Digital BW, The Print

I would like to get back into MF and given the rush into digital, 
camera prices appear very reasonable.  What is stopping me is the 
price of film scanner that can handle 120 film. (My LS 2000 is in 
good shape and I cannot justify buying a new scanner at this point.)

My reading of the discussion of this topic on the list is that 
flatbed scanners compromise quality to the point where I might as 
well stick with 35mm film.  Now my question: has anyone had any luck 
with reasonably priced commercial scans of MF film?  (One lab in 
Philly wants around $35 per shot for a 20-40mg scan and I do not 
consider that reasonably priced.)   I would want to print 8X10 and I 
suspect that a 20mg scan would do that -- although I may be off here.

Thanks,

Steve

"My reading of the discussion of this topic on the list is that 
flatbed scanners compromise quality to the point where I might as 
well stick with 35mm film."

I would disagree with that one.  While by all means a $1000-1800+ MF
film scanner would be better I get very good results from my Epson
2450 on my Fuji 6x9 negs and chromes.  So much so that I would venture
to say that prints from those scans up to about 11x14 rival and
sometimes surpass my prints from negs/chromes of my Contax G2 scanned
on my LS-4000.  The MF prints defintitely have that MF "look" even
from flatebed scans.  And on top of it all the Epson 2450 is now about
two generations back as to what Epson flatbeds with trannie adapters
are available now (3200 and 4870).  Good scanning technique, good
digital darkroom workflow, proper sharpening and of course good
printing technique and you can get EXCELLENT prints from MF negs
scanned on an very affordable Epson flatbed.

Richard

----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Kobrin <kobrins@...>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:04:35 -0000
Subject: [Digital BW] MF Scans
To: digitalblackandwhitetheprint@yahoogroups.com

I would like to get back into MF and given the rush into digital, 
camera prices appear very reasonable.  What is stopping me is the 
price of film scanner that can handle 120 film. (My LS 2000 is in 
good shape and I cannot justify buying a new scanner at this point.)

My reading of the discussion of this topic on the list is that 
flatbed scanners compromise quality to the point where I might as 
well stick with 35mm film.  Now my question: has anyone had any luck 
with reasonably priced commercial scans of MF film?  (One lab in 
Philly wants around $35 per shot for a 20-40mg scan and I do not 
consider that reasonably priced.)   I would want to print 8X10 and I 
suspect that a 20mg scan would do that -- although I may be off here.

Thanks,

Steve



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
resources as they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from
the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital
B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be
removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group
Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the
Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER"
AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE
LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES),
RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD
PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT


________________________________
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
  
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Kobrin"
<kobrins@w...> wrote:
<snip>
> 
> My reading of the discussion of this topic on the list is that 
> flatbed scanners compromise quality to the point where I might as 
> well stick with 35mm film.  
<end snip>

Hi, Stephen,

I use an Epson 3200 to scan MF negatives (XP-2) and slides (Ektachrome
100G) I shoot with an Affa Super-Isolette folder.  It's true that the
realistic optical resolution is around 2000dpi for the 3200, but with
a 2 1/4 negative that still gives a 15 inch x 15 inch print at 300dpi
printed resoultion.

I'd suggest that you join the Epson3200 group here on Yahoo and
research the archives for the past year.  The list is quiet these
days, but when the 3200 was the top of the line there was a lot of
effort from folks who improved on the film holders, figured out the
prime focus plane, and even developed methods for wet mounting the
film to assure edge-to-edge sharpness.

Steve Alred

You might consider biting the bullet and going digital with the Canon 
1Ds. Buy the time you buy a new MF camera with lenses and a good 
Nikon scanner, you are in the range cost-wise of a 1ds. The quality 
is similar; you'll never have film costs again; and you'll have the 
flexibility of 35mm.

Check eBay for prices on the Minolta Multi II...it's a decent 2800dpi
35mm+MF scanner...and they just released a new driver for XP... 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Kobrin [mailto:kobrins@...] 
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 12:05 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] MF Scans

I would like to get back into MF and given the rush into digital, camera
prices appear very reasonable.  What is stopping me is the price of film
scanner that can handle 120 film. (My LS 2000 is in good shape and I cannot
justify buying a new scanner at this point.)

My reading of the discussion of this topic on the list is that flatbed
scanners compromise quality to the point where I might as well stick with
35mm film.  Now my question: has anyone had any luck with reasonably priced
commercial scans of MF film?  (One lab in Philly wants around $35 per shot
for a 20-40mg scan and I do not 
consider that reasonably priced.)   I would want to print 8X10 and I 
suspect that a 20mg scan would do that -- although I may be off here.

Thanks,

Steve

digikdm,

> You might consider biting the bullet and going digital with the Canon
> 1Ds. Buy the time you buy a new MF camera with lenses and a good
> Nikon scanner, you are in the range cost-wise of a 1ds. The quality
> is similar;

Personally, I'd say the "quality" (a very subjective term, of course) is no
where near "similar".

> you'll never have film costs again; and you'll have the
> flexibility of 35mm.

