Digital BW, The Print

Hi all, 
   A recently developed respirtory problem has forced me out of the 
darkroom and into the digital darkroom. My budget is low, and my 
quality needs are high, so I am looking for input on the best 
compromise for my scanning needs. I work in B&W and shoot a little 
35mm and 6x6, but the vast majority of my work is 6x45. Just for the 
sake of clarifying my needs, I'll give you a little backround. I was 
a full time professional portrait photographer for six years. I quit 
doing that because I chose to focus all of my creative energy on my 
personal/fine art work.  I have begun to exhibit it, and am planning 
on doing so alot more (hence my need for quality). At this point, 
$2K - $3K for a dedicated 120 film scanner is not an option for me. 
Niether is the cost of regularly having my work drum scanned. I will 
be printing on either an Epson 2200 or a quadtone setup, haven't 
decided which yet (that's perhaps a subject for another post). I'm 
not into printing huge - most of my stuff is 8x10 or 11x14, but I 
would also like to print up to the full 13x19 capability of these 
printers and get an excellent result. I understand the difference 
between the way a silver print and an inkjet looks, and with that 
understanding I need to get a result that is on a par quality-wise 
with what I am used to getting in the darkroom. I am by no means a 
master printer, but I am picky and I am capable of getting my prints 
to look the way I want them to. 
 So all that said, any suggestions as to scanning solutions? I have 
heard much conflicting info regarding the Epson 3200 and it's 
predecessor the 2450. Any thoughts as to the capability of the 3200 
to scan 645 for exhibtion quality printing? Perhaps I should clarify 
that more. When I speak of quality, sharpness and detail are 
certainly important, but the ability of the scanner to capture subtle 
tonal information is of paramount importance to me . This is the main 
reason I shoot medium format - the superior gradation it offers. I 
will be shooting TCN and XP2, and my guess is that these types of 
negs should not pose much of a challenge to this scanner's dynamic 
range. I think I understand the relationship between bit depth and 
tonal gradation (and the 3200 looks good in this regard) but I'm not 
sure I fully grasp how the resolution of this scanner (which I have 
heard is actually lower than the stated 3200 dpi) would affect tonal 
rendition, or if it would scan 645 well enough to produce a sharp, 
detailed print in the sizes I will be doing. As far as other options, 
I seem to recall someone mentioning a guy who does reasonably priced 
scans for people using a Nikon 8000. In the long run, given the 
number of negs I'll want to scan, I'm sure outsourcing them at any 
price would exceed the cost of the Epson, but if that's what I need 
to do to get the results I need, then that's what I'll do. Your input 
on these or any other options would be greatly appreciated. 
Thanks
      Kevin Michael

Kevin,
There arent many choices at the moment if you want a one size fits 
all scanner and dont want to spend mucho deneiro to get it.  The 
Epson 3200 scanner is a good as it gets as far as lower price flatbed 
film scanners are concerned.

Dont know what conflicting report you have read or heard but I can 
tell you this: For 35mm, it will do 9x12 quite nicely and possibly 
more. For 645, expect A3+ size and from 6x7, 16x20's are within reach.

A very reasonable expection from the Epson 3200 is enlargment of 
about 8 times negatives size. It's not a drum scanner so dont expect 
the same quality but at the same you would be amazed at the amount of 
details it can pull from a negative.

I do know, an an Epson 3200 user that you can't get 35mm negatives 
enlarged to A3+ size without the print looking soft. So, for A3+ size 
and beyond, it's really a mf scanner.

