on the Nikon glass carrier, and does it use the smae fluid as 
> a drum scanner? 
> 
> Steve K

Elaborate is a big word word for the page but:

http://members.chello.nl/e.dinkla/MF_FM_carrier.htm

Ernst

Hi Justin,

> From my experience, the curved
> film mounting really does help.  Not only can you see even
> severely curved film snap into a perfectly flat plane when you
> bend the film holder in your hand, but I am getting edge to edge
> sherpness I wasn't seeing when I did tests with the Polaroid and
> their standard film holders; I have no experience with the glass
> holders.

That's very good information.  Thanks!  I've never had a film flatness issue
with my Leafscan, and I've always wondered if it really made a difference
with the Imacon.  The Nikon scanners appear to have film flatness issues,
because their DOF is so narrow.

> The Imacon Photo model will do 35mm up to 6x18.  It can do
> 4x5, but it takes two passes.  It would take too long to explain
> here exactly how it fits, but a 4x5 will fit in the 6x18 holder and you
> need to run it through the machine twice and stitch it together in
> Photoshop, which is really simple.  All the other Imacon models
> will scan a 4x5 in one pass.

Interesting.  At least it supports it.

> > Do you have to mount each frame individually, as in cut each
> frame out of a
> > strip?
>
> Yes, sort of.  If the frame you want to scan is at the end of a strip,
> you can mount that frame in the holder's window and let the rest
> of the strip dangle out of the machine as it does the scan.  It
> really isn't as awkward as it sounds when I describe it.  However
> if you want to scan a neg that is in the middle of a strip, you will
> need to cut it; but only one cut is necessary because it just
> needs to be at the end of a strip, not necessarily an individual
> frame.

That would bum me out!  Is that true for 35mm?  I can't imaging having to
have all my 35mm film cut into strips two long!

Regards,

Austin

Austin,

> Is that true for 35mm?  I can't imaging having to
> have all my 35mm film cut into strips two long!

The 35mm film holder that comes with the scanners require that 
you cut the film into individual frames or use the method I 
described in my earlier post.  However, I just remembered that 
for about $200 you can buy a holder that will hold a strip; I think 
four frames long (and if you left your strips in 5's or 6's, you could 
still let the other frames dangle out of the scanner as it scans). 
You could also use the 6x18 holder to scan strips of 120 film 
without cutting it either.  The 6x18 holder was also about $200, 
and I bought it to do 4x5.

I really don't mind cutting my negs though; mounting one neg at 
a time makes it easier to get it straight and avoid rotating in PS.  I 
mostly use 120 film and I use those sheet holders with 9 
pockets (like the ones for baseball cards), so individual frames 
do not bother me at all.  And once it is scanned in 16 bit at 
maximum optical ppi, I rarely need to handle the neg ever again.

Justn

Hi Justin,

> I really don't mind cutting my negs though; mounting one neg at
> a time makes it easier to get it straight and avoid rotating in PS.

It depends, at least for me, on how you store your negatives.  I use
PrintFile sleeves, and store a whole roll on one sheet...and make contact
sheets by scanning that sheet on a tabloid flatbed scanner...so individual
negatives would drive me crazy!

The scanner application should have a rotate in it...and I'm surprised most,
if all, don't.  It's SO simple to program to do!  It would make preview so
much easier.

Regards,

Austin

Austin
 
> The scanner application should have a rotate in it...and I'm 
surprised most,
> if all, don't.  It's SO simple to program to do!  It would make 
preview so
> much easier.

The scanner application (FlexColor 3.5) does have rotate.  I am 
talking about those 1 or 2 degree rotations to get things perfectly 
straight.  There is a grid on the built in light table that you use to 
mount your negs; and it virtually eliminates any need to rotate, 
because it is so easy to scan it the way you want it.

Justin

> > The scanner application should have a rotate in it...and I'm
> surprised most,
> > if all, don't.  It's SO simple to program to do!  It would make
> preview so
> > much easier.
>
> The scanner application (FlexColor 3.5) does have rotate.  I am
> talking about those 1 or 2 degree rotations to get things perfectly
> straight.  There is a grid on the built in light table that you use to
> mount your negs; and it virtually eliminates any need to rotate,
> because it is so easy to scan it the way you want it.
>
> Justin

The Leaf application doesn't have any rotate...unfortunately, but luckily
the Leaf holder does rotate, and I can get the film as lined up as well my
eye can see for those small adjustments.  I could see where a grid/light
table would be nice to have with a fixed film holder.

I assume for B&W, it scans in RGB and converts internally?

Regards,

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin 
Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > > The scanner application should have a rotate in it...and I'm
> > surprised most,
> > > if all, don't.  It's SO simple to program to do!  It would make
> > preview so
> > > much easier.
> >
> > The scanner application (FlexColor 3.5) does have rotate.  I 
am
> > talking about those 1 or 2 degree rotations to get things 
perfectly
Austin,

> I assume for B&W, it scans in RGB and converts internally?

I would assume the same thing, but I do not know for sure; the 
literature is vague about this stuff.  However the software does 
support custom ICC profiles.  I don't think that that necessarily 
means that it scans in greyscale, but it is a nice feature to have.  
It scans B&W film beautifully, both C41 and conventional silver 
emulsions.

Justin

Justin,

> > I assume for B&W, it scans in RGB and converts internally?
>
> I would assume the same thing, but I do not know for sure; the
> literature is vague about this stuff.  However the software does
> support custom ICC profiles.  I don't think that that necessarily
> means that it scans in greyscale, but it is a nice feature to have.
> It scans B&W film beautifully, both C41 and conventional silver
> emulsions.

No, ICC profiles don't have anything to do with the scanning technique.  In
order to scan in actual grayscale, it would require a fourth channel,
typically using a neutral density filter.

Regards,

Austin