Digital BW, The Print

Does your friend know the distance from which the posters will be viewed? If 
they'll be behind a counter or displayed in some other fashion that will 
limit the viewing distance to maybe six-eight feet or more then an Epson 
4990 or V700 might work fine and should be good for old, delicate negatives 
since they're flat-beds. But for top-quality exhibition poster size prints 
(i.e. prints that likely will be viewed close up) I don't think either would 
do very well. The maximum print size I've been happy with on my 4990 from 
4x5 and 8x10 negatives is about 12x17 (while both quote 4800 ppi, the actual 
ppi
they're capable of resolving is about 2100 according to the tests of the 
4490 in View Camera magazine a couple years ago and a later test of the V700 
in the same magazine), plus there's more to a quality scan than ppi.

A used drum scanner is the obvious choice for the best quality but I'm not 
so sure about using a drum with old, delicate negatives since the negatives 
have to be wrapped around the drum. Also, you have to make sure that you get
all the associated software, parts, accessories, manuals, etc. and have a 
computer with which they'll work.  I'm nowhere close to being an expert on 
used drum scanners and if I were buying one I'd discuss any prospective 
purchase with an expert.
- Original Message ----- 

From: "sagaface" <sagaface@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 10:49 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] All you scanning pros: Great scanner for 4x5 negs?


Hi all,

Can any of you recommend a scanner for (old and delicate) 4x5 negs? It's not
for me, but
for a friend who is considering purchasing a pro-sumer oriented model and
hiring
someone who knows what they're doing to use it, with the end result being
poster sized
prints.

 I think his price range is up to around 5-ish grand.

If this topic has been beaten to death, could someone direct me to an
archived thread? I
haven't found anything specific yet.

thanks!
Sarah



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

Hi all,

Can any of you recommend a scanner for (old and delicate) 4x5 negs? It's not for me, but 
for a friend who is considering purchasing a pro-sumer oriented model and hiring 
someone who knows what they're doing to use it, with the end result being poster sized 
prints.

 I think his price range is up to around 5-ish grand.

If this topic has been beaten to death, could someone direct me to an archived thread? I 
haven't found anything specific yet.

thanks!
Sarah

sagaface wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Can any of you recommend a scanner for (old and delicate) 4x5 negs? It's not for me, but 
> for a friend who is considering purchasing a pro-sumer oriented model and hiring 
> someone who knows what they're doing to use it, with the end result being poster sized 
> prints.
>
>  I think his price range is up to around 5-ish grand.
>
> If this topic has been beaten to death, could someone direct me to an archived thread? I 
> haven't found anything specific yet.
>
> thanks!
> Sarah
>   
Used drum scanners. More like 2-ish grand. Still beat anything out there 
at 8x or higher enlargements, and for bunches less money.

What you're looking for is a "desktop" model (that's in quotes because 
they take up the *entire* top of a desk) from companies like Howtek, 
Optronics, Screen, ScanMate, ICG, etc.

For more information, search around the archives for the yahoo group 
Scan Hi-End.

OTOH, if your friend is going to try to hire someone to do the scans, 
you should know that operator cost is the biggest part of having a film 
scanned. Why not just send the film out and have it drum scanned by a 
competent operator on his own equipment? Cost won't be that much higher, 
and you don't have to mess with buying a scanner and the associated 
equipment, and finding an area you can dedicate to scanning. Just a thought.
--
Bruce Watson

sagaface wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Can any of you recommend a scanner for (old and delicate) 4x5 negs? It's 
> not for me, but
> for a friend who is considering purchasing a pro-sumer oriented model 
> and hiring
> someone who knows what they're doing to use it, with the end result 
> being poster sized
> prints.
> 
> I think his price range is up to around 5-ish grand.
> 
> If this topic has been beaten to death, could someone direct me to an 
> archived thread? I
> haven't found anything specific yet.
> 
> thanks!
> Sarah

With this kind of budget, I'd suggest first trying
an Epson V700 ($550 list, shop around a bit) and
evaluate the results.  Making a 9x enlargement
from a 4x5 gives a poster-sized print and would
require about a 2700dpi scan of the neg, which should
be within the capability of the V700.  I've seem a
few rave reviews of the V700.  I know that I was
reasonably impressed with an Epson 4490 for $200
but I've never used a V700 myself.

Gambling $500 on a V700 might save your friend a
few thousand bucks.

Dana

I'll second that Dana.  I've used a V700 now for several months scanning 
5x4 100Tmax at 2400.  This easily gives me sharp 28"x36" prints @ 300ppi 
- or would if I could print that wide - 17" paper is my max roll paper 
width.  I believe the scanner's max non-interpolated resolution is 3200 
making 9x enlargements possible - but are the negatives up to it?  I 
have not compared it's output with the best drum scanners BUT, it works 
exceptionally well for me - at a tiny fraction of the price.
Steve Gledhill
http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/


Dana H. Myers wrote:

>
> sagaface wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Can any of you recommend a scanner for (old and delicate) 4x5 negs? 
> It's
> > not for me, but
> > for a friend who is considering purchasing a pro-sumer oriented model
> > and hiring
> > someone who knows what they're doing to use it, with the end result
> > being poster sized
> > prints.
> >
> > I think his price range is up to around 5-ish grand.
> >
> > If this topic has been beaten to death, could someone direct me to an
> > archived thread? I
> > haven't found anything specific yet.
> >
> > thanks!
> > Sarah
>
> With this kind of budget, I'd suggest first trying
> an Epson V700 ($550 list, shop around a bit) and
> evaluate the results. Making a 9x enlargement
> from a 4x5 gives a poster-sized print and would
> require about a 2700dpi scan of the neg, which should
> be within the capability of the V700. I've seem a
> few rave reviews of the V700. I know that I was
> reasonably impressed with an Epson 4490 for $200
> but I've never used a V700 myself.
>
> Gambling $500 on a V700 might save your friend a
> few thousand bucks.
>
> Dana
>

I use a V700. I just had the opportunity to print 14x17 of my scanned 4x5 and 2 slides drum scanned. Visually I could not tell the difference. The V 700 does a nice job for me.

Charlie

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Steve Gledhill 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 11:47 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] All you scanning pros: Great scanner for 4x5 negs?


  I'll second that Dana. I've used a V700 now for several months scanning 
  5x4 100Tmax at 2400. This easily gives me sharp 28"x36" prints @ 300ppi 
  - or would if I could print that wide - 17" paper is my max roll paper 
  width. I believe the scanner's max non-interpolated resolution is 3200 
  making 9x enlargements possible - but are the negatives up to it? I 
  have not compared it's output with the best drum scanners BUT, it works 
  exceptionally well for me - at a tiny fraction of the price.
  Steve Gledhill
  http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/

  Dana H. Myers wrote:
  >
  > sagaface wrote:
  > >
  > >
  > > Hi all,
  > >
  > > Can any of you recommend a scanner for (old and delicate) 4x5 negs? 
  > It's
  > > not for me, but
  > > for a friend who is considering purchasing a pro-sumer oriented model
  > > and hiring
  > > someone who knows what they're doing to use it, with the end result
  > > being poster sized
  > > prints.
  > >
  > > I think his price range is up to around 5-ish grand.
  > >
  > > If this topic has been beaten to death, could someone direct me to an
  > > archived thread? I
  > > haven't found anything specific yet.
  > >
  > > thanks!
  > > Sarah
  >
  > With this kind of budget, I'd suggest first trying
  > an Epson V700 ($550 list, shop around a bit) and
  > evaluate the results. Making a 9x enlargement
  > from a 4x5 gives a poster-sized print and would
  > require about a 2700dpi scan of the neg, which should
  > be within the capability of the V700. I've seem a
  > few rave reviews of the V700. I know that I was
  > reasonably impressed with an Epson 4490 for $200
  > but I've never used a V700 myself.
  >
  > Gambling $500 on a V700 might save your friend a
  > few thousand bucks.
  >
  > Dana
  >


   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/891 - Release Date: 7/8/2007 6:32 PM


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

Does the $5,000 include printer or just scanner and time to scan X number of
scans and produce files to print? 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214-827-8301

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

 

Skype : ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sagaface
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 9:49 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] All you scanning pros: Great scanner for 4x5 negs?

 

Hi all,

Can any of you recommend a scanner for (old and delicate) 4x5 negs? It's not
for me, but 
for a friend who is considering purchasing a pro-sumer oriented model and
hiring 
someone who knows what they're doing to use it, with the end result being
poster sized 
prints.

I think his price range is up to around 5-ish grand.

If this topic has been beaten to death, could someone direct me to an
archived thread? I 
haven't found anything specific yet.

thanks!
Sarah

 



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

I'd take a look at the Epsons as others have suggested. Drum scanning requires a skilled operator and those folks are few and far between. If drum scanning is something that becomes a must then I would send the negs out to a lab with a skilled operator using equipment that they are familar with rather than trying to find one to operate yours.

