Digital BW, The Print

Kip, thanks for the compliment.   

As for your choices in 8x10 scanners, they are pretty limited.   The Epson 
4990 is okay.   If you like the Epson 3200's performance you'll like the 4990's 
-- to my eye the output of the two scanners is indistinguishable.   Microtek 
makes two scanners that cover 8x10 -- the i900 and the 1800tf -- but reliable 
real-world comparisons of the three machines' performance do not exist.   

Beyond those, you are heading into drum scanner territory, and they are very 
big and very expensive.   Since you already use the 3200, you know its 
strengths and weaknesses.   It is a bit soft when compared to a drum scan.   For my 
portraiture, I find it acceptable for the same reason I might reach for a 
portrait lens -- the slight softness flatters my subjects.   If you're shooting 
landscapes, you might want more.   

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net


In a message dated 6/30/05 5:58:55 PM, Kip writes:


> Sanders: I like the nudes. I have been shooting film since the '60's.
> Havn't done much since '93- been struggling with my business; but
> want to get back into it.  It seems that film>scanner>photoshop>Epson
> may be the hot setup.  I've had some communications with John Custodio
> (see his website), and he is shooting Velvia (or current equivalent)
> and scanning on his own Imacon- then printing with (I think) Epson
> 7600 with BW inks.  I bought a Nikon D100 two years ago- pics just
> don't seem to compare- but it's a great camera.  My best work is is
> done with a Calumet C-1 8 x 10 view camera on Tri-X with a 1/3 stop
> pull (EI 250ASA) in D76.  I contact-print these only: I don't like
> what an enlarger does to pictures.  Shots are mostly of people in bars
> or street festivals shot with strobe or inderect ambient sunlight
> against white background (basically mugshots).  I have an Epson 3200
> (Sanders: is the 4900 better?) and it doesn't do bad, but no 8 x 10
> film scan option.  I sent one of my 8 x 10's BW negs to PepinScan
> (they're about half local scan fees) in Canada for a color drum scan
> for a 100Mb file ($55?).  (Don't know if I can live with the idea of
> sending my films thru the mail)  The image is mindboggling- I printed
> it on my 2000p and other than metamerism, image is very 3-D and
> stunning.  Just got an Epson 4800 and am just trying to get to know it
> and get dialed in on a paper (I think it's going to be Epson Ultra
> smooth matte or equivalent).  I've printed with it briefly on EEM.
> 1)print in color (Adobe RGB) mode, prepare file in PS as a "tri-tone",
> creating 1 black and 2 greys.  2) print in color mode with Adobe RGB
> setting  3) print in "advanced BW" mode.  All pretty good- tritone
> appears more precise.
> 
> I want to scan my 8 x 10: any suggestions on a scanner that I can live
> with (price v quality), or should I bite the bullet an send them out
> at $50 - $100 a pop?  Thanks, Kip.   
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, sandersm@a...
> wrote:
> >
> > > > ... If anyone is left that still captures on film would
> > > > like to hear your film/developer combos for this print workflow.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > Count me in.   I am shooting entirely in 4x5 and 5x7 black and white
> film.  
> > I shoot a ton of Tri-X 320, that I expose at EI 160 (to open up
> shadows).   I
> > also shoot some Bergger 200, which I expose at EI 100.   I'm
> processing both
> > in Rodinal, in JOBO tanks.
> >
> > I've recently returned to the darkroom and am contact-rpinting my
> stuff for
> > the most part.   On the digital side, I am scanning now on an Epson
> 4990, and
> > before this one the Epson 3200, both controlled with the Epson
> driver in
> > Professional mode.   If nudity does not offend, you can see the
> results on my site,
> > www.mcnew.net.  
> >
> > Paul, if you're reading this, and you want some Tech Pan, I've got a
> bunch of
> > 120 rolls in the fridge.   Drop me a note if you are interested.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Sanders McNew
> > www.mcnew.net
> 



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

sandersm@... wrote:

> Kip, thanks for the compliment.  
>
> As for your choices in 8x10 scanners, they are pretty limited.   The 
> Epson 4990 is okay.   If you like the Epson 3200's performance you'll 
> like the 4990's -- to my eye the output of the two scanners is 
> indistinguishable.   Microtek makes two scanners that cover 8x10 -- 
> the i900 and the 1800tf -- but reliable real-world comparisons of the 
> three machines' performance do not exist.  
>
> Beyond those, you are heading into drum scanner territory, and they 
> are very big and very expensive.   


