Scanning for quality

[davidada]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I want to throw this out for general discussion.

After reading and absorbing both digital and film threads there is one consistent issue for Leica owners and that is the perceived qulaity of the lenses over all others.

Now here is the rub, why do most users then take there precious negatives from wonderful optics developed with attention and care and scan them on low end scanners?

Yes, the Nikon coolscan and Minolta dimage, Epson VR750 etc produce decent scans much in the same way a nikon or canon zoom produces a decent image.

Realize that by commiting your film to these low end scanners you are degrading the quality of your source image.

The difference between these low end scanners and a high end drum scan is substantial, just as the difference between a Leitz lens and a cheaper lens. If you are concerned at all please try a high end scan by a qualified scanner operator, otherwise why bother with the expense of Leitz.

Just a thought !

[wattsy]

Now here is the rub, why do most users then take there precious negatives from wonderful optics developed with attention and care and scan them on low end scanners?!

 

I should think the answer is obvious - cost. Unless a client is paying for the scans, the cost of getting drum scans made here in the UK can be eye-watering (standard drum scan prices at London pro labs are around £50 a pop).

 

Scanning is certainly the weak link of using film as part of a digital workflow. Whilst film itself is still very much a viable artistic medium, getting film scanned properly is still a real pain (maybe more so as 'affordable' film scanner options quickly disappear from the marketplace). It will never happen now but it always surprised me that Leica never offered a 35mm scanner. A rebadged decent quality film scanner priced at around £2K - perhaps using Leica optics or at least 'tuned' to Leica spec - always struck me as a sensible product that Leica could have sold alongside the M7 and MP.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[vic vic]

david.. very true... there is no comparison between normal film scanners and the top scanners. u say drums, ok true.. but i think that in practice the creo scanners and (imacon also at some extent) are equally good quality output. the operator is also extrimly important of course, we have mentioned it in some previous talks.

man, i dont know what software u use for drum scanners (never worked myself on drums) but i have to say that the oxygen (the creo) is maybe the best software for scanning. the great point about oxygen is that as soon as u know how to work with it, u will get with real ease files that look almost like slide on the light table. this is great. of course the sacnners from creo are very well calibrated etc which also helps, but oxygen gives great control and extrime comfort in work (ya, even if it looks strange software from the first time u see it).

 

if one doesnot have a scaned photo from top scanners, he/she simply doesnt know what scanner can do and how good the photo can be when scanned. of course print is the referance point, but in fact, u clearly see it already on monitor.

 

for any body who thinks about getting scanner... listen... dont buy anything "better" than nice epson flatbed scanner (like perfection4990photo that i have or some equivalent new model of it). this scanner is nice for fast proofs and u can even make nice small proof prints of up to 8x10" if u know how to work with silverfast.

and then.... when u want to make REAL PHOTO, for comercial use, gallery, or yourself or whatever - then go to pro lab and make archival scan of it (on the selected photo, not on everything u have:-))) ).

actually, u dont really need to be involved in the proces... a good operator will give u file that will look almost like slide on light table. then u can play with it in photoshop to finish if u want and to give artistic interpretations and editing. there is no way u can get good scans otherwise.... simply no way....

 

 

one thing i dont understand...

i know it is leica forum etc....

but, good scan is not about leica camera or lenses.... good scan = truthfull reproduction and digitalization of your film...

again - TRUTHFUL REPRODUCTION AND DIGITALIZATION

it has nothing to do particularly with leica or other camera/lens.

[Rolo]

I want to throw this out for general discussion.

otherwise why bother with the expense of Leitz. Just a thought !

 

Well David, an interesting and disturbing statement. I read from it that if you don't drum scan you shouldn't use a Leica film camera. Is that what you intended ?? I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm disappointed that you've come to that conclusion.

 

Regardless of digital/film, hasn't Leica equipment always been beyond a percentage of the owners capabilities?