Walt

>-----Original Message-----
>From: sagaface [mailto:sagaface@...]
>Sent: Monday, July 9, 2007 04:49 AM
>To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Digital BW] All you scanning pros: Great scanner for 4x5 negs?
>
>Hi all,
>
>Can any of you recommend a scanner for (old and delicate) 4x5 negs? It's not for me, but 
>for a friend who is considering purchasing a pro-sumer oriented model and hiring 
>someone who knows what they're doing to use it, with the end result being poster sized 
>prints.
>
> I think his price range is up to around 5-ish grand.
>
>If this topic has been beaten to death, could someone direct me to an archived thread? I 
>haven't found anything specific yet.
>
>thanks!
>Sarah
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
>

Thanks all, for the responses so far. It gives me a fair amount to report back for 
consideration. Some other info that I didin't make very clear:

My friend has inherited from several sources a vast collection of old maritime negs dating 
from the late 1800's thru about 1970. All together i think there are three sources, totalling 
something close to 4000 negs! He had been sending out his scans -  just a few so far - at 
$130 a pop. Then he found someone to do it for $75....but doesn't know what type of 
scanner they used. 

He has been considering purchasing one, because the scanning/archiving of all these is 
going to take quite some time, and he figured sending them all out would eventually 
bankrupt him. He assumed (rightly or wrongly) that the initial outlay for a better-than-
decent scanner would save him money in the end, considering how many negs there are.

The $5000 is just my guess at what he'd be willing to spend on the scanner alone....I just 
threw that number out there for him to consider, thinking about used drum scanners in 
my mind. I had no idea how off the mark I might be but I knew they were quite expensive 
and I wanted to prepare him for a high number. Obviously less $$ would be better! He was 
then hoping to hire someone to work for him, scanning as well as other things. He 
wouldn't be printing them himself.


Thanks again for all comments,
Sarah













--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, wkm@... wrote:
>
> I'd take a look at the Epsons as others have suggested. Drum scanning requires a skilled 
operator and those folks are few and far between. If drum scanning is something that 
becomes a must then I would send the negs out to a lab with a skilled operator using 
equipment that they are familar with rather than trying to find one to operate yours.
> 
> Walt
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: sagaface [mailto:sagaface@...]
> >Sent: Monday, July 9, 2007 04:49 AM
> >To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [Digital BW] All you scanning pros: Great scanner for 4x5 negs?
> >
> >Hi all,
> >
> >Can any of you recommend a scanner for (old and delicate) 4x5 negs? It's not for me, 
but 
> >for a friend who is considering purchasing a pro-sumer oriented model and hiring 
> >someone who knows what they're doing to use it, with the end result being poster 
sized 
> >prints.
> >
> > I think his price range is up to around 5-ish grand.
> >
> >If this topic has been beaten to death, could someone direct me to an archived thread? 
I 
> >haven't found anything specific yet.
> >
> >thanks!
> >Sarah
> >
> >
> >
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi Sarah, this subject has been discussed at some length on
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/.  One of the suggestions there
was to look at the high end flatbed scanners such as Creo as an alternative
to purchasing a drum scanner.  Your friend might have a look at the
secondhand market in these to see if they are affordable.  They should prove
easier to use than a drum scanner.

David Whistance

  -----Original Message-----
  From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of sagaface
  Sent: 09 July 2007 21:19
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] All you scanning pros: Great scanner for 4x5
negs?


  Thanks all, for the responses so far. It gives me a fair amount to report
back for
  consideration. Some other info that I didin't make very clear:

  My friend has inherited from several sources a vast collection of old
maritime negs dating
  from the late 1800's thru about 1970. All together i think there are three
sources, totalling
  something close to 4000 negs! He had been sending out his scans - just a
few so far - at
  $130 a pop. Then he found someone to do it for $75....but doesn't know
what type of
  scanner they used.

  He has been considering purchasing one, because the scanning/archiving of
all these is
  going to take quite some time, and he figured sending them all out would
eventually
  bankrupt him. He assumed (rightly or wrongly) that the initial outlay for
a better-than-
  decent scanner would save him money in the end, considering how many negs
there are.

  The $5000 is just my guess at what he'd be willing to spend on the scanner
alone....I just
  threw that number out there for him to consider, thinking about used drum
scanners in
  my mind. I had no idea how off the mark I might be but I knew they were
quite expensive
  and I wanted to prepare him for a high number. Obviously less $$ would be
better! He was
  then hoping to hire someone to work for him, scanning as well as other
things. He
  wouldn't be printing them himself.

  Thanks again for all comments,
  Sarah

  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, wkm@... wrote:
  >
  > I'd take a look at the Epsons as others have suggested. Drum scanning
requires a skilled
  operator and those folks are few and far between. If drum scanning is
something that
  becomes a must then I would send the negs out to a lab with a skilled
operator using
  equipment that they are familar with rather than trying to find one to
operate yours.
  >
  > Walt
  >
  > >-----Original Message-----
  > >From: sagaface [mailto:sagaface@...]
  > >Sent: Monday, July 9, 2007 04:49 AM
  > >To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  > >Subject: [Digital BW] All you scanning pros: Great scanner for 4x5
negs?
  > >
  > >Hi all,
  > >
  > >Can any of you recommend a scanner for (old and delicate) 4x5 negs?
It's not for me,
  but
  > >for a friend who is considering purchasing a pro-sumer oriented model
and hiring
  > >someone who knows what they're doing to use it, with the end result
being poster
  sized
  > >prints.
  > >
  > > I think his price range is up to around 5-ish grand.
  > >
  > >If this topic has been beaten to death, could someone direct me to an
archived thread?
  I
  > >haven't found anything specific yet.
  > >
  > >thanks!
  > >Sarah
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >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
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  >



  


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

See the post by Kirk Gittings, a very demanding professional
photographer with whose work I'm familiar:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=27076

http://www.gittingsphoto.com/


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "David Whistance"
<david.whistance@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Sarah, this subject has been discussed at some length on
> http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/.  One of the
suggestions there
> was to look at the high end flatbed scanners such as Creo as an
alternative
> to purchasing a drum scanner.  Your friend might have a look at the
> secondhand market in these to see if they are affordable.  They
should prove
> easier to use than a drum scanner.
> 
> David Whistance
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
sagaface
>   Sent: 09 July 2007 21:19
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] All you scanning pros: Great scanner for 4x5
> negs?
> 
> 
>   Thanks all, for the responses so far. It gives me a fair amount to
report
> back for
>   consideration. Some other info that I didin't make very clear:
> 
>   My friend has inherited from several sources a vast collection of old
> maritime negs dating
>   from the late 1800's thru about 1970. All together i think there
are three
> sources, totalling
>   something close to 4000 negs! He had been sending out his scans -
just a
> few so far - at
>   $130 a pop. Then he found someone to do it for $75....but doesn't know
> what type of
>   scanner they used.
> 
>   He has been considering purchasing one, because the
scanning/archiving of
> all these is
>   going to take quite some time, and he figured sending them all out
would
> eventually
>   bankrupt him. He assumed (rightly or wrongly) that the initial
outlay for
> a better-than-
>   decent scanner would save him money in the end, considering how
many negs
> there are.
> 
>   The $5000 is just my guess at what he'd be willing to spend on the
scanner
> alone....I just
>   threw that number out there for him to consider, thinking about
used drum
> scanners in
>   my mind. I had no idea how off the mark I might be but I knew they
were
> quite expensive
>   and I wanted to prepare him for a high number. Obviously less $$
would be
> better! He was
>   then hoping to hire someone to work for him, scanning as well as other
> things. He
>   wouldn't be printing them himself.
> 
>   Thanks again for all comments,
>   Sarah
> 
>   --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, wkm@ wrote:
>   >
>   > I'd take a look at the Epsons as others have suggested. Drum
scanning
> requires a skilled
>   operator and those folks are few and far between. If drum scanning is
> something that
>   becomes a must then I would send the negs out to a lab with a skilled
> operator using
>   equipment that they are familar with rather than trying to find one to
> operate yours.
>   >
>   > Walt
>   >
>   > >-----Original Message-----
>   > >From: sagaface [mailto:sagaface@]
>   > >Sent: Monday, July 9, 2007 04:49 AM
>   > >To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   > >Subject: [Digital BW] All you scanning pros: Great scanner for 4x5
> negs?
>   > >
>   > >Hi all,
>   > >
>   > >Can any of you recommend a scanner for (old and delicate) 4x5 negs?
> It's not for me,
>   but
>   > >for a friend who is considering purchasing a pro-sumer oriented
model
> and hiring
>   > >someone who knows what they're doing to use it, with the end result
> being poster
>   sized
>   > >prints.
>   > >
>   > > I think his price range is up to around 5-ish grand.
>   > >
>   > >If this topic has been beaten to death, could someone direct me
to an
> archived thread?
>   I
>   > >haven't found anything specific yet.
>   > >
>   > >thanks!
>   > >Sarah
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >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
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   >
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I should have added this...it's the tool they were discussing:

http://betterscanning.com/

>
> See the post by Kirk Gittings, a very demanding professional
> photographer with whose work I'm familiar:
> 
> http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=27076
> 
> http://www.gittingsphoto.com/
> 
>

Hello Sarah, I want to let you know that I do professional quality scanning 
on an Imacon scanner. I would quote better prices and give great quality. If 
you are interested contact me at deandadin@.... Thanks Steve



**************************************
 See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


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

Well, if he has (or can spend) $5000 on a scanner, he might want to
contact the people at Aztec and see what they can do. They might be
able to come up with a nicer than Epson flatbed and all the software
to operate  it most efficiently.

