Scanning for quality

[telyt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

 

technical details: Leicaflex SL, 280 f/4 APO with (custom) universal extension tube, Kodachrome 25, drum scan.

 

the web-sized image doesn't do it justice.

 

 

technical details: Leicaflex SL2, 280mm f/4 APO, Kodachrome 200

 

 

technical details: Leicaflex SL, 180mm f/3.4 APO, Kodachrome 64

 

 

ALL: Tango drum scans at westcoastimaging.com

[erl]

Chris,

 

I am not sure that you will learn anything from a screen representation of a drum scan. Doug's photo's are legendary, but I don't think his posted images will tell you what you are looking for, simply because this the internet. Doug's comments about print comparisons will mean more IMHO.

 

Cheers,

Erl

[guywalder]

David,

your origional question raises all the same questions that occur to me when I read an Irwin Puts lens test....

I use (only occassionally) an M7 and a couple of APSH lenses. I much prefer using the M to my DSLR because it is smaller, lighter, quieter, generally Much less obtrusive and easier to carry. That the lenses are capable of fantastic results is nice to have, but it is not the reason for using them in the first place.

If I know from the start that quality is my main priority, then I take the Mamiya 7 and shoot 6x7 film. Compared to drum scanning 35mm it seems like a much more cost effective upgrade!

Which brings me back to those lens tests. As Puts usually points out, to get the maximum capabilities out of your lens you need to use a tripod and slow film. But IMHO the Leica M system is one of the worst for tripod use (very offset tripod socket, in a detachable baseplate!), and if I am going to drag a tripod about i can also just as easily take the 6x7 camera... Using the M for reportage and discreet photography the ultimate capability of the lens becomes somewhat secondary (and the obvious fingerprint differences dont need a drum scan to bring them out)

 

Basically what I am trying to say is that using 6x7 is a more cost effective upgrade for me when I need the quality, but most of the time I use the M for reasons other than ultimate lens quality.

Incidentally this has always raised questions for me about Leica's strategic direction, but thats another story!

 

Guy

[mwilliamsphotography]

Doug brings up an interesting point. I also used the Polaroid scanner for some years (the MF version), and it actually did a better job on some commercial transparencies than a professional advertising oriented scanning service had done. These were films being scanned for large advertising posters that would be viewed fairly close. Theirs was technically better in terms of resolution, but had accentuated the grain in the process, where the Polaroid looked better when enlarged to printing size.

 

I wonder if the reason for this is hinted at by the nature of how film was enlarged prior to digital? At normal sizes, a darkroom analog print still reigns aesthetically supreme in the eyes of many (including me), and was the result of a more diffused light source which seemed to mitigate the grain structure, yet still look sharp.

 

When you scan at super high resolution I've found that you can end up simply heightening the film grain. Some enthusiasts of the Minolta Dual Scan Pro MF scanner have altered the light source to approximate a more diffused effect ... and users of the 5400 have taken to the use of a diffusion device placed on the film holder itself. There is Yahoo blog dedicated to this subject alone.

 

A new diffused light source on the Imacon 949 is one of the reasons I selected that scanner, and it definitely produces nicer printed end-product than the Imacon 848 loaner I used for a few months prior to a purchase decision.

 

While it is clear that there are those out there producing mammoth prints, most folks shooting 35mm Leica images are making prints that rarely exceed 20X24 ... ( actually, probably more like 11X14). My previous 5400 did a respectable job for normal prints, including those for wedding client albums.

 

Personally, I no longer use any of these methods for the large advertising work, or any other mammoth print need. A Hasselblad HD3/39 sporting Zeiss MF optics is my weapon of choice. I just produced a 5 foot wide scenic with two small people in it for a client ... which you can stand next to and see the eye lashes on the people. Horses for courses.

 

The good news from David is his experience making large prints from the M8. I don't know why, or really care why, but it DOES produce beautiful prints, even larger prints (depending on viewing distance).

[wattsy]

Although drum scans are usually inherently sharper than scans from desktop film scanners, the key difference in my experience is how much more shadow detail you get with the drum scans. With contrasty film like Velvia, there can be a night and day difference between drum scans and desktop CCD scans. Having said this, for reasons of economics (and space) I largely make do with the latter variety (unless the client is paying).