 

Shooting film in a Leica provides the opportunity to print from film, but share digital files via the web. Silver printing is dropping like a stone as far as I can see, so this option is becoming of little value, if one accepts your statement.

 

I also anticipate that the characteristics of the Leica lenses will show to some degree in the finished product, albeit diluted by the scanning process, or the enlargeing lens, or enlarger column alignment.

 

IF, a Leica 'image' is better than a Nikon image, does the advantage not carry through to the file, or is the scan on a dedicated film scanner such a leveller?

 

From my observations the Nikon film scanners produce better scans than the Epson flatbeds by a long way and am surprised you lump them together.

 

Agreed that drum scans are much better but the cost is prohibitive and the cost of buying a drum scanner is out of the question. I would never add this scanning cost if it was not recoverable from the client, so I'm probably doing this all wrong.

 

Is your statement true for small prints, medium sized and large prints ?

 

Do you have the same opinion about scanning MF negatives/slides ?

[ron110n]

David,

Let me return to you your question.

 

What do you use to scan the images of your M6.

If it is a cheap Nikon or a Minolta.

Would you agree with me that you still get "a lot bigtime" better result than your new 5K investment?

 

-Ron

[davidada]

Hi Vic and all, to keep my email short i just mentioned drum scans, however, yes the Scitex Eversmart, Topaz and certain flextight scanner fall into the drum quality category.

I have all of the above and nothing YET comes close to my ICG drum scans in absolute terms.

I also take the point that given a choice it is probably better to scan film stock shot on a leitz lens than a cheaper variant and that will show through on whatever scanner.

I guess my point was that leitz quality does not come cheap, a good lens usually runs 2 or 3 thousand US, so why scan it on a $500 scanner ? It all reminds me of my student years wen I purchased a nikon body but could only afford cheaper off brand lenses.

Vic makes a good point, produce a perfect 11 x 14 print analog print then scan this using a consumer flatbed rather than going from neg to (low end) film scanner.

But if quality. ie. corner to corner sharpness, shadow and highlight detail are important then pick your best shots and have them professionally scanned. You will pick up the quality you have paid for in the lens.

[davidada]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

David,

Let me return to you your question.

 

What do you use to scan the images of your M6.

If it is a cheap Nikon or a Minolta.

Would you agree with me that you still get "a lot bigtime" better result than your new 5K investment?

 

-Ron

I use a $80,000 drum scanner and for 35mm film from any lens camera combo it in no way comes close to what I can produce from the M8.

Not even close....

[mikel]

David,

With your experience with images from a variety of different cameras and lens makers, can you tell whether an image came from a Leica or Nikon lens? (Excluding those with very unique characteristics like a noctilux at f1.0-f1.2) (I'm sure I couldn't a lot of the time, and I'm wondering if someone with your experience could.)

 

Also, I'd be curious to hear at what scale you notice a difference in prints scanned from a Epson or Nikon versus the drum scanners you use, and what you notice. I'm guessing the dynamic range would really show through even on 4x6.

Thanks,

Mike

[mwilliamsphotography]

Not to beat a dead horse David, but those that like the look and feel of film would disagree with you concerning your last empirical statement. It may be true for you ... but it isn't for others, including me. Criteria for creative endeavors aren't regimented to one asthetic.

 

Personally, I see the mediums as different tools, so comparing them is like comparing two different painting mediums .... with some preferring one over the other aesthetically ... or at least preferring one to the other for certain emotional objectives.

 

So, as a working photographer with a great deal of experience using both mediums, I can reverse your statement and say, digital output from the M8 can't match what I shoot and scan from my MP3 or M7 ... no way, ever.

 

However, I do applaud your urging Leica shooters to get more from their film outfits by indulging in higher end scans. If you are to scan film, don't skimp ... at least on your most select work.

