Digital BW, The Print

Hi Kevin,
 
I'm scanning Portra400BW 6x7 with the Epson3200, so I should not be too far
off. I think you'll be satisfied with the 3200. Outsourcing your scans,
apart from the cost issues, seems risky to me, as I saw how big a difference
can make scanning workflows, and I don't think that anyone who does
something for money can be careful (and picky :-) as someone who does it for
his own pleasure.
That said, I can offer you two sample scans here:
 
 <http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1341299&size=lg>
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1341299&size=lg

 <http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1339580&size=lg>
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1339580&size=lg


(you already know them if you followed the recent "Epson3200 - Test results"
thread). One shows fine detail at 100% in a 2x4 mm section, the other is a
full scan. Don't know how much you can get out of these images, but I hope
they may help. You can find more images and test in the following thread:
 
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.pl?s=3e6c59f36d15ffff;a
ct=ST;f=36;t=1;st=190
<http://www.photo-i.co.uk/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.pl?s=3e6c59f36d15ffff;
act=ST;f=36;t=1;st=190> 
 
Alessandro

-----Original Message-----
From: visart7 [mailto:visart7@...]
Sent: lunedì 10 marzo 2003 4:38
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Help Sought With 120 Scanning Decision


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=17050191
82:HM/A=1457554/R=0/*http://ipunda.com/clk/beibunmaisuiyuiwabei> 	
 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=245454.2994396.4323964.2848452/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1457554/rand=664701919> 	

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 Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . 




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

I have an Epson 2450. It is a great scanner for scanning prints and 
flat art and it is "OK" as far as a film scanning goes.. certainly 
worth the price. I was in the process of scanning some 6x7 
transparencies and I decided to do a little test. I took and unwanted 
6x7 chrome and did a scan of it on my 2450. I then cut it down a 
section of the transparency to 35mm size. I then took the cut down 
piece of film and mounted it in a plastic 35mm slide mount. I then 
scanned the slide on my Nikon Coolscan IV. In comparing the same 
section of film in both scans the difference is day and night as far as 
sharpness and pure detail go. The scan done on the Nikon Coolscan IV is 
so much better! I then repeated this same test with a few other pieces 
of film with the same results.

-Jeff

Nobody will certainly dispute that a lower cost flatbed scanner is as 
good as a dedicated film scanner. I knew that when I bought the Epson 
3200. What I'm mostly interested in is what can be achieve with this 
flatbed scanner and how to achieve it.

The first few scans I've done and later printed showed me that all 
things considered, it is a remarkable scanner with MF negative 
printed to A3+ size.
Cheers,
Andre

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Magidson 
<jef.jef@v...> wrote:
> I have an Epson 2450. It is a great scanner for scanning prints and 
> flat art and it is "OK" as far as a film scanning goes.. certainly 
> worth the price. I was in the process of scanning some 6x7 
> transparencies and I decided to do a little test. I took and 
unwanted 
> 6x7 chrome and did a scan of it on my 2450. I then cut it down a 
> section of the transparency to 35mm size. I then took the cut down 
> piece of film and mounted it in a plastic 35mm slide mount. I then 
> scanned the slide on my Nikon Coolscan IV. In comparing the same 
> section of film in both scans the difference is day and night as 
far as 
> sharpness and pure detail go. The scan done on the Nikon Coolscan 
IV is 
> so much better! I then repeated this same test with a few other 
pieces 

> of film with the same results.
> 
> -Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paulo Baptista" <paulo.baptista@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Help Sought With 120 Scanning Decision


> 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?
>

Paulo,

I can't give you any info on the Microtek but I am extremely skeptical of
product specs regarding Dmax and optical resolution. They tend to be
statements based on the capacity of the analog to digital converter and the
number of CCD's per inch, and not representative of real world capabilities.
Real values can be obtained by scanning calibrated density wedges and
resolution targets but I have never seen any such data published by a
scanner manufacturer. Not even high end drum scanners live up to their
advertising.

I have been down the scanner road though and after trying a Polaroid 4000
35mm film scanner, a 1200 ppi Linoscan flatbed, a Polaroid 120 6cm film
scanner and an Epson 2400, I now have a used Howtek 4000 drum scanner. If I
didn't have to scan 4x5 I would have been content with the Polaroid 120.
Rather than dropping $1600 on a flatbed scanner I would try an Epson 3200
with oil mounting. I would suspect that the difference between the results
with the Epson and the Microtek if any are not justified by the extra cost.
Also at that price you have a shot at picking up a used MF film scanner.

If you are going to use a flatbed for scanning sheet film, then consider a
move up to a 5x7 or 8x10 camera. Doesn't help for whatever you have already
shot of course.