I now have a lot of practical options to pass along and some great places to begin 
gathering more information thanks to you all. Your help is invaluable and nonpareil!

Sarah


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, deandadin@... wrote:

>
> Hello Sarah, I want to let you know that I do professional quality scanning 
> on an Imacon scanner. I would quote better prices and give great quality. If 
> you are interested contact me at deandadin@... Thanks Steve
> 
> 
> 
> **************************************
>  See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

In a message dated 7/9/2007 8:58:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
sagaface@... writes:

I now  have a lot of practical options to pass along and some great places to 
begin  
gathering more information thanks to you all. Your help is invaluable and  
nonpareil!

Sarah



I was wondering why no one mentioned the Imacon. They are selling on eBay  
for under $3500, and my Precision gives me very nice 4x5 scans that print as  
large as I want them to.
 
Richard (Brooklyn)



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


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

Step one is a drum scanner, assuming the negatives can survive being 
fluid mounted.

There are very expensive flatbeds from Creo, Fuji, Aztek and others. 
Their big claim to fame is speed. You can fill their large flat-bed full 
of film, and off you go.  Supposedly they give higher quality than 
consumer flatbeds, but I have no idea if this is true.  They are 
certainly heavier built. One potential problem with these would be 
getting them serviced.

The a step down would be Epson and Microtek's professional models.  The 
Microteck 1800F get's good reviews.  Supposedly the optics, mechanicals 
and electronics are better than consumer models.  It's true that dynamic 
range, low vibration, precision movements...are all more important that 
resolution.

Finally, there are the consumer flatbeds.

There are a number of issues involved, including the skill and care of 
the operator. For example, a great "consumer flatbed" scan will trump a 
poor drum scan.... If you get your own equipment, you'll have to add in 
the cost of training an operator and upkeep on the scanner. 

One thing to remember is that most "consumer scanner" reviews are done 
very poorly.  It's essential to get the film holders to the ideal 
height, and this often isn't the manufacturer's default!  Second, 
keeping the film flat has a huge effect on quality, just as it does when 
enlarging traditionally. I wet-mount on the underside of a sheet of 
optical glass that's been shimmed to the ideal height for my scanner.  
This gives much better results than using my Canon film-holders that 
came with the scanner. But...it's b PITA and it take a lot of time.  So 
if you're doing a large amount of scans, as you are, this might be 
prohibitive.

If possible, try to get a scan of the same negative on the various options.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, CorrPro96@... wrote:
...
> I was wondering why no one mentioned the Imacon. They are selling on
eBay  
> for under $3500, and my Precision gives me very nice 4x5 scans that
print as  
> large as I want them to.
>  
> Richard (Brooklyn)

I've been meaning to reply and mention it, something more urgent keeps
popping up. I have some problems with Imacons, but mostly color trannies.
For B&W negs they seem to be fine. The Corwin work I've been printing
at up to 30x40 looks fine to me, and I get Imacon files from others
that seem fine as well.
Since they are actually ccd scanners the grain does not get too harsh,
and B&W negs usually fall within the true density range they can deal
with.
Just make sure you've got the one going up to 4x5, if that's your
need. Also, some early versions would not save out 16 bit, I had some
problem 8 bit files from an older Imacon, tonal banding. Not sure what
issues one may need to be careful about with a used unit.
Tyler

Old and delicate don't do well with Imacon scanners : )  New nice flexible
films can handle that bending with very few problems. 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214-827-8301

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

 

Skype : ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
CorrPro96@...
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 8:08 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] All you scanning pros: Great scanner for 4x5 negs?
-THANKS!!!

 


In a message dated 7/9/2007 8:58:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
sagaface@yahoo. <mailto:sagaface%40yahoo.com> com writes:

I now have a lot of practical options to pass along and some great places to

begin 
gathering more information thanks to you all. Your help is invaluable and 
nonpareil!

Sarah

I was wondering why no one mentioned the Imacon. They are selling on eBay 
for under $3500, and my Precision gives me very nice 4x5 scans that print as

large as I want them to.

Richard (Brooklyn)

************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.
<http://www.aol.com.> com.

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

 



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

I'd be concerned about the lens mount. I would also wonder about the glass.
Is it still clear? No surface fog. 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214-827-8301

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

 

Skype : ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tyler
Boley
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 9:16 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] All you scanning pros: Great scanner for 4x5 negs?
-THANKS!!!

 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, CorrPro96@... wrote:
...
> I was wondering why no one mentioned the Imacon. They are selling on
eBay 
> for under $3500, and my Precision gives me very nice 4x5 scans that
print as 
> large as I want them to.
> 
> Richard (Brooklyn)

I've been meaning to reply and mention it, something more urgent keeps
popping up. I have some problems with Imacons, but mostly color trannies.
For B&W negs they seem to be fine. The Corwin work I've been printing
at up to 30x40 looks fine to me, and I get Imacon files from others
that seem fine as well.
Since they are actually ccd scanners the grain does not get too harsh,
and B&W negs usually fall within the true density range they can deal
with.
Just make sure you've got the one going up to 4x5, if that's your
need. Also, some early versions would not save out 16 bit, I had some
problem 8 bit files from an older Imacon, tonal banding. Not sure what
issues one may need to be careful about with a used unit.
Tyler

 



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

See:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

djon43 wrote:
> I should have added this...it's the tool they were discussing:
> 
> http://betterscanning.com/

Doug gave me a wet mount carrier to review and it is good. 
The wet mount system he based it on is the method I 
developed 3-4 years ago on Epson scanners, Doug's method of 
focus height control is better than Epson's or other third 
party solutions. Black plastic sheets to make custom sized 
masks are included in the package. However one should lock 
the carrier position on the scanner with some self adhesive 
tabs to close it in, makes it more convenient to work with.

With the budget mentioned and the amount of work to do I 
would recommend to get two V700's + two carriers, and maybe 
4 glass sheets. That would allow continuous operation while 
the investment is still low compared to other solutions. For 
the negatives that are too fragile for wet mounting: Doug's 
carrier glass is also having a anti-newton surface on one side.

With the variety of emulsions in old negatives I would 
recommend to use a scanner driver like Vuescan. The 
multi-sampling and exposure time control it has may be 
needed for that kind of negatives. Use color scans when 
emulsion show artifacts that can be healed in color editing.



-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

Eric, I thought it was a very slight and gentle curve, no?
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Neilsen
Photo " <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
> Old and delicate don't do well with Imacon scanners : )  New nice
flexible
> films can handle that bending with very few problems. 
> 
>  
> 
> Eric Neilsen Photography
> 
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
> 
> Dallas, TX 75226
> 
> 214-827-8301
> 
> http://ericneilsenphotography.com
> 
>  
> 
> Skype : ejprinter
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> CorrPro96@...
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 8:08 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] All you scanning pros: Great scanner for
4x5 negs?
> -THANKS!!!
> 
>  
> 
> 
> In a message dated 7/9/2007 8:58:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
> sagaface@yahoo. <mailto:sagaface%40yahoo.com> com writes:
> 
> I now have a lot of practical options to pass along and some great
places to
> 
> begin 
> gathering more information thanks to you all. Your help is
invaluable and 
> nonpareil!
> 
> Sarah
> 
> I was wondering why no one mentioned the Imacon. They are selling on
eBay 
> for under $3500, and my Precision gives me very nice 4x5 scans that
print as
> 
> large as I want them to.
> 
> Richard (Brooklyn)
> 
> ************************************** See what's free at
http://www.aol.

> <http://www.aol.com.> com.
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

It is not a radical bend, but I'd have my doubts about putting some older
"crisp" negative material through one. At least the one that I worked with
which was an Imacon Precision II. They may have improved the through put
since. One thing that I really didn't like about the holder was the over lap
on the edges of the film. I am sure that it was to ensure a good hold on the
film, but for some work, it would get in the way of getting the whole image
area on the film. 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214-827-8301

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

 

Skype : ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tyler
Boley
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:00 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] All you scanning pros: Great scanner for 4x5 negs?
-THANKS!!!