Cheers,
Andre


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "visart7" 
<visart7@y...> wrote:
>  Hi all, 
>    A recently developed respirtory problem has forced me out of the 
> darkroom and into the digital darkroom. My budget is low, and my 
> quality needs are high, so I am looking for input on the best 
> compromise for my scanning needs. I work in B&W and shoot a little 
> 35mm and 6x6, but the vast majority of my work is 6x45. Just for 
the 
> sake of clarifying my needs, I'll give you a little backround. I 
was 
> a full time professional portrait photographer for six years. I 
quit 
> doing that because I chose to focus all of my creative energy on my 
> personal/fine art work.  I have begun to exhibit it, and am 
planning 
> on doing so alot more (hence my need for quality). At this point, 
> $2K - $3K for a dedicated 120 film scanner is not an option for me. 
> Niether is the cost of regularly having my work drum scanned. I 
will 
> be printing on either an Epson 2200 or a quadtone setup, haven't 
> decided which yet (that's perhaps a subject for another post). I'm 
> not into printing huge - most of my stuff is 8x10 or 11x14, but I 
> would also like to print up to the full 13x19 capability of these 
> printers and get an excellent result. I understand the difference 
> between the way a silver print and an inkjet looks, and with that 
> understanding I need to get a result that is on a par quality-wise 
> with what I am used to getting in the darkroom. I am by no means a 
> master printer, but I am picky and I am capable of getting my 
prints 
> to look the way I want them to. 
>  So all that said, any suggestions as to scanning solutions? I have 
> heard much conflicting info regarding the Epson 3200 and it's 
> predecessor the 2450. Any thoughts as to the capability of the 3200 
> to scan 645 for exhibtion quality printing? Perhaps I should 
clarify 
> that more. When I speak of quality, sharpness and detail are 
> certainly important, but the ability of the scanner to capture 
subtle 
> tonal information is of paramount importance to me . This is the 
main 
> reason I shoot medium format - the superior gradation it offers. I 
> will be shooting TCN and XP2, and my guess is that these types of 
> negs should not pose much of a challenge to this scanner's dynamic 
> range. I think I understand the relationship between bit depth and 
> tonal gradation (and the 3200 looks good in this regard) but I'm 
not 
> sure I fully grasp how the resolution of this scanner (which I have 
> heard is actually lower than the stated 3200 dpi) would affect 
tonal 
> rendition, or if it would scan 645 well enough to produce a sharp, 
> detailed print in the sizes I will be doing. As far as other 
options, 
> I seem to recall someone mentioning a guy who does reasonably 
priced 
> scans for people using a Nikon 8000. In the long run, given the 
> number of negs I'll want to scan, I'm sure outsourcing them at any 
> price would exceed the cost of the Epson, but if that's what I need 
> to do to get the results I need, then that's what I'll do. Your 
input 

> on these or any other options would be greatly appreciated. 
> Thanks
>       Kevin Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sceptre12345 [mailto:am1000@...] 
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 7:20 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Help Sought With 120 Scanning Decision
> 
> ...
> 
> A very reasonable expection from the Epson 3200 is enlargment of 
> about 8 times negatives size. It's not a drum scanner so dont expect 
> the same quality but at the same you would be amazed at the amount of 
> details it can pull from a negative.
> 
> I do know, an an Epson 3200 user that you can't get 35mm negatives 
> enlarged to A3+ size without the print looking soft. So, for A3+ size 
> and beyond, it's really a mf scanner.

I second this... (BTW, Andre you meant "for A3+ size and below" I
presume?)

Kevin, I have a 2450 and it is good for 6x enlargements (but one needs
to do some conscious and smart sharpening - it is a consumer flatbed in
fact). Both 2450 (for 6x) and 3200 (for 8x) are more than good for
printing medium format transparencies/negatives up to A3+ (13"x19"), I
use mine for 6x6 work - very satisfied. But don't even think about using
these with OEM driver and without calibration (mine was seriously off -
displaying a strong magenta/red cast); Vuescan with IT8 calibration may
be a very powerful addition to this system for a modest price.

Regards,
Loris.

Loris,
I would qualify that with 6x4.5 its for A3+ size and below. But with 
a 6x7 or 6x9 negative it would be interesting to see what can be 
achieved with the Epson 3200.
Cheers,
Andre

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Loris Medici" 
<lorism@t...> wrote:
> 
> > A very reasonable expection from the Epson 3200 is enlargment of 
> > about 8 times negatives size. It's not a drum scanner so dont 
expect 
> > the same quality but at the same you would be amazed at the 
amount of 
> > details it can pull from a negative.
. So, for A3+ size 

> > and beyond, it's really a mf scanner.
> 
> I second this... (BTW, Andre you meant "for A3+ size and below" I
> presume?)
> Loris.