This, I think, is a common  misconception. Drum scanners tend to be big, 
yes, and they also tend to be heavy, noisy, slow and hot. But on the 
used market, they have become pretty inexpensive.You can get a used 
ColorGetter 3 Pro or a Falcon for less than 3000.00 USD these days 
(about 4-5% of what they cost new in the late 1990s). Used ScanMates and 
Screens abound. The used Howteks are more pricey because Aztek still 
supports them and people pay more for a scanner they can ship in for 
repair and get new parts for. Same for the used ICGs now that ICG has 
re-entered the market.

Also, drum scanning and fluid mounting are not nearly as difficult as 
people say - "those people" being people who mostly have never done it 
before. At least that's been my experience. There are learning curves, 
yes, but they are not any worse than learning to use a view camera and 
in many ways they are easier to climb.

Finally, the scan quality can't be beat. I'm talking sharp. I'm talking 
noise free. I'm talking smooth. Half of this is just the nature of how 
PMTs work. Half is fluid mounting on a drum that rigidly holds the film 
in the exact plane of focus while filling in all the voids and scratches.

Of course, it's not for everyone. My point is, it's not nearly as out of 
reach financially as it was even last year.
--
Bruce Watson

Stupid question, but why *are* drum scanners so much more expensive
than the alternatives?

Scott

hogarth@... wrote:

>
> This, I think, is a common  misconception. Drum scanners tend to be big,
> yes, and they also tend to be heavy, noisy, slow and hot. But on the
> used market, they have become pretty inexpensive.You can get a used
> ColorGetter 3 Pro or a Falcon for less than 3000.00 USD these days
> (about 4-5% of what they cost new in the late 1990s). Used ScanMates and
> Screens abound. The used Howteks are more pricey because Aztek still
> supports them and people pay more for a scanner they can ship in for
> repair and get new parts for. Same for the used ICGs now that ICG has
> re-entered the market.
>
> Also, drum scanning and fluid mounting are not nearly as difficult as
> people say - "those people" being people who mostly have never done it
> before. At least that's been my experience. There are learning curves,
> yes, but they are not any worse than learning to use a view camera and
> in many ways they are easier to climb.
>
> Finally, the scan quality can't be beat. I'm talking sharp. I'm talking
> noise free. I'm talking smooth. Half of this is just the nature of how
> PMTs work. Half is fluid mounting on a drum that rigidly holds the film
> in the exact plane of focus while filling in all the voids and scratches.
>
> Of course, it's not for everyone. My point is, it's not nearly as out of
> reach financially as it was even last year.
> --
> Bruce Watson
>
>

Scott McLoughlin wrote:

>Stupid question, but why *are* drum scanners so much more expensive
>than the alternatives?
>
>Scott
>
>hogarth@... wrote:
>  
>
There are a couple of reasons: The market is small, they require 
intensive engineering, and they are mainly industrial units used by 
large printing companies who are willing to pay high prices for reliable 
equipment.  I just looked at an old Screen drum scanner that was 8 feets 
long and used a ton of electricity. Eventhough the price was right, I 
decided against it. Moving and housing it were too daunting.

-Peter

Scott McLoughlin wrote:

> Stupid question, but why *are* drum scanners so much more expensive
> than the alternatives?
>
> Scott

They are harder to make.

With a CCD flatbed, you need one degree of motion. You scan a CCD array 
down the length of the film. Parallel capture.

With a drum scanner, you need two degrees of motion. You scan a single 
point at a time. Serial capture.

For serial capture to work, you have to move the film past the aperture 
(turn the drum past the scan point) to scan a line one pixel at a time. 
Then you have to index the drum to the next line and do it again. In 
order to space the scanning samples (pixels) just right, much precision 
is required, and different methods are used for the two degrees of 
motion. On top of that, a drum scanner is typically a higher precision 
machine to begin with because many of them are designed to try to get 
8000 ppi or greater. At that level, vibration is a serious problem 
(which is one reasons they are so big and heavy). All of this, because 
PMTs are expensive to make and pretty big on their own. That is, you 
can't afford to make a line of, say, 4000 PMTs like you can CCDs, and if 
you could afford it, you couldn't fit them together closely enough. 
Finally, since they are big and heavy and fairly expensive, only service 
bureaus wanted to buy them (individual photographers typically did not), 
which means that the production runs where small, which in turn ran the 
cost up even higher. There is little automation in the making of a drum 
scanner because of the small production runs. They are typically 
assembled completely by hand.