Kevin,

Since you moved out of the wet darkroom due to respiratory problems, don't
try wet mounting on a flat bed with Kami fluid or similar "vanishing oils."
Watch out for the effects of working with lots of film cleaner too. Oddly
enough a number of the mounting fluids and cleaners used in oil mounting
film are as hazardous or more to your health than what you would encounter
in standard B&W film and print development.

Martin Wesley
>
>
> 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=1705019
182: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.y
ahoo.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]
>
>
> 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Anyone who is considering spending $1600 or more on a scanner should 
think about getting a used drum scanner. They are extremely good 
bargains now and a lot of them are built like tanks. You can go to the 
hi-end scanning group for more information. 

(( as far as where to buy from: there are a couple of good brokers (two 
different guys named weber are good) but the best deals will be from 
individuals (or print shops) that will sell for half or less than what 
the brokers will charge. Ebay is actually a good place if you have done 
your research. An pre-sale inspection is ideal of course. Remember that 
shipping will be a lot and that there can be differences in software))

-mh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Wesley" <
mwesley250@e...> wrote:

> Paulo,
> 
> I can't give you any info on the Microtek but I am extremely skeptical of
> product specs regarding Dmax and optical resolution. They tend to be
> statements based on the capacity of the analog to digital converter and the
> number of CCD's per inch, and not representative of real world capabilities.
> Real values can be obtained by scanning calibrated density wedges and
> resolution targets but I have never seen any such data published by a
> scanner manufacturer. Not even high end drum scanners live up to their
> advertising.
> 
> I have been down the scanner road though and after trying a Polaroid 4000
> 35mm film scanner, a 1200 ppi Linoscan flatbed, a Polaroid 120 6cm film
> scanner and an Epson 2400, I now have a used Howtek 4000 drum scanner. If I
> didn't have to scan 4x5 I would have been content with the Polaroid 120.
> Rather than dropping $1600 on a flatbed scanner I would try an Epson 3200
> with oil mounting. I would suspect that the difference between the results
> with the Epson and the Microtek if any are not justified by the extra cost.
> Also at that price you have a shot at picking up a used MF film scanner.
> 
> If you are going to use a flatbed for scanning sheet film, then consider a
> move up to a 5x7 or 8x10 camera. Doesn't help for whatever you have already
> shot of course.
> 
> 
> Kevin,
> 
> Since you moved out of the wet darkroom due to respiratory problems, don't
> try wet mounting on a flat bed with Kami fluid or similar "vanishing oils."
> Watch out for the effects of working with lots of film cleaner too. Oddly
> enough a number of the mounting fluids and cleaners used in oil mounting
> film are as hazardous or more to your health than what you would encounter
> in standard B&W film and print development.
> 
> Martin Wesley

Hi Martin,

thanks for your answer; I'm aware of the discrepancies between the 
announced specs and the real behaviour of such equipment, of course. I've 
seen comparisons made by Phil Lippincott (from Aztek) on the ScanHi-End 
list between some hi-end flatbed and drum scanners using the method you 
mention, but nothing similar for these (Epsons, Polaroid/Microtek, Nikon, 
etc) scanners, so I thought someone could have some direct experience with 
the Microtek.

Also, as I've posted a similar question on other lists, and got no response 
from anyone having actually used the ArtixScan 1800f, I suppose it's not 
very popular out there :) I was interested in its non-glass film carriers, 
mainly for dispensing with the hassle of oil mounting and film cleaning, 
but I really don't know how flat do they hold sheet film, compared to wet 
mounting to a glass surface.

As for the move to 5x7 or 8x10, I'd love to, but, besides having to deal 
with the cost and availability of larger format film and processing here in 
Brazil (it is a *very* limiting factor) , I fear my back won't be happy 
with the extra weight (I already have to take extra care when  lugging my 
camera/camping gear around).

Best regards,
Paulo

www.paulobaptista.cjb.net


At 04:31 11/3/2003, you wrote:

>Paulo,
>
>I can't give you any info on the Microtek but I am extremely skeptical of
>product specs regarding Dmax and optical resolution. They tend to be
>statements based on the capacity of the analog to digital converter and the
>number of CCD's per inch, and not representative of real world capabilities.
>Real values can be obtained by scanning calibrated density wedges and
>resolution targets but I have never seen any such data published by a
>scanner manufacturer. Not even high end drum scanners live up to their
>advertising.
>
>I have been down the scanner road though and after trying a Polaroid 4000
>35mm film scanner, a 1200 ppi Linoscan flatbed, a Polaroid 120 6cm film
>scanner and an Epson 2400, I now have a used Howtek 4000 drum scanner. If I
>didn't have to scan 4x5 I would have been content with the Polaroid 120.
>Rather than dropping $1600 on a flatbed scanner I would try an Epson 3200
>with oil mounting. I would suspect that the difference between the results
>with the Epson and the Microtek if any are not justified by the extra cost.
>Also at that price you have a shot at picking up a used MF film scanner.
>
>If you are going to use a flatbed for scanning sheet film, then consider a
>move up to a 5x7 or 8x10 camera. Doesn't help for whatever you have already
>shot of course.