I have a 2450 with which I have been mostly dissapointed.  The underside of the glass cannot be cleaned, except by a service station.  I have done this twice, trying to explain the necessity of clean glass to the tech, but he is not a photographer.  The haze builds up again anyhow.  Even with clean glass, results are less than very good.

This is basically the same scanner as the 3200.  I have heard the optics are identical, and I've seen back to back scans which show --NO improvement-- in quality between the two, just bigger file sizes.  The 3200 scans much faster, however.

Of course, at roughly $2500 less than the Nikon, I'm living with soft scans.

If you are living with soft scans and not seeing the quality difference
between a 2450 and 3200 then you must have a defective unit.  Here are two
urls, the first a scan of a 6X6 Velvia transparency and the second a scan of
a Portra 160VC negative, both done on an Epson 3200:

http://www.sclamb.com/scancomp/Church.jpg

http://www.sclamb.com/scancomp/Glen%20Portra.jpg

I test printed both of these to 20²X20² and they are sharp.

Simon

On 10/3/03 8:15 pm, "gaberegalbuto" <gaberegalbuto@...> wrote:

> I have a 2450 with which I have been mostly dissapointed.  The underside of
> the glass cannot be cleaned, except by a service station.  I have done this
> twice, trying to explain the necessity of clean glass to the tech, but he is
> not a photographer.  The haze builds up again anyhow.  Even with clean glass,
> results are less than very good.
> 
> This is basically the same scanner as the 3200.  I have heard the optics are
> identical, and I've seen back to back scans which show --NO improvement-- in
> quality between the two, just bigger file sizes.  The 3200 scans much faster,
> however.
> 
> Of course, at roughly $2500 less than the Nikon, I'm living with soft scans.
> 



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

> I have a 2450 with which I have been mostly dissapointed.  The
> underside of the glass cannot be cleaned, except by a service
> station ...

It's actually fairly easy to do it yourself (the hard part is to
not get it MORE dusty in the process !).  I'll append the
description, originally posted by Ralf Radermacher.

Good luck, John

******************************************************************

As already suggested by others, the upper part of the housing
including
the glass plate (from now on called upper frame, forRadermacher the
purpose of this
description) is fastened by the two screws down in the holes holding
the
transparency unit.

Before proceding, do have a look through the glass plate at the area
just behind the button of the power switch, in the front left corner
of
the scanner. You'll see a little PC board and a connector with a few
wires going towards the upper frame because the actual power switch is
fastened to and will come off with the upper frame.

Now, undo the two screws, lift the upper frame at the rear, and slide
it
slightly forward (about 10 mm) to disengage it at the front side. Now,
swing the upper frame to the left, as seen from the front of the
scanner, and disconnect the little connector described above. The
upper
frame is now completely free and can be cleaned using either alcohol
or
a glass cleaning product.

Re-assemble in reverse order (don't forget the cable connector).

May I add that the whole operation should be carried out in a location
with as little dust in the air as possible or you'll end up
introducing
more dirt into the unit than you wanted to remove in the first place.
In
most domestic environments this would be the bathroom. Really, no
joke.

Blow out the inside of the upper frame with dried air before
re-fitting
it. 

Oh, one more thing: Here's a little trick for getting the screws back
into the thread they've cut themselves in the plastic material when
the
scanner was first assembled: instead of fastening them right away
apply
very light pressure and turn the screwdriver counter-clockwise (as if
you wanted to undo them) until you notice a slight 'click'. Now, turn
clockwise to fasten the screw. This trick works for all those many
instances of screws in plastic material. It avoids mashing up the
plastic inside the hole and ending up with a screw that can't be
tightened anymore.