 

Eric, I thought it was a very slight and gentle curve, no?
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Neilsen
Photo " <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
> Old and delicate don't do well with Imacon scanners : ) New nice
flexible
> films can handle that bending with very few problems. 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Neilsen Photography
> 
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
> 
> Dallas, TX 75226
> 
> 214-827-8301
> 
> http://ericneilsenp <http://ericneilsenphotography.com> hotography.com
> 
> 
> 
> Skype : ejprinter
> 
> _____ 
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> CorrPro96@...
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 8:08 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] All you scanning pros: Great scanner for
4x5 negs?
> -THANKS!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a message dated 7/9/2007 8:58:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
> sagaface@yahoo. <mailto:sagaface%40yahoo.com> com writes:
> 
> I now have a lot of practical options to pass along and some great
places to
> 
> begin 
> gathering more information thanks to you all. Your help is
invaluable and 
> nonpareil!
> 
> Sarah
> 
> I was wondering why no one mentioned the Imacon. They are selling on
eBay 
> for under $3500, and my Precision gives me very nice 4x5 scans that
print as
> 
> large as I want them to.
> 
> Richard (Brooklyn)
> 
> ************************************** See what's free at
http://www.aol.
> <http://www.aol. <http://www.aol.com.> com.> com.
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

 



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

In a message dated 7/10/2007 12:03:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
tyler@... writes:

--- In  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Neilsen
Photo "  <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
> Old and delicate don't do well  with Imacon scanners : )  New nice
flexible
> films can handle  that bending with very few problems. 
> 
>  
> 
>  Eric Neilsen Photography



Eric:
My 4x5 negs are old.... 40 years plus.... and the Imacon film holder takes  
them in and out just fine. The holders are stainless steel and the film is held 
 by a magnetic flap.
 
Richard (Brooklyn)



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


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

Richard, 40 years may seem old, but the negs I am thinking about would fall
into the 80 year range. 40 year old neg are still made of what I'd consider
soft material. And its that magnetic flap that is required to hold things
down. I just wasn't all that trilled with the system when I used it for 2+
years. 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214-827-8301

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

 

Skype : ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
CorrPro96@...
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 3:52 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] All you scanning pros: Great scanner for 4x5 negs?
-THANKS!!!

 


In a message dated 7/10/2007 12:03:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
tyler@tylerboley. <mailto:tyler%40tylerboley.com> com writes:

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Neilsen
Photo " <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
> Old and delicate don't do well with Imacon scanners : ) New nice
flexible
> films can handle that bending with very few problems. 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Neilsen Photography

Eric:
My 4x5 negs are old.... 40 years plus.... and the Imacon film holder takes 
them in and out just fine. The holders are stainless steel and the film is
held 
by a magnetic flap.

Richard (Brooklyn)

************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.
<http://www.aol.com.> com.

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

 



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

Hi Sara-

As part of my Fine-Art photo printing and art reproduction studio, I do drum
scanning using the best equipment and software. As a matter of fact, I am
also scanning my own archive of 5000 negatives and contact prints(4x5) from
the early 20th century (1913-1940). I hope you will forward this to your
friend.

As others have said, drum scanning is absolutely the best way to go; any of
the flatbed and Imacon scanners will have significantly more noise, flare,
and will be less sharp across the film plane than a good drum scan. On the
other hand, as some have suggested, if the posters are to be of lower
quality, viewed from medium distance (3 feet or more), you will get adequate
results from any of the suggested scanners. It really depends on the end-use
of the prints.

The cost of the scan, either purchased from someone like me, or in the
scanner operator's time, is partly determined by the size of the resulting
file. Do you know how large the prints will be?

Having said that, I can tell you that were I bidding on a project such as
this, I would be quoting quite a bit less than the prices you have
suggested- they are high even for individual scans, unless the files are 1
gig or more.

At the very least, I would highly recommend that your friend hire a
competent fine-art scanner and printer to consult on a plan for this work.
Hiring someone competent for archival scanning is not easy, and you need to
know what to look for, or you may throw alot of money away.

-- 
Regards,

Bill Morse
Wm. Morse Editions

(617) 429-3298

On 7/9/07, sagaface <sagaface@...> wrote:
>
>   Thanks all, for the responses so far. It gives me a fair amount to
> report back for
> consideration. Some other info that I didin't make very clear:
>
> My friend has inherited from several sources a vast collection of old
> maritime negs dating
> from the late 1800's thru about 1970. All together i think there are three
> sources, totalling
> something close to 4000 negs! He had been sending out his scans - just a
> few so far - at
> $130 a pop. Then he found someone to do it for $75....but doesn't know
> what type of
> scanner they used.
>
> He has been considering purchasing one, because the scanning/archiving of
> all these is
> going to take quite some time, and he figured sending them all out would
> eventually
> bankrupt him. He assumed (rightly or wrongly) that the initial outlay for
> a better-than-
> decent scanner would save him money in the end, considering how many negs
> there are.
>
> The $5000 is just my guess at what he'd be willing to spend on the scanner
> alone....I just
> threw that number out there for him to consider, thinking about used drum
> scanners in
> my mind. I had no idea how off the mark I might be but I knew they were
> quite expensive
> and I wanted to prepare him for a high number. Obviously less $$ would be
> better! He was
> then hoping to hire someone to work for him, scanning as well as other
> things. He
> wouldn't be printing them himself.
>
> Thanks again for all comments,
> Sarah
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
> wkm@... wrote:
> >
> > I'd take a look at the Epsons as others have suggested. Drum scanning
> requires a skilled
> operator and those folks are few and far between. If drum scanning is
> something that
> becomes a must then I would send the negs out to a lab with a skilled
> operator using
> equipment that they are familar with rather than trying to find one to
> operate yours.
> >
> > Walt
> >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: sagaface [mailto:sagaface@...]
> > >Sent: Monday, July 9, 2007 04:49 AM
> > >To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >Subject: [Digital BW] All you scanning pros: Great scanner for 4x5
> negs?
> > >
> > >Hi all,
> > >
> > >Can any of you recommend a scanner for (old and delicate) 4x5 negs?
> It's not for me,
> but
> > >for a friend who is considering purchasing a pro-sumer oriented model
> and hiring
> > >someone who knows what they're doing to use it, with the end result
> being poster
> sized
> > >prints.
> > >
> > > I think his price range is up to around 5-ish grand.
> > >
> > >If this topic has been beaten to death, could someone direct me to an
> archived thread?
> I
> > >haven't found anything specific yet.
> > >
> > >thanks!
> > >Sarah
> > >
> > >
>


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

Bill,
You are going to piss off lots of people with that statement, careful.
Mark

On Jul 11, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Bill Morse wrote:

> As others have said, drum scanning is absolutely the best way to  
> go; any of
> the flatbed and Imacon scanners will have significantly more noise,  
> flare,
> and will be less sharp across the film plane than a good drum scan.



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

"As an aside, it continues to amaze me that people who spend the time, 
effort
and $$ to do large format photography then content themselves with flatbed
scans."

I've been photographing and exhibiting prints from 4x5 and 8x10 negatives 
for years using a flatbed scanner. In my experience, and that of many others 
(see numerous posts on this subject at www.largeformatphotography.info), as 
long as the print size doesn't exceed roughly 16x20 there's almost never any 
noticeable difference between those scans and prints made from drum scans 
(which I use for larger prints) unless the prints are examined with a loupe.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Morse" <Bill.Morse@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] All you scanning pros: Great scanner for 4x5 negs?


Hi Mark-

Ha! No doubt. However, after years of trying to do fine-art scanning with
both a scitex and a Nikon 9000, and after directly comparing scans of the
same high-quality neg on both an Imacon and a drum (Howtek 6500 in my case),
I know the statement to be factual. On the other hand, as I also pointed
out, not all uses require that level of quality, expertise, and effort.

As an aside, it continues to amaze me that people who spend the time, effort
and $$ to do large format photography then content themselves with flatbed
scans.

Bill

On 7/11/07, Mark Savoia <mark@...> wrote:
>
>   Bill,
> You are going to piss off lots of people with that statement, careful.
> Mark
>
> On Jul 11, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Bill Morse wrote:
>
> > As others have said, drum scanning is absolutely the best way to
> > go; any of
> > the flatbed and Imacon scanners will have significantly more noise,
> > flare,
> > and will be less sharp across the film plane than a good drum scan.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



-- 
Regards,

Bill Morse
Wm. Morse Editions

(617) 429-3298


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



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

Hi Mark-

Ha! No doubt. However, after years of trying to do fine-art scanning with
both a scitex and a Nikon 9000, and after directly comparing scans of the
same high-quality neg on both an Imacon and a drum (Howtek 6500 in my case),
I know the statement to be factual. On the other hand, as I also pointed
out, not all uses require that level of quality, expertise, and effort.

As an aside, it continues to amaze me that people who spend the time, effort
and $$ to do large format photography then content themselves with flatbed
scans.