Of a DIGITAL 35mm...tied to batteries (and buying batteries) and a
computer...forever.

You paint a rather panaceic picture, that simply doesn't tell near the whole
story in reality.

Austin

You might consider (this is my plan anyway) to get a good flatbed with
negative capacity.

People who shoot digital cameras tell me that they can print a *insert
extravagant size* photo from their 6meg DSLR. If this is true, then it
doesn't take much of a scanner (resolution wise) to get a 6meg file from a
MF negative.

At 2400 ppi it would be 3900 x 5300 or a 20+Meg file for 645 format. That
would be 13 x 17in print at 300 dpi.

If you use 6x6 or 6x7 format, or have a higher scan rate then you can make
very large prints indeed. Also if you get that once in a lifetime image, you
can always have it commercially scanned at super resolutions.

Best wishes

On 8/20/04 12:04 PM, "Stephen Kobrin" <kobrins@...> wrote:

> My reading of the discussion of this topic on the list is that
> flatbed scanners compromise quality to the point where I might as
> well stick with 35mm film.  Now my question: has anyone had any luck
> with reasonably priced commercial scans of MF film?  (One lab in
> Philly wants around $35 per shot for a 20-40mg scan and I do not
> consider that reasonably priced.)   I would want to print 8X10 and I
> suspect that a 20mg scan would do that -- although I may be off here.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cheadle"
<wpcheadle@i...> wrote:
> Check eBay for prices on the Minolta Multi II...it's a decent 2800dpi
> 35mm+MF scanner...and they just released a new driver for XP... 
> 
Minolta Multi II's resolution for 35mm is 2820dpi and for medium
format it's 1128dpi optical and 2820 interpolated. About the same as
the Epson 3200 real resolution of 1200dpi and less than the Epson
4870's real resolution of 1600/1700 dpi.

Cheers,
Andre

slalred wrote:

> I use an Epson 3200 to scan MF negatives (XP-2) and slides (Ektachrome
> 100G) I shoot with an Affa Super-Isolette folder.  It's true that the
> realistic optical resolution is around 2000dpi for the 3200, but with
> a 2 1/4 negative that still gives a 15 inch x 15 inch print at 300dpi
> printed resoultion.
> 
> I'd suggest that you join the Epson3200 group here on Yahoo and
> research the archives for the past year.  The list is quiet these
> days, but when the 3200 was the top of the line there was a lot of
> effort from folks who improved on the film holders, figured out the
> prime focus plane, and even developed methods for wet mounting the
> film to assure edge-to-edge sharpness.
> 
> Steve Alred

Scanning w
ith my Nikon 8000, my Epson 3200 and wet mounting on both 
scanners I'm certain that the MF<>35MM quality difference is kept 
on the 3200.  Based on 4x5 scans for several customers and some 
test scans of MF color negatives  but also with the scans that I 
make of color and B&W negatives from the variety of folders that 
I have (among them an Iskra, the Soviet Super-Isolette clone). 
The Nikon 8000 is better but with good scan methods and editing 
you can get very close with the 3200. Not on resolution but 
there's no problem with density and color.  Using the normal 
glassless MF carrier on the Nikon 8000 will probably deliver a 
worse result than good wet mounting + masking techniques on an 
Epson 4870.

If it has to be a more expensive MF film scanner: The Polaroid 
120 MF scanner is a good scanner too and usually lower in price 
secondhand, The Microtek model is still available new. Secondhand 
and refurbished Nikon 8000 are not that expensive either.

It is a pity that the 3200 list got competition of the 4870 list. 
But the moderator decided to add a new list. Far more 
similarities between the models 2450 and up than differences so 
I'm still wondering why that split was necessary.

Ernst

I posed the same question at our Digital Arts Group here in N.J. and 
was told by some tech-types present that the "megabyte" file size 
from a DSLR can't be directly compared to the "megabyte" file size 
from a scanner.  Apparently it has something to do the the algorithms 
that accompany/process the camera generated file.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, SMuncy 
<smuncy@n...> wrote:
> You might consider (this is my plan anyway) to get a good flatbed 
with
> negative capacity.
> 
> People who shoot digital cameras tell me that they can print a 
*insert
> extravagant size* photo from their 6meg DSLR. If this is true, then 
it
> doesn't take much of a scanner (resolution wise) to get a 6meg file 
from a
> MF negative.
> 
> At 2400 ppi it would be 3900 x 5300 or a 20+Meg file for 645 
format. That
> would be 13 x 17in print at 300 dpi.
> 
> If you use 6x6 or 6x7 format, or have a higher scan rate then you 
can make
> very large prints indeed. Also if you get that once in a lifetime 
image, you
> can always have it commercially scanned at super resolutions.
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> 
> On 8/20/04 12:04 PM, "Stephen Kobrin" <kobrins@w...> wrote:
> 
> > My reading of the discussion of this topic on the list is that
> > flatbed scanners compromise quality to the point where I might as
> > well stick with 35mm film.  Now my question: has anyone had any 
luck
> > with reasonably priced commercial scans of MF film?  (One lab in
> > Philly wants around $35 per shot for a 20-40mg scan and I do not
> > consider that reasonably priced.)   I would want to print 8X10 
and I
> > suspect that a 20mg scan would do that -- although I may be off 
here.