Hi,

I have similar needs for a scanner (120 and 4x5 film, good tonal gradation 
and shadow detail). I've been considering the Microtek ArtixScan 1800f, 
which reportedly has a 4.8Dmax (!) and a 1800 spi optical resolution (good 
enough for me with 6x7 cm and 4x5" originals), and uses no-glass film 
holders. The price is somewhat higher than the Epsons (around $1600, I 
think, bundled with Silverfast Ai 6.0), but still well below the Nikon. 
Does anyone have any experience with this scanner?

Thanks,
Paulo


At 00:37 10/3/2003, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>    A recently developed respirtory problem has forced me out of the
>darkroom and into the digital darkroom. My budget is low, and my
>quality needs are high, so I am looking for input on the best
>compromise for my scanning needs. I work in B&W and shoot a little
>35mm and 6x6, but the vast majority of my work is 6x45. Just for the
>sake of clarifying my needs, I'll give you a little backround. I was
>a full time professional portrait photographer for six years. I quit
>doing that because I chose to focus all of my creative energy on my
>personal/fine art work.  I have begun to exhibit it, and am planning
>on doing so alot more (hence my need for quality). At this point,
>$2K - $3K for a dedicated 120 film scanner is not an option for me.
>Niether is the cost of regularly having my work drum scanned. I will
>be printing on either an Epson 2200 or a quadtone setup, haven't
>decided which yet (that's perhaps a subject for another post). I'm
>not into printing huge - most of my stuff is 8x10 or 11x14, but I
>would also like to print up to the full 13x19 capability of these
>printers and get an excellent result. I understand the difference
>between the way a silver print and an inkjet looks, and with that
>understanding I need to get a result that is on a par quality-wise
>with what I am used to getting in the darkroom. I am by no means a
>master printer, but I am picky and I am capable of getting my prints
>to look the way I want them to.
>So all that said, any suggestions as to scanning solutions? I have
>heard much conflicting info regarding the Epson 3200 and it's
>predecessor the 2450. Any thoughts as to the capability of the 3200
>to scan 645 for exhibtion quality printing? Perhaps I should clarify
>that more. When I speak of quality, sharpness and detail are
>certainly important, but the ability of the scanner to capture subtle
>tonal information is of paramount importance to me . This is the main
>reason I shoot medium format - the superior gradation it offers. I
>will be shooting TCN and XP2, and my guess is that these types of
>negs should not pose much of a challenge to this scanner's dynamic
>range. I think I understand the relationship between bit depth and
>tonal gradation (and the 3200 looks good in this regard) but I'm not
>sure I fully grasp how the resolution of this scanner (which I have
>heard is actually lower than the stated 3200 dpi) would affect tonal
>rendition, or if it would scan 645 well enough to produce a sharp,
>detailed print in the sizes I will be doing. As far as other options,
>I seem to recall someone mentioning a guy who does reasonably priced
>scans for people using a Nikon 8000. In the long run, given the
>number of negs I'll want to scan, I'm sure outsourcing them at any
>price would exceed the cost of the Epson, but if that's what I need
>to do to get the results I need, then that's what I'll do. Your input
>on these or any other options would be greatly appreciated.
>Thanks
>       Kevin Michael
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>ADVERTISEMENT
><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245454.2994396.4323964.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182:HM/A=1457554/R=0/*http://ipunda.com/clk/beibunmaisuiyuiwabei>313ce3d.jpg
>313cedd.jpg
>
>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>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 
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

  ----------



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

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

From: "johngeyles" <jge@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 12:48 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Help Sought With 120 Scanning Decision


>
> > I have a 2450 with which I have been mostly dissapointed.
The
> > underside of the glass cannot be cleaned, except by a service
> > station ...
>
> It's actually fairly easy to do it yourself (the hard part is
to
> not get it MORE dusty in the process !).  I'll append the
> description, originally posted by Ralf Radermacher.
>
> Good luck, John


My thanks to Ralf, his ancestors must have been qualified
"Radermacher".
Printed the message to store it with the Epson 3200 papers for
when it is needed.