Bill

On 7/11/07, Mark Savoia <mark@...> wrote:
>
>   Bill,
> You are going to piss off lots of people with that statement, careful.
> Mark
>
> On Jul 11, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Bill Morse wrote:
>
> > As others have said, drum scanning is absolutely the best way to
> > go; any of
> > the flatbed and Imacon scanners will have significantly more noise,
> > flare,
> > and will be less sharp across the film plane than a good drum scan.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>



-- 
Regards,

Bill Morse
Wm. Morse Editions

(617) 429-3298


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

I think it is more about operator expertise most of the time.
Mark

On Jul 11, 2007, at 7:32 AM, Bill Morse wrote:

> Hi Mark-
>
> Ha! No doubt. However, after years of trying to do fine-art  
> scanning with
> both a scitex and a Nikon 9000, and after directly comparing scans  
> of the
> same high-quality neg on both an Imacon and a drum (Howtek 6500 in  
> my case),
> I know the statement to be factual. On the other hand, as I also  
> pointed
> out, not all uses require that level of quality, expertise, and  
> effort.
>
> As an aside, it continues to amaze me that people who spend the  
> time, effort
> and $$ to do large format photography then content themselves with  
> flatbed
> scans.
>
> Bill
>
> On 7/11/07, Mark Savoia <mark@ctphoto.com> wrote:
>>
>>   Bill,
>> You are going to piss off lots of people with that statement,  
>> careful.
>> Mark
>>
>> On Jul 11, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Bill Morse wrote:
>>
>>> As others have said, drum scanning is absolutely the best way to
>>> go; any of
>>> the flatbed and Imacon scanners will have significantly more noise,
>>> flare,
>>> and will be less sharp across the film plane than a good drum scan.
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Regards,
>
> Bill Morse
> Wm. Morse Editions
>
> (617) 429-3298
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

Brian Ellis wrote:
> "As an aside, it continues to amaze me that people who spend the time, 
> effort
> and $$ to do large format photography then content themselves with flatbed
> scans."
> 
> I've been photographing and exhibiting prints from 4x5 and 8x10 negatives 
> for years using a flatbed scanner. In my experience, and that of many others 
> (see numerous posts on this subject at www.largeformatphotography.info), as 
> long as the print size doesn't exceed roughly 16x20 there's almost never any 
> noticeable difference between those scans and prints made from drum scans 
> (which I use for larger prints) unless the prints are examined with a loupe.

The original request didn't mention wide format printing 
either as far as I know.

 >>My friend has inherited from several sources a vast 
collection of old maritime negs dating
from the late 1800's thru about 1970. All together i think 
there are three sources, totalling
something close to 4000 negs!<<

This suggests a wider variety of sizes than 4x5. A variety 
of emulsions and probably lower resolution emulsions than we 
are used to today. Possibly nitrocellulose and glass image 
carriers.

Looks like it needs a flexible solution which isn't one you 
will find in a drum scanner


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

Hi Ernst and Brian.

I agree that for 16x20 from a 4x5 neg, you may not see the advantage of a
drum scan- in fact I alluded to just those considerations in my posts. It
really does depend on how the images will be used- I should have made that
explicit again in my comments about large format photography. On the other
hand, if you are going to go to the trouble and expense of scanning a 4x5, I
believe you should scan it at a size large enough for the largest
anticipated print- even if current plans only call for 16x20.  Even there, I
charge for drum scans no more than many people charge for Imacon or Scitex
scans, so why not get the best?

Ernst, you are certainly correct that if they are glass plate negs, he will
need a flatbed solution; but we don't know that yet. The OP asked for
"poster sized" prints, which I assumed to be large format. Lots of ways to
skin the cat!

Bill

On 7/11/07, Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...> wrote:
>
>   Brian Ellis wrote:
> > "As an aside, it continues to amaze me that people who spend the time,
> > effort
> > and $$ to do large format photography then content themselves with
> flatbed
> > scans."
> >
> > I've been photographing and exhibiting prints from 4x5 and 8x10
> negatives
> > for years using a flatbed scanner. In my experience, and that of many
> others
> > (see numerous posts on this subject at www.largeformatphotography.info),
> as
> > long as the print size doesn't exceed roughly 16x20 there's almost never
> any
> > noticeable difference between those scans and prints made from drum
> scans
> > (which I use for larger prints) unless the prints are examined with a
> loupe.
>
> The original request didn't mention wide format printing
> either as far as I know.
>
> >>My friend has inherited from several sources a vast
> collection of old maritime negs dating
> from the late 1800's thru about 1970. All together i think
> there are three sources, totalling
> something close to 4000 negs!<<
>
> This suggests a wider variety of sizes than 4x5. A variety
> of emulsions and probably lower resolution emulsions than we
> are used to today. Possibly nitrocellulose and glass image
> carriers.
>
> Looks like it needs a flexible solution which isn't one you
> will find in a drum scanner
>
> --
> Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
>
> | Dinkla Grafische Techniek |
> | www.pigment-print.com |
> | ( unvollendet ) |
>  
>



-- 
Regards,

Bill Morse
Wm. Morse Editions

(617) 429-3298


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

"On Behalf Of Ernst Dinkla. Looks like it needs a flexible solution which
isn't one you will find in a drum scanner" 

 

 Which is why a good flat bed opens up a better solution than either a drum
scan or Imacon. They are both very good at what they do, but they just don't
do glass or fragile negs or odd sized negs in the case of Imacon without  a
special custom holder. And there may even be a need for reflective as well
to show the historic documents. 

 

Eric 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214-827-8301

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

 

Skype : ejprinter



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

Beken of Cowes will know what is needed for the job, they 
faced the same decision maybe 20-30 years ago with a marine 
photograph collection that dates back to 1888. Glass plates 
among them. Looks like a healthy business  and the images 
deserve to be on any wall in my opinion. They photographed 
the royal nephew's yachts in competition on the English 
channel.  The game was an exercise for the great war that 
followed soon.

http://www.beken.co.uk/

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sagaface" 
<sagaface@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks all, for the responses so far. It gives me a fair amount to 
report back for 
> consideration. Some other info that I didin't make very clear:
> 
> My friend has inherited from several sources a vast collection of old 
maritime negs dating 
> from the late 1800's thru about 1970. All together i think there are 
three sources, totalling 
> something close to 4000 negs! 

Sarah, when you mention the date of the negs, I wonder if any of them 
are glass plate negatatives.  If so, that would eliminate consideration 
of a drum scanner.  Nancy

>> My friend has inherited from several sources a vast collection of old 
> maritime negs dating 
>> from the late 1800's thru about 1970. All together i think there are 
> three sources, totalling 
>> something close to 4000 negs! 

The institute mentioned here faces a more herculean task:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/science/10astro.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

500.000 astro photographic glass plates that represent 25% 
of the world's total and there's no backup.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

Actually, the Microtek doesn't get reviews equaling the last two
generations of Epsons: Not nearly as versatile, don't hold film as
flat as Epsons with Doug Fisher carriers, and they lack Ice. 



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter De Smidt
<pdesmidt@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Step one is a drum scanner, assuming the negatives can survive being 
> fluid mounted.
> 
> There are very expensive flatbeds from Creo, Fuji, Aztek and others. 
> Their big claim to fame is speed. You can fill their large flat-bed
full 
> of film, and off you go.  Supposedly they give higher quality than 
> consumer flatbeds, but I have no idea if this is true.  They are 
> certainly heavier built. One potential problem with these would be 
> getting them serviced.
> 
> The a step down would be Epson and Microtek's professional models.  The 
> Microteck 1800F get's good reviews.  Supposedly the optics, mechanicals 
> and electronics are better than consumer models.  It's true that
dynamic 
> range, low vibration, precision movements...are all more important that 
> resolution.
> 
> Finally, there are the consumer flatbeds.
> 
> There are a number of issues involved, including the skill and care of 
> the operator. For example, a great "consumer flatbed" scan will trump a 
> poor drum scan.... If you get your own equipment, you'll have to add in 
> the cost of training an operator and upkeep on the scanner. 
> 
> One thing to remember is that most "consumer scanner" reviews are done 
> very poorly.  It's essential to get the film holders to the ideal 
> height, and this often isn't the manufacturer's default!  Second, 
> keeping the film flat has a huge effect on quality, just as it does
when 
> enlarging traditionally. I wet-mount on the underside of a sheet of 
> optical glass that's been shimmed to the ideal height for my scanner.  
> This gives much better results than using my Canon film-holders that 
> came with the scanner. But...it's b PITA and it take a lot of time.  So 
> if you're doing a large amount of scans, as you are, this might be 
> prohibitive.
> 
> If possible, try to get a scan of the same negative on the various
options.
>

Imo this is a job that suggests backup to film, reducing all formats
to one ( 35mm would probably be just as good as 70mm). Detail
resolution of modern films and macro optics are far beyond film/optics
of earlier eras (save for 35mm microfilm and optics). Once the
format's been standardized and at one's leisure. Archive one set, use
another set for economical outsourced scanning.

Multiple film backup sets could be stored at redundant secure
locations, per motion picture industry practice. Archival processing
of Estar-based films would assure far more than 100yrs. 

A 35mm form-factor DSLR would inherently be a waste of time, given the
relatively low  resolution (and uneven sharpness}, and the inevitable
desire to do it better in the next several years, when today's are
forgotten. 