Hi,

At 05:55 11/3/2003, you wrote:
>Anyone who is considering spending $1600 or more on a scanner should
>think about getting a used drum scanner. They are extremely good
>bargains now and a lot of them are built like tanks. You can go to the
>hi-end scanning group for more information.


I've considered this too, and I'm sure it would a good choice regarding the 
scanner itself and its use, but to buy such used equipment on e-bay from 
another country (I live in Brazil) can mean an incredible amount of 
problems, so I'm looking for a new scanner that can be bought from an 
authorized dealer.

Regards,
Paulo
www.paulobaptista.cjb.net

>(( as far as where to buy from: there are a couple of good brokers (two
>different guys named weber are good) but the best deals will be from
>individuals (or print shops) that will sell for half or less than what
>the brokers will charge. Ebay is actually a good place if you have done
>your research. An pre-sale inspection is ideal of course. Remember that
>shipping will be a lot and that there can be differences in software))
>
>-mh

Hi Pablo;

The Artixscan flatbeeds are the same machines as the Agfa duoscans 
(no longer available, at least in the U.S.) You might inquire if any 
one is familiar with those; the only difference is the software, 
Microteck providing the better of the two. I had a few scans done on 
a 1200 ppi Agfa Duoscan a couple years back, it produced very sharp 
scans, much better than my Epson 1600. The dynamic range and shadow 
noise level were very good also. 

> but I really don't know how flat do they hold sheet film, compared 
to wet 
> mounting to a glass surface.

It's a flat-bed, in spite of the dual scanning positions. That 
usually means a better and less critical depth of focus. 

How much of a hurry are you in? One of the local service centers has 
an Agfa duoscan 2500, if you're willing to cover the costs & send me 
a spare neg, I'll have a scan done for you. Contact me off-list if 
that's of interest.

Steve K
>

Hi Steve,

At 12:39 11/3/2003, you wrote:
>The Artixscan flatbeeds are the same machines as the Agfa duoscans
>(no longer available, at least in the U.S.) You might inquire if any
>one is familiar with those; the only difference is the software,
>Microteck providing the better of the two.

I have used a 1000 spi Duoscan too, it seemed very good to me regarding 
sharpness, but lacked in shadow detail on my 4x5 EPRs. That's why was 
interested on the new 1800f, even if the DMax is nowhere near the announced 
4.8 spec.

>How much of a hurry are you in? One of the local service centers has
>an Agfa duoscan 2500, if you're willing to cover the costs & send me
>a spare neg, I'll have a scan done for you. Contact me off-list if
>that's of interest.

Thanks for the offer; the local Microtek dealer (in São Paulo) has offered 
me the same (on the 1800f), I think I'm going to send them a B&W neg and a 
chrome for this test.

Regards,
Paulo


>Steve K
> >

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

From: "mh" <mh@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 12:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Help Sought With 120 Scanning Decision


> Anyone who is considering spending $1600 or more on a scanner should
> think about getting a used drum scanner. They are extremely good
> bargains now and a lot of them are built like tanks. You can go to the
> hi-end scanning group for more information.
>
> (( as far as where to buy from: there are a couple of good brokers (two
> different guys named weber are good) but the best deals will be from
> individuals (or print shops) that will sell for half or less than what
> the brokers will charge. Ebay is actually a good place if you have done
> your research. An pre-sale inspection is ideal of course. Remember that
> shipping will be a lot and that there can be differences in software))
>
> -mh
>
mh,

Just keep in mind that these bargain drum scanners like my Howtek are about
10 years old at this point and repairs are expensive. Someone recently
bought one with loading station and software for $1,300 but it died almost
immediately and had to be shipped off to be repaired. Shipping is not a
trivial matter since they are heavy beasts. Mine weighs 150 pounds and is
about 24" by 36".

I got mine about a year ago from a company that refurbishes them and
provides a short 90 day guarantee. So far so good. Altogether I spent just
under $5000 including the latest version of Silverfast. Prices have dropped
and you could probably do better now, but some caution is advised. $5,000 is
a lot but the first four scanners I went through cost a total of $7,100 of
which I was only able to recoup about $2,500 so I would have saved money if
I had just gone straight to the Howtek.

Martin Wesley

(snip earlier)