Ernst

Simon,
Your photos are indeed sharp!
Can you share with us your scanning workflow (regular holders or 
fluid mounting, sharpening methods etc).
Cheers,
Andre

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Simon Lamb 
<simon@s...> wrote:
> If you are living with soft scans and not seeing the quality 
difference
> between a 2450 and 3200 then you must have a defective unit.  Here 
are two
> urls, the first a scan of a 6X6 Velvia transparency and the second 
a scan of

> a Portra 160VC negative, both done on an Epson 3200:
> 
> http://www.sclamb.com/scancomp/Church.jpg
> 
> http://www.sclamb.com/scancomp/Glen%20Portra.jpg
> 
> I test printed both of these to 20²X20² and they are sharp.
> 
> Simon
>

Yeah, what Andre said!

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: sceptre12345 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:07 AM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Help Sought With 120 Scanning Decision


  Simon,
  Your photos are indeed sharp!
  Can you share with us your scanning workflow (regular holders or 
  fluid mounting, sharpening methods etc).
  Cheers,
  Andre

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

Andre

There is not much out of the ordinary in the workflow I am using.  One important thing I did when I got the Epson 3200 scanner was get the Silverfast IT8 calibration feature enabled and calibrated the scanner.  This has meant that the transparency and reflective scans are now pretty much correct from a colour perspective straight from the scanner.

The Church shot was taken on Velvia.  This 6X6 transparency (as with the 6X6 Portra negative) was scanned using the medium format holder that came with the scanner.  I must say that for a budget scanner the holders are very well designed and keep the film very flat, at least to the eye and I think the depth of focus is sufficient for any slight deviation from true flatness.  I know that Alessandro has shown that oil mounting can produce sharper scans with better contrast but I haven't attempted that yet.  The scan was done at 3200ppi and resized to 800 pixels in PS.  As for cleaning up the image, a slight magenta cast was removed with Pictographics Editlab 3.0 and it was sharpened using UltraSharpen Pro.

The Portra negative was more of a challenge, as Portra has proved to be on many scanners I have used.  The Negafix module of Sliverfast Ai has Portra profiles but they are pretty near useless, although I have tweaked them to some degree and they are better than nothing.  I have found that Vuescan can produce very nice Portra scans but for this one I did the following (which produces slightly better results).  I scanned in Silverfast Ai as RGB positive and used the 48-bit HDR (raw) output from Silverfast.  This file I inverted in Photoshop and then adjusted the levels by selecting red, green and blue separately.  I then used Editlab to remove a slight red/magenta cast, resized to 800 pixels and sharpened with UltraSharpen Pro.  This image was slight better contrast than the Vuescan image, but they were close.

I am very pleased with the 3200.  I have used a Nikon 8000, Minolta Multi Pro, Polaroid Sprintscan 120 and Flextight Photo.  The 3200 is not as good as any of these, as you would expect, but for less than £350 it is unmatched as a MF scanner at that price.  In many cases, you would have to look real close to see a print was not from a more expensive scan, and I have done some A3+ prints to prove that to myself.  Also, it cannot dig out detail from very dense shadows on Velvia film, but many scanners fail here also.

Simon

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: sceptre12345 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 3:07 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Help Sought With 120 Scanning Decision


  Simon,
  Your photos are indeed sharp!
  Can you share with us your scanning workflow (regular holders or 
  fluid mounting, sharpening methods etc).
  Cheers,
  Andre

  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Simon Lamb 
  <simon@s...> wrote:
  > If you are living with soft scans and not seeing the quality 
  difference
  > between a 2450 and 3200 then you must have a defective unit.  Here 
  are two
  > urls, the first a scan of a 6X6 Velvia transparency and the second 
  a scan of
  > a Portra 160VC negative, both done on an Epson 3200:
  > 
  > http://www.sclamb.com/scancomp/Church.jpg
  > 
  > http://www.sclamb.com/scancomp/Glen%20Portra.jpg
  > 
  > I test printed both of these to 20²X20² and they are sharp.
  > 
  > Simon
  >




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

Simon
I'm glad to see that you have used a regular scanning workflow and 
that great scans can be achieved with the regular holders.

I will have a try with your sharpening method and see if I can 
improve things a bit with UltraSharpenPro. 
Many thanks,
Andre