Film would be a good middle step, would be inexpensive, a superior
holding action at the very least, would lead to very inexpensive
scaning, and would take zero digital processing time.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sagaface"
<sagaface@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks all, for the responses so far. It gives me a fair amount to
report back for 
> consideration. Some other info that I didin't make very clear:
> 
> My friend has inherited from several sources a vast collection of
old maritime negs dating 
> from the late 1800's thru about 1970. All together i think there are
three sources, totalling 
> something close to 4000 negs! He had been sending out his scans - 
just a few so far - at 
> $130 a pop. Then he found someone to do it for $75....but doesn't
know what type of 
> scanner they used. 
> 
> He has been considering purchasing one, because the
scanning/archiving of all these is 
> going to take quite some time, and he figured sending them all out
would eventually 
> bankrupt him. He assumed (rightly or wrongly) that the initial
outlay for a better-than-
> decent scanner would save him money in the end, considering how many
negs there are.
> 
> The $5000 is just my guess at what he'd be willing to spend on the
scanner alone....I just 
> threw that number out there for him to consider, thinking about used
drum scanners in 
> my mind. I had no idea how off the mark I might be but I knew they
were quite expensive 
> and I wanted to prepare him for a high number. Obviously less $$
would be better! He was 
> then hoping to hire someone to work for him, scanning as well as
other things. He 
> wouldn't be printing them himself.
> 
> 
> Thanks again for all comments,
> Sarah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, wkm@ wrote:
> >
> > I'd take a look at the Epsons as others have suggested. Drum
scanning requires a skilled 
> operator and those folks are few and far between. If drum scanning
is something that 
> becomes a must then I would send the negs out to a lab with a
skilled operator using 
> equipment that they are familar with rather than trying to find one
to operate yours.
> > 
> > Walt
> > 
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: sagaface [mailto:sagaface@]
> > >Sent: Monday, July 9, 2007 04:49 AM
> > >To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > >Subject: [Digital BW] All you scanning pros: Great scanner for
4x5 negs?
> > >
> > >Hi all,
> > >
> > >Can any of you recommend a scanner for (old and delicate) 4x5
negs? It's not for me, 
> but 
> > >for a friend who is considering purchasing a pro-sumer oriented
model and hiring 
> > >someone who knows what they're doing to use it, with the end
result being poster 
> sized 
> > >prints.
> > >
> > > I think his price range is up to around 5-ish grand.
> > >
> > >If this topic has been beaten to death, could someone direct me
to an archived thread? 
> I 
> > >haven't found anything specific yet.
> > >
> > >thanks!
> > >Sarah
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

On Behalf Of djon43 . "would take zero digital processing time."

 

Based on what? To take full advantage of ICE which would reduce the time one
might need to spend correcting these files, you'd need to shoot it with
color film. These are less archival than B&W films. Dust on a 35 produces
bigger problems than on a 2 1/4 . It certainly adds a layer of protection to
the job and a whole additional data base or two to take care of in the long
run. 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214-827-8301

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

 

Skype : ejprinter



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

Bill, with all due respect to your knowledge and experience, I've come
to some conclusions over the years about things like this.
There is no  question that on a purely technical basis a drum scanner
will outperform a ccd scanner, flatbed, flextight, or otherwise.
That's the science. But there's also the art/craft. I say this as a
dedicated drum scan user- for B&W ccd scans of negs well within the
density range of the scanner (that would be the vast majority of B&W
negs) can make great big beautiful prints that will hold up with no
shame next to a a drum scan print.
I defy anyone to go to this show and tell me which were drum scans,
flatbeds, or Imacons-
http://www.benhamgallery.com/exhibit/2007/05_Corwin-Pavloff-Boley/Corwin-Pavloff-Boley_Exhibit.html
-and believe me they are all there. (Not hyping the show yet again,
but you really do have to make these determinations looking at real
world prints, not the monitor, or the specs)

Much depends on the size of the film, the particular scanner, and most
of all as mentioned, the operator.
In fact, there are circumstances that a drum scanner may not be the
what the tasks requires at all.
Again, I have and use a drum scanner for everything and fully
apreciate it's capabilities, but often wish I had a high end ccd
scanner as well. I've had occasion to open old files that are hi bit
flatbed scans, work them just a bit, and reprint. The best ones have a
quality I can not get with the drum scanner without a lot of work,
much more like an enlarger lens and diffusion head, instead of the
d**n collimated light look. And believe me, I know and use all the
aperture tricks, etc..
I've also had way too many bad flatbed scans in here, so we all need
to learn our tools well.

The more I do this stuff, the more I find I have to let go of the hard
and fast suppositions. It seems the answer to most, if not all,
yes-or-no questions, is... it depends.

Tyler
www.custom-digital.com


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Morse"
<Bill.Morse@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark-
> 
> Ha! No doubt. However, after years of trying to do fine-art scanning
with
> both a scitex and a Nikon 9000, and after directly comparing scans
of the
> same high-quality neg on both an Imacon and a drum (Howtek 6500 in
my case),
> I know the statement to be factual. On the other hand, as I also pointed
> out, not all uses require that level of quality, expertise, and effort.
> 
> As an aside, it continues to amaze me that people who spend the
time, effort
> and $$ to do large format photography then content themselves with
flatbed

> scans.
> 
> Bill
> 
> On 7/11/07, Mark Savoia <mark@...> wrote:
> >
> >   Bill,
> > You are going to piss off lots of people with that statement, careful.
> > Mark
> >
> > On Jul 11, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Bill Morse wrote:
> >
> > > As others have said, drum scanning is absolutely the best way to
> > > go; any of
> > > the flatbed and Imacon scanners will have significantly more noise,
> > > flare,
> > > and will be less sharp across the film plane than a good drum scan.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Bill Morse
> Wm. Morse Editions
> 
> (617) 429-3298
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hi Tyler-

Wish I could see the show- Let us know when it comes East!

I have yet to see a CCD scan that did not show significant noise in smooth
3/4 tones. As far as the quality of the light from drums vs. flatbeds, there
is a difference and different people can prefer different things. I have
noted various reasons why the OP might want a flatbed.

One other reason why they might want a drum is the significant advantage IMO
offered by Digital PhotoLab when scanning problematic negs, which given the
age  cited by the OP we can assume at least some are. I have a print I show
in my studio, of Chinese soldiers at the Longmen caves in China. The photo,
taken by my Grandfather in 1937, is a hand-held 4x5 taken inside the cave,
with only light coming from the cave entrance. Needless to say, some of the
negative is rather thin [G]. It is a beautiful image; the only problem is
that I didn't know from looking at the film that the soldiers on the edge of
the frame were even there! The negative looks completely blank. I even
printed it silver several years ago, and I still didn't know it was there.
It was only when I scanned it that I noticed something, and only when
scanned with DPL was I able to bring out the image. Before I bought DPL, I
was frankly a skeptic about the differences between it and other scanning
software. I have demonstrated over and over to myself its advantages, and
can confidently claim that I can achieve results with it possible with no
other scanner/software.

Of course, it's advantages are reduced when scanning perfectly exposed
studio film, needless to say.

Bill

PS Thanks to Mark and Tyler for re-emphasizing the importance of the scanner
operator!

On 7/12/07, Tyler Boley <tyler@...> wrote:
>
>   Bill, with all due respect to your knowledge and experience, I've come
> to some conclusions over the years about things like this.
> There is no question that on a purely technical basis a drum scanner
> will outperform a ccd scanner, flatbed, flextight, or otherwise.
> That's the science. But there's also the art/craft. I say this as a
> dedicated drum scan user- for B&W ccd scans of negs well within the
> density range of the scanner (that would be the vast majority of B&W
> negs) can make great big beautiful prints that will hold up with no
> shame next to a a drum scan print.
> I defy anyone to go to this show and tell me which were drum scans,
> flatbeds, or Imacons-
>
> http://www.benhamgallery.com/exhibit/2007/05_Corwin-Pavloff-Boley/Corwin-Pavloff-Boley_Exhibit.html
> -and believe me they are all there. (Not hyping the show yet again,
> but you really do have to make these determinations looking at real
> world prints, not the monitor, or the specs)
>
> Much depends on the size of the film, the particular scanner, and most
> of all as mentioned, the operator.
> In fact, there are circumstances that a drum scanner may not be the
> what the tasks requires at all.
> Again, I have and use a drum scanner for everything and fully
> apreciate it's capabilities, but often wish I had a high end ccd
> scanner as well. I've had occasion to open old files that are hi bit
> flatbed scans, work them just a bit, and reprint. The best ones have a
> quality I can not get with the drum scanner without a lot of work,
> much more like an enlarger lens and diffusion head, instead of the
> d**n collimated light look. And believe me, I know and use all the
> aperture tricks, etc..
> I've also had way too many bad flatbed scans in here, so we all need
> to learn our tools well.
>
> The more I do this stuff, the more I find I have to let go of the hard
> and fast suppositions. It seems the answer to most, if not all,
> yes-or-no questions, is... it depends.
>
> Tyler
> www.custom-digital.com
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Bill Morse"
> <Bill.Morse@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mark-
> >
> > Ha! No doubt. However, after years of trying to do fine-art scanning
> with
> > both a scitex and a Nikon 9000, and after directly comparing scans
> of the
> > same high-quality neg on both an Imacon and a drum (Howtek 6500 in
> my case),
> > I know the statement to be factual. On the other hand, as I also pointed
> > out, not all uses require that level of quality, expertise, and effort.
> >
> > As an aside, it continues to amaze me that people who spend the
> time, effort
> > and $$ to do large format photography then content themselves with
> flatbed
> > scans.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > On 7/11/07, Mark Savoia <mark@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill,
> > > You are going to piss off lots of people with that statement, careful.
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > On Jul 11, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Bill Morse wrote:
> > >
> > > > As others have said, drum scanning is absolutely the best way to
> > > > go; any of
> > > > the flatbed and Imacon scanners will have significantly more noise,
> > > > flare,
> > > > and will be less sharp across the film plane than a good drum scan.
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Bill Morse
> > Wm. Morse Editions
> >
> > (617) 429-3298
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>  
>