 

Prior to last year I used a Minolta 5400 for everyday 35mm work, and purchased drum scans for more important, or more demanding work. I've since used your philosophy that if I had upwards of $35,000. invested into M and R gear, why scan on a sub $1,000 scanner? My MF digital camera backs cost $25,000. each so indulging in a $15,000. Imacon 949 seemed a bargain : -) In my exploration, even the lowest end Imacon outperformed the Minolta (IMO). Acquiring such a scanner requires a certain dedication on how to use it that equals that of learning how to maximize the use of a digital camera like the M8, or better put the kind of dedication it required to maximize print making in an analog darkroom.

 

To those even partially dedicated to the film asthetic, want to bring that asthetic into the digital domain, but will never be in a position to afford such a huge outlay (which would have included me just 10 years ago), either fire up a darkroom and make silver prints for scanning on a flatbed, or discriminate and select the best of the best and have them drum scanned.

[Rolo]

so why scan it on a $500 scanner ?

 

David, you've obviously not been home for a while. :-)

 

My Nikon 8000 scanner cost $4,500, so please don't lump it in with the flatbed Epsons, even if only to protect the feelings of this Manc'.

 

There's something missing in this debate and that is that some photographers want to do the whole process themselves. Otherwise why don't you get someone else to shoot your images, Marc get someone else to print them, me get someone else to light them ?

 

There's always someone that can a better job, but some get satisfaction from producing the results. I'm not suggesting you're wrong, or that once in a while buying in a service isn't worthwhile. Finding a reliable consistant service can be a problem and if film use is to fall further then presumeably economic volumes for drum operators will not be maintained.

[Rolo]

David,

is the underlying point you're making:

 

if your film captured image is destined to be scanned for final production and a highest quality commercial scanner is not used, then use a digital camera for better results. ??

 

I can see that could be good advice for many.

[erl]

David, & others,

 

My point comes a bit out of 'left field'. Parallel to 'degrading' images with 'poor scanning' is poor film processing. I think that can be every bit as bad, or worse than scanning in a substandard way. The number of contributers on this and other fora that send their Leica exposed films to a 1hr D&P shop and then complain about the treatment of same never ceases to amaze me. What is the point of drum scanning crappily processed film?

 

Years ago, I created a new word. WIDDDH. Translated, that stands for, What I Don't Do Doesn't Happen.

 

I found the best overall result was to take charge of my work. At some cost (and not just financial) I might add, but being responsible does spurr one on to achieve.

 

David, to keep realistic, most of us will never acquire a drum scanner for financial reasons, but fantastic results are possible without them. One must also bear in mind that the production of an image is a chain of events and only as good as the weakest link. So often that is NOT the scanning.

 

I hope I am making some sense. It is late here, I must to bed. Will check back sometime tomorrow.

 

Cheers,

Erl

[davidada]

Back in the studio-

I am not advocating using digital over film, for me that is definitely the way I go, however, I understand the powerful alchemy that film has.

I do believe that all film users regardless of source equipment would benefit from a high end scan. Leica users because of the higher investment per camera lens (for qulaiity?) should want to investigate this route.

Also my statement of M8 output over any 35mm output stands on a technical level-not aesthetic. In 15 years of scanning and printing for industry greats I have never seen (technically) output that matches or exceeds the M8 files.

I base this on sharpness,dynamic range,shadow and highlight detail retrieval, enlargement capability.

Having said that these factors are really apparent in large format prints at smaller sizes the difference is evened out.

[ron110n]

Also my statement of M8 output over any 35mm output stands on a technical level-not aesthetic. In 15 years of scanning and printing for industry greats I have never seen (technically) output that matches or exceeds the M8 files.

I base this on sharpness,dynamic range,shadow and highlight detail retrieval, enlargement capability.

Having said that these factors are really apparent in large format prints at smaller sizes the difference is evened out.

 

David,

 

I really admire your taste in photography being yourself as a working professional.

More power to your career!