You can probably see where all this goes - with every step the price 
spirals upwards.
--
Bruce Watson

Peter De Smidt wrote:

> I just looked at an old Screen drum scanner that was 8 feets
> long and used a ton of electricity. Eventhough the price was right, I
> decided against it. Moving and housing it were too daunting.
>
> -Peter

There are a few classes of drum scanners. The old classics like the Hell 
3400 weigh like six tons and require floors to be reinforced. They have 
huge scanning capability (about the size of a page from the NYTimes). 
Dupont/Crosfield made units somewhat smaller, but still took up a lot of 
space and like the Hells required a rigger with a hoist to set them in 
place. The really big scanners often require 220 VAC, sometimes three 
phase power. They often need their own A/C system dedicated to the room 
they are in.

The only units I would direct photographers to are the "desktop" and 
"deskside" models that were entry level machines aimed at smaller 
service bureaus (Screen made some of these too, like the DT-S1045AI). 
These units have much smaller drums and thus much smaller scanning areas 
(usually good for originals in the 36 x 28 cm range (14x11 inch) and 
smaller of course). They typically weigh less than 100Kg (220 pounds) 
and are smaller than 120w x 60d x 45t cm (48w x 24d x 18t inches). That 
is, they take up the *entire* desktop. They do plug into standard wall 
outlets. They don't require a huge amount of extra A/C.

The best part though is that the software that runs the smaller scanners 
often was designed to be more versatile. That is, these desktop machines 
were often just as good with negatives as they were with trannies and 
with scanning prints. At least this is true of the Optronics scanners 
using the latest (still in production) version of ColorRight software. I 
hear that Aztek's DPL is excellent with negatives also. Screen also had 
a software module that you could buy for negatives IIRC. I'm not sure of 
the status of the ScanMates or the ICGs software.

In any case, I suspect you made the right decision. Just like I did with 
the IBM 3090 a used computer reseller offered me for $100 back in the 
1980s. It would have completely filled my living room, and I have no 
idea where I would have put the twin water chillers necessary to cool it 
(or the string of disk drives). I reluctantly took a pass, and heard 
later that they melted it for the gold in the PWBs. Oh well ;-)
--
Bruce Watson

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> hogarth@...
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 3:16 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] scanners for 8x10
> 
> Scott McLoughlin wrote:
> 
> > Stupid question, but why *are* drum scanners so much more expensive
> > than the alternatives?
> >
> > Scott
> 
> They are harder to make.

You fail to point out that the Professional high end drum scanner gave
better resolution the larger the final image produced, because the input
sampling rate increased with enlargement.

It was perfectly possible to produce a 30x enlargement, which amounts to a
35mm outputting to 45" along the longest side.

In addition the colour correction and tone reproduction were
pre-programmable to suit any given proofing requirement.

The editing facilities were extensive and to such a degree that final output
- screened halftone - was generally proof ready and required no additional
modification.

These edits included catchlight drop out, yet to be seen on any flat bed I
have come across, both UCR and GCR with GCR having a dropout limit set for
non image printing areas

USM was done on the fly

Originals up to 24"X20" could be handled (reflection and transparant)

You could batch scan so that in their heyday these were extremely profitable
devices.

In addition they later were used as input devices to supply images for 
electronic page makeup workstations.

Eventually 3rd party organisation started to produce relatively cheap
interfaces that allowed the scanner to output to a Mac/Pc workstation.

The same organisations even introduced the capability to process made-up
pages back into the scanners output drum, which could go up to 40"x30", thus
enabling an 8 page to view capability including both images and text.

On the other hand the desktop scanners all rely on the use of a separate
workstation for post scanning modification, meaning that their productive
output was considerably lower than the high end drum scanner.

Most of them were capable of inputing images to a workstation only and they
had serious original input size limitations. 

Final output was often through an imagesetter which did allow the production
of combined image and text pages

They were very popular during the early growth stages of the desk top
publishing revolution

It is these machines that seem to appeal to the Photographer seeking to
digitise his/her images because they are pretty cheap to buy and apparantly
readily servicable
 
Richard


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]