-- 
Regards,

Bill Morse
Wm. Morse Editions

(617) 429-3298


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

> Actually, the Microtek doesn't get reviews equaling the last two
> generations of Epsons: Not nearly as versatile, don't hold film as
> flat as Epsons with Doug Fisher carriers, and they lack Ice. 
What reviews are you talking about?  Ted Harris's review in View Camera 
claimed that the 1800f has better dynamic range than the Epsons, and a 
Google search shows that many users think that same thing. It doesn't 
have ICE, but if you're doing BW that doesn't matter.  Yes, Doug 
Fisher's carriers get very good reviews, but the Microtek's are very 
good too. (I used to have an AGFA 2500, which is very similar to the 
Microtek.  The carriers were far better than Epson's or Canon's.  They 
were sturdy and did a good job holding the negative flat.  For 4x5 they 
worked really well. The downside was that 120 couldn't be scanned in 
strips with the regular holders.)

Bill Morse wrote:
> One other reason why they might want a drum is the significant advantage IMO offered by Digital PhotoLab when scanning problematic negs...

It should be noted that DPL software is an Aztek product that works only 
with Aztek and Howtek scanners and does not support the numerous other 
drums scanners and professional flatbed scanners on the new and used 
markets. Sigh... I do wish it supported more scanners.

I've had similar experience with ColorRight Pro 2.0 in pulling image 
information out of what look on the light table to be clear areas of 
color and B&W negative films. I'm not saying anything bad about DPL 
(I've never used it and therefore have no basis for comparison), I'm 
just saying it may be more of a PMT thing than a DPL thing.
--
Bruce Watson

Bill, if that is the same image you used for our print exchange some
years back, it is truly an beautiful print. I suspect you are able to
print even better  these days.
I am familiar with DPL and it's features.

Hey, we're just three guys with some work on the walls in a lumberjack
town.
I can't imagine the show would travel, except maybe in a van... down
by the river...

Tyler

f the show travels..--- In
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Morse"
<Bill.Morse@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Tyler-
> 
> Wish I could see the show- Let us know when it comes East!
> 
> I have yet to see a CCD scan that did not show significant noise in
smooth
> 3/4 tones. As far as the quality of the light from drums vs.
flatbeds, there
> is a difference and different people can prefer different things. I have
> noted various reasons why the OP might want a flatbed.
> 
> One other reason why they might want a drum is the significant
advantage IMO
> offered by Digital PhotoLab when scanning problematic negs, which
given the
> age  cited by the OP we can assume at least some are. I have a print
I show
> in my studio, of Chinese soldiers at the Longmen caves in China. The
photo,
> taken by my Grandfather in 1937, is a hand-held 4x5 taken inside the
cave,
> with only light coming from the cave entrance. Needless to say, some
of the
> negative is rather thin [G]. It is a beautiful image; the only
problem is
> that I didn't know from looking at the film that the soldiers on the
edge of
> the frame were even there! The negative looks completely blank. I even
> printed it silver several years ago, and I still didn't know it was
there.
> It was only when I scanned it that I noticed something, and only when
> scanned with DPL was I able to bring out the image. Before I bought
DPL, I
> was frankly a skeptic about the differences between it and other
scanning
> software. I have demonstrated over and over to myself its
advantages, and
> can confidently claim that I can achieve results with it possible
with no
> other scanner/software.
> 
> Of course, it's advantages are reduced when scanning perfectly exposed
> studio film, needless to say.
> 
> Bill
> 
> PS Thanks to Mark and Tyler for re-emphasizing the importance of the
scanner
> operator!

It appears Microtek has discontinued 1800f in anticipation of the 
delayed M1 but they're available on EBay. 

Questions about its Ice availability (requires an expensive license)
might explain the delay. If a photographer only works in silver B&W,
Ice is irrelevant. Will Microtek again sell something limited to
silver B&W-only photographers(ignoring C41 B&W and color)? We'll see. 

See reviews and threads below. None compares any Microtek to current
best Epsons but the first (2004) does give it a clear edge over my 
ancient 3200 (handicaps Epson by not using Doug's carrier).

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DL52

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/1800f.htm

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=15432
(kirk gittings, whose word I'd take because I know his work.. except 
he's comparing to second/third tier Epson. 

http://www.amazon.com/Microtek-ArtixScan-1800F-Flatbed-Scanner/dp/B00006LHJH
(note ratings)

I'd look for Epson 750 Vs Microtek M1, if it becomes available. 

http://www.shutterbug.com/news/112806microtek/








--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter De Smidt
<pdesmidt@...> wrote:

>
> > Actually, the Microtek doesn't get reviews equaling the last two
> > generations of Epsons: Not nearly as versatile, don't hold film as
> > flat as Epsons with Doug Fisher carriers, and they lack Ice. 
> What reviews are you talking about?  Ted Harris's review in View Camera 
> claimed that the 1800f has better dynamic range than the Epsons, and a 
> Google search shows that many users think that same thing. It doesn't 
> have ICE, but if you're doing BW that doesn't matter.  Yes, Doug 
> Fisher's carriers get very good reviews, but the Microtek's are very 
> good too. (I used to have an AGFA 2500, which is very similar to the 
> Microtek.  The carriers were far better than Epson's or Canon's.  They 
> were sturdy and did a good job holding the negative flat.  For 4x5 they 
> worked really well. The downside was that 120 couldn't be scanned in 
> strips with the regular holders.)
>

Hi Bruce-
You're right about the Aztek/Howtek thing, and it is too bad it doesn't work
with other scanners. As I understand it, the reason is that the software can
directly control those scanners at the hardware level, which is not possible
with other scanners.

And yes, scanning in 16 bits you can pull an amazing amount of information
our of a difficult negative. In fact, that's why I was so skeptical at
first- I thought DPL was just scanning in 16 bits and calling it something
special. It wasn't until I compared two scans of the same negative, one
"straight" in 16 bits, and the other using the hardware control capabilities
of DPL, that I saw how much more was possible with DPL. But again, those
advantages are most apparent with difficult film.

Bill

On 7/12/07, Bruce Watson <bwyg@...> wrote:
>
>   Bill Morse wrote:
> > One other reason why they might want a drum is the significant advantage
> IMO offered by Digital PhotoLab when scanning problematic negs...
>
> It should be noted that DPL software is an Aztek product that works only
> with Aztek and Howtek scanners and does not support the numerous other
> drums scanners and professional flatbed scanners on the new and used
> markets. Sigh... I do wish it supported more scanners.
>
> I've had similar experience with ColorRight Pro 2.0 in pulling image
> information out of what look on the light table to be clear areas of
> color and B&W negative films. I'm not saying anything bad about DPL
> (I've never used it and therefore have no basis for comparison), I'm
> just saying it may be more of a PMT thing than a DPL thing.
> --
> Bruce Watson
>
>  
>



-- 
Regards,

Bill Morse
Wm. Morse Editions

(617) 429-3298


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

HA! yeah, just a coupla hicks printing so you won't drink!

Anyways, thanks for the nice words, and hopefully I've learned something in
the meantime.