 

-Ron

[LKSC]

David,

 

I know that scanning results are operator dependant, but do you have any particular opinions or preferances between various drum scanners (Tango/ Crosfield/ ICG) as a matter of choice? Or recommendations who to use? I recently had a dozen drum scans done by Nardulli in L.A. on a Crosfield, and while the scans were excellent, there were also artifacts (a slight red fringing on certain edges) that needed tricky PS work.

[reddawn]

I use a $80,000 drum scanner and for 35mm film from any lens camera combo it in no way comes close to what I can produce from the M8.

Not even close....

 

With your $80,000 drum scanner and for 35mm film from any lens camera combo, the result will in no way come close to what you could have produced from a Canon 5D or Nikon D200 or Canon EOS 1D /1Ds MK II.

 

Digital will always win in terms of minimal degradation from light to lens to sensor. From a piece of exposed film to the developing process used, developer used, enlarger lens etc etc to the final print, there's degradation at different levels along the way. I'm sure you know that, as a printer...

 

Your point about only using drum scans is also a tad elitist. I realise this is a Leica forum, and God knows how much all of us have spent on anything with the red dot, but there are different photographers here, of varying levels, of different financial status, some full time professionals and some dedicated photography enthusiasts. Drum scanning may produce the highest quality, but I'm sure it's not THE universal solution, just as Leica equipment is not for everyone.

 

There's certainly a place for that Canon or Nikon zoom you so willingly disparage in someone else's camera bag.

 

I'm full time and I've shot 5 weddings this month with digital equipment, but when I just shoot for leisure or for casual street shooting, why drum scan when all I want is a nice 8 x 10 or even 13 x 19? My Nikon dedicated film scanner will do. And yes, as another poster kindly pointed out, the Nikon Coolscan 9000 is certainly not $500!

 

The cost issue is a very real issue, and there are others who simply enjoy doing everything themselves, from film development to scanning to final printing.

 

To say that just because we don't drum scan, we're not concerned about quality borders on the ridiculous. It's like saying you're not concerned about quality color photography by using a M8 with all its inherent IR problems and flare causing filter use.

 

Why put cheap IR block filters on some of the best 35mm lenses ever created on this planet??????

[erl]

David T, I think you may wish to re-read David H's post. His experience as stated is purely on technical grounds, which as a working Pro, I am still prepared to bow to. I accept he has significant experience in that area wich is more specialized than mine and maybe yours. As a photographer, as opposed to a technitian, I am concerned with more than just the techy aspect whilst still acknowleging its importance. Drum scans clearly are superioir to my Nikon 8000 or 5000 scanners, but the Nikon scans, in the right hands, are still bloody good. Drum scans have no place in my day to day production, but there is always the time I will consider them.

 

You later said: << Why put cheap IR block filters on some of the best 35mm lenses ever created on this planet?????? >>

 

I think the reason for that has been clearly elaborated in the past weeks. First, they cut the magenta, second, they actually increase sharpness and thirdly, they are NOT cheap from any POV.

 

Cheers,

Erl

[ron110n]

Earl,

 

I saw the post of davidada large scanning at digital forum.

I also saw the file, "small" sample.

But that's all.

 

My last post means.

David. are you ok??? =)))

 

It could be done and it was featured back 04' at the digital forum using architectural scanners or some sort on a "D2" image.

 

The only difference between davidada and the guy that I don't recall posted the sample hanging on the wall plus the orig D2 image with exif. I believe they do a "much" bigger scans on films.

 

-Ron

[telyt]

I've noticed very little difference between the scans I've made with my Polaroid (Microtek) SprintScan 4000 and drum scans of the same slide. Most of the difference is that with the Polaroid I scan at 12 bits per pixel and use the scanner's entire dynamic range while the drum scans are 8 bits per pixel and use somewhat less of the scanner's dynamic range. The difference visible in print is tonal gradation: the polaroid scans win. Only where I can't get the slide flat is the drum scan superior.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[cpclee]

Would be nice if someone can post a few samples of high-end drum scans.