Which "MF" do you plan to get back into? There's a big difference between
645 and 6x7 or 6x9. I scan 6x7 negatives with a Linoscan 1400 flat bed and
I've been pleased with 8x10 prints from those scans.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Kobrin" <kobrins@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 12:04 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] MF Scans


I would like to get back into MF and given the rush into digital,
camera prices appear very reasonable.  What is stopping me is the
price of film scanner that can handle 120 film. (My LS 2000 is in
good shape and I cannot justify buying a new scanner at this point.)

My reading of the discussion of this topic on the list is that
flatbed scanners compromise quality to the point where I might as
well stick with 35mm film.  Now my question: has anyone had any luck
with reasonably priced commercial scans of MF film?  (One lab in
Philly wants around $35 per shot for a 20-40mg scan and I do not
consider that reasonably priced.)   I would want to print 8X10 and I
suspect that a 20mg scan would do that -- although I may be off here.

Thanks,

Steve




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "B. Campbell" 
<bellis60@v...> wrote:
> Which "MF" do you plan to get back into? There's a big difference 
between
> 645 and 6x7 or 6x9. I scan 6x7 negatives with a Linoscan 1400 flat 
bed and
> I've been pleased with 8x10 prints from those scans.
> 


First, thanks to everyone who has replied.  Most likely a 6X6 camera 
such as a Bronica EC or a Pentacon 6 (I prefer older, manual cameras).

Given the price of Epson 3200s on ebay, it sounds like it might be 
worth trying one, especially with one of the adjustments to the film 
carrier suggested on that list.

Thanks again,

Steve

Let me second Richard's comment. I now have a Minolta MultiPro to scan
6x6 and 6x7 negs but used to use an Epson 2400 flatbed. The film
scanner is great but when I look at prints from negs scanned on the
old cheap flatbed, I have to say they are not lacking. 

Remember it's cheap to try. And there is a good chance you might be
happy with it. If not, the MF film scanners probably will have dropped
in price by more than you paid for the flatbed while you see if MF is
really for you. 

Bottom line: the bigger neg more than makes up for a lot of scanner
shortcomings. You don't need to spend $2K to start. 

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Richard Sintchak
<rich815@g...> wrote:

> "My reading of the discussion of this topic on the list is that 
> flatbed scanners compromise quality to the point where I might as 
> well stick with 35mm film."
> 
> I would disagree with that one.  While by all means a $1000-1800+ MF
> film scanner would be better I get very good results from my Epson
> 2450 on my Fuji 6x9 negs and chromes.

Steve, 

Only your eyes can answer this question. 

I have the Epson 4870 flatbed and a Minolta 5400 for 35mm. The scans of 35mm Velvia 
on the 5400 knock even some 6x9 scans on the 4870 into a cocked hat in my view.  

I use a scanning suite and pay $60 an hour to scan my MF on a Flextight 848. The 
difference between that and a scanner I can afford at home is astronmical. 

But in my view at 8x10 you can easily get great results from any of these methods. That is 
a fairly undemanding size. I think you would still be able to tell a difference if you were 
picky... but that is the variable only you control. 

> consider that reasonably priced.)   I would want to print 8X10 and I 
> suspect that a 20mg scan would do that -- although I may be off here.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Steve

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Kobrin" 
Steve,
I have had very impressive results, using a Mamiya 6x4.5 with an 
Epson 3170 flatbed, the latter which can be found new for under $100 
US. The Mamiya glass is excellent, and can probably find for sale for 
less than what it's worth (mine is an older 60's model).

Second, very fine and noticable results can be had by tilting the 
camera 90 degrees on the tripod, and shoot a slightly overlapped 
panorama of the subject, then after scanning, stitch it using 
Panotools (w/a stitching gui tool i.e. Panotools Assembler). You end 
up with 2 negs; the result is an effective approx. 6x9.  It took a 
learning curve, but the time spent is worth it...the first try at 
that workflow last winter, and resulting print was quite impressive 
and obvious, and comparable (almost) to 4x5 prints. (I use this w/f 
also to make 4x5, as the 3170 is only good for 6cm wide, not l/f 
requiring 2 scans.) Mark
 
<kobrins@w...> wrote:
> I would like to get back into MF and given the rush into digital, 
> camera prices appear very reasonable.  What is stopping me is the 
> price of film scanner that can handle 120 film. (My LS 2000 is in 
> good shape and I cannot justify buying a new scanner at this point.)
> 
> My reading of the discussion of this topic on the list is that 
> flatbed scanners compromise quality to the point where I might as 
> well stick with 35mm film.  Now my question: has anyone had any 
luck 
> with reasonably priced commercial scans of MF film?  (One lab in 
> Philly wants around $35 per shot for a 20-40mg scan and I do not 
> consider that reasonably priced.)   I would want to print 8X10 and 
I 
> suspect that a 20mg scan would do that -- although I may be off 
here.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Steve