Bill

On 7/12/07, Tyler Boley <tyler@...> wrote:

>
> Hey, we're just three guys with some work on the walls in a lumberjack
> town.
>
> f the show travels..--- In
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Bill Morse"
> <Bill.Morse@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tyler-
> >
> > Wish I could see the show- Let us know when it comes East!
> >
> > I have yet to see a CCD scan that did not show significant noise in
> smooth
> > 3/4 tones. As far as the quality of the light from drums vs.
> flatbeds, there
> > is a difference and different people can prefer different things. I have
> > noted various reasons why the OP might want a flatbed.
> >
> > One other reason why they might want a drum is the significant
> advantage IMO
> > offered by Digital PhotoLab when scanning problematic negs, which
> given the
> > age cited by the OP we can assume at least some are. I have a print
> I show
> > in my studio, of Chinese soldiers at the Longmen caves in China. The
> photo,
> > taken by my Grandfather in 1937, is a hand-held 4x5 taken inside the
> cave,
> > with only light coming from the cave entrance. Needless to say, some
> of the
> > negative is rather thin [G]. It is a beautiful image; the only
> problem is
> > that I didn't know from looking at the film that the soldiers on the
> edge of
> > the frame were even there! The negative looks completely blank. I even
> > printed it silver several years ago, and I still didn't know it was
> there.
> > It was only when I scanned it that I noticed something, and only when
> > scanned with DPL was I able to bring out the image. Before I bought
> DPL, I
> > was frankly a skeptic about the differences between it and other
> scanning
> > software. I have demonstrated over and over to myself its
> advantages, and
> > can confidently claim that I can achieve results with it possible
> with no
> > other scanner/software.
> >
> > Of course, it's advantages are reduced when scanning perfectly exposed
> > studio film, needless to say.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > PS Thanks to Mark and Tyler for re-emphasizing the importance of the
> scanner
> > operator!
>
>  
>



-- 
Regards,

Bill Morse
Wm. Morse Editions

(617) 429-3298


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43" 
<djon43@...> wrote:
>
> It appears Microtek has discontinued 1800f in anticipation of the 
> delayed M1 but they're available on EBay. 

I know View Camera magazine will be doing a review on the M1 if it ever 
arrives. Last week I asked Ted Harris about this (on another forum), 
and he said as of about the third week of June when he talked to the 
Microtek rep that it is still coming (at some point in the future). 
Hopefully it will be better than the 1800f, I'm not entirely pleased 
with the one we have at work.

I've heard on more than one occasion that the new Creo Scitek flatbeds
are now being made my Microtek. I have one of the really old ones and
the optics on that one are extremely sharp and precise. There is far
more to a flatbed than dpi and dynamic range. Would be interesting to
know more about what Microtek is doing in the new models they're making.

john







--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg"
<dfaprinting@...> wrote:

>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43" 
> <djon43@> wrote:
> >
> > It appears Microtek has discontinued 1800f in anticipation of the 
> > delayed M1 but they're available on EBay. 
> 
> I know View Camera magazine will be doing a review on the M1 if it ever 
> arrives. Last week I asked Ted Harris about this (on another forum), 
> and he said as of about the third week of June when he talked to the 
> Microtek rep that it is still coming (at some point in the future). 
> Hopefully it will be better than the 1800f, I'm not entirely pleased 
> with the one we have at work.
>

Oh, that's bollocks!  While working for one the major historical societies and working along a top notch photo conservator, I have scanned some VERY old negatives and copied glass plates using a high quality process camera.

In my professional opinion (and experience) one heck of a lot more issues go into the quality of posters and billboards than just the scan or the original file.  Depending upon use, there is a point of diminishing returns.

I am a STRONG proponent of "good enough" is NOT good enough.  But, scaring that lady into possibly paying more--or do more--to get a high quality product is a bit over the edge, isn't it?

I see this as a place we should get the required end before advising the means.

Seth

====================
Bill Morse wrote:

As others have said, drum scanning is absolutely the best way to go; any of
the flatbed and Imacon scanners will have significantly more noise, flare,
and will be less sharp across the film plane than a good drum scan. On the
other hand, as some have suggested, if the posters are to be of lower
quality, viewed from medium distance (3 feet or more), you will get adequate
results from any of the suggested scanners. It really depends on the end-use
of the prints.

Yikes!

I don't think anyone's scaring anybody. I and others repeatedly said
throughout this discussion that there were many uses, and many appropriate
tools depending on the use. And certainly no one said that the scan made the
print! I'm glad you agree.

Bill

On 7/12/07, Seth Rossman < seth@...> wrote:
>
>   Oh, that's bollocks! While working for one the major historical
> societies and working along a top notch photo conservator, I have scanned
> some VERY old negatives and copied glass plates using a high quality process
> camera.
>
> In my professional opinion (and experience) one heck of a lot more issues
> go into the quality of posters and billboards than just the scan or the
> original file. Depending upon use, there is a point of diminishing returns.
>
> I am a STRONG proponent of "good enough" is NOT good enough. But, scaring
> that lady into possibly paying more--or do more--to get a high quality
> product is a bit over the edge, isn't it?
>
> I see this as a place we should get the required end before advising the
> means.
>
> Seth
>
> ====================
> Bill Morse wrote:
>
> As others have said, drum scanning is absolutely the best way to go; any
> of
> the flatbed and Imacon scanners will have significantly more noise, flare,
> and will be less sharp across the film plane than a good drum scan. On the
> other hand, as some have suggested, if the posters are to be of lower
> quality, viewed from medium distance (3 feet or more), you will get
> adequate
> results from any of the suggested scanners. It really depends on the
> end-use
> of the prints.
>
>  
>



-- 
Regards,

Bill Morse
Wm. Morse Editions

(617) 429-3298


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

Sarah,

The Mystic Seaport Museum has the Rosenfeld yachting photo 
collection. They have a conservator that may be interested in 
helping your friend.  http://www.rosenfeldcollection.org/  

AZ

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sagaface" 
<sagaface@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> 
> Can any of you recommend a scanner for (old and delicate) 4x5 
negs? It's not for me, but 
> for a friend who is considering purchasing a pro-sumer oriented 
model and hiring 
> someone who knows what they're doing to use it, with the end 
result being poster sized 
> prints.
> 
>  I think his price range is up to around 5-ish grand.
> 
> If this topic has been beaten to death, could someone direct me to 
an archived thread? I 

> haven't found anything specific yet.
> 
> thanks!
> Sarah
>

Thanks for that tip! I will definitely pass it on.

Sarah


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Alan Zinn" <lookaround360@...> 
wrote:

>
> 
> 
> Sarah,
> 
> The Mystic Seaport Museum has the Rosenfeld yachting photo 
> collection. They have a conservator that may be interested in 
> helping your friend.  http://www.rosenfeldcollection.org/  
> 
> AZ
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sagaface" 
> <sagaface@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Can any of you recommend a scanner for (old and delicate) 4x5 
> negs? It's not for me, but 
> > for a friend who is considering purchasing a pro-sumer oriented 
> model and hiring 
> > someone who knows what they're doing to use it, with the end 
> result being poster sized 
> > prints.
> > 
> >  I think his price range is up to around 5-ish grand.
> > 
> > If this topic has been beaten to death, could someone direct me to 
> an archived thread? I 
> > haven't found anything specific yet.
> > 
> > thanks!
> > Sarah
> >
>

Bill Morse wrote:
> Hi Bruce-
> You're right about the Aztek/Howtek thing, and it is too bad it doesn't work with other scanners. As I understand it, the reason is that the software can directly control those scanners at the hardware level, which is not possible with other scanners.
>
> And yes, scanning in 16 bits you can pull an amazing amount of information our of a difficult negative. In fact, that's why I was so skeptical at first- I thought DPL was just scanning in 16 bits and calling it something special. It wasn't until I compared two scans of the same negative, one "straight" in 16 bits, and the other using the hardware control capabilities of DPL, that I saw how much more was possible with DPL. But again, those advantages are most apparent with difficult film.
>
> Bill

My understanding is that most (all?) drum scanners have the capability 
to have their hardware log amp circuit limits set by the software that 
runs the scanner. That is, you set your black and white points in 
software, and the software tells the scanner hardware to set the 
appropriate limits for the log amp circuits. What this does, in my 
understanding again, is to tell the scanner to translate the density 
range (between the black and white points you specified) to the digital 
range of the ADCs (typically 12 bits in older scanners, newer scanners 
are often 14 bit or even 16 bit).

In contrast, your typical consumer flatbed scanner doesn't have this 
capability to sample a user specified density range. Instead, the 
density range is usually fixed at the maximum for the scanner in question.

This isn't terribly important if you are scanning trannies because 
trannies tend to spread their image data across their available density 
range. This characteristic of tranny films is one of the reasons one can 
profile a scanner when scanning trannies -- the density range doesn't 
vary much between trannies.

But if you are scanning negative films, this is more important. The 
density ranges for negative films can and does vary considerably from 
frame to frame. If for example you scan a B&W negative that has a 
density range of 1.2, you can easily see the advantages of setting the 
scanner's log amp circuits. Scanning in a fixed density range (say, 3.2) 
means you end up with a file that is more than half full of zeros with 
the image information compressed into a small part of the file. 
Correcting this (either in scanner software or Photoshop) often results 
in the loss of subtle tonal detail and smooth tonal transitions. For 
example, you loose the faint detail in those clear areas of the film.

At least that's my understanding of the theory. It's one of the reasons 
drum scanners do such a fine job pulling detail out of the difficult 
parts of the film (the extreme ends of the density range).
--
Bruce Watson