[pvenables]

Hi all

 

I printed five 10 by 6-ish pictures yesterday after a few days in Venice. They were taken on Provia 100F, from memory, and processed by a pro lab in London called Panther [they are really helpful and reasonable by the way]. I have kept a couple in colour, and desaturated the others in Photoshop and "toned" them.

 

I used a Nikon Coolscan V to scan the frames, and an Epson R2400 to print them on cheap Epson Archival Matte paper.

 

I would be happy to frame them and put them on my wall.

 

I have bought a scanner and printer because I wanted to be involved in the picture-making process as much as possible, rather than leaving it to others. I have no plans to sell my pictures but even if I did I doubt many would be able to tell the difference between an image scanned with the Nikon or with a megabucks drum scanner, at 10 by 6 at least. Obviously, if I was earning my living by selling pictures, or wanted to print huge pictures, a Coolscan V might not be ideal...

 

But if you want ULTIMATE`quality as others have suggested - why don't you shoot medium format, or shoot digital ??. It would be a lot cheaper.

 

Paul

[vic vic]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

hullalalla evry body shoot here in different direction and miss some important points on the way...

 

dont take anything here personally... i feel that people protect here personal things... this is not an issue here...

personally.. i give my observations here, so try to read what i say and dont jump to protect your gear... im not promoting here nothing.. just give my observations. later, u do what u want - it is up to u.

 

1. top scanners give best quality and are no comparison to anything else which is not top scanner. the top scanners include imacon 848 too in my opinion which files i do have alot.

wether it is important to u to make top scan or not it is your choice.

 

2. top scanners are not only about resolution. they are also about the ability to reproduce the colours and many other tangable and un-tangable charcteristics of your film. here starts the real game.. and it is here in my opinion where top scanners have no comparison. creo (the older name scytex) and imacon are great. drums are concidered even better as david says but personally - i have no experience with it.

so here... just do the following thing: put your silde film on litgh table... do u do it frequently???? or just talk about resolution and scanners??? if u do put your slides on light table all the time u will see a real film..... and here is where u have a point of referance. it is here where u start to apriciate top scanners and good operator work wether it is u who do it or some highly qulified scanner operator. it is here where your film will look as close as possible to what u see on light table... it is not just resolution.

again, put silde film on light table... have two loups (one for over all, and one for detaild overview) and u will see that reolution is only a part of your film quality and probabaly not the most important at the boton line.

 

3. yes, of course the best nikon scanner (and minolta) is better than epson.. sure... but what i say is that i cannot see any justification to use it. it is not capable to REPRODUCE TRUTHFULLY the film. that is it. again.. put your film on light table... if u dont do it u dont talk about film qualities and charcteristics. u talk about digital stuff. so it might be better for u to use digital camera from the first place.

 

4. there is nothing close to darkroom print.. sorry david... i have to disagree with u here... dont know about m8, but i can tell u that even leaf digi backs which are best in my opinion, and even hasslebald imacon back are not capable to do what darkroom can do. sorry. no one will convince me about that. but the leafs are very close and for most comercial uses they are really sufficient to high quality work with chracteristics that almost equal the best silde films when u know how to work with their files.

 

5. i and david discussd the issue of making analog print first and then scanning it.

david... a few problems and in depth observations....

this method is especially valuable for black and white silver prints... yes... because the silver prints in black and white are so special. this can hardly be reproduced via sacnning the film directly even on top scanners. but when a silver print of 12x16" is scanned it is much better.

 

6. now the real prbelm with what u say david.. about perfect analog print...

how many people can do perfect analog print today?????? i ask it seriously.....

if u do it yourself, for "perfect analog" (just like for "perfect digital") u need tools and knoweldge.

i will give u example...

i am fine print myself, but i dont give any service of printing. i print only my works and on ocasion if some freinds, mates or coligues insist i can help them to make analog print ( i mean i print and they entertain me meanwhile :-)))). here in israel there are few more good printers, but like me, they are photographers and do not give service. in fact, today there is only one high quality dedicated analog printer in israel as far as i know. they have really great darkroom equipment which inlcudes huge horizontal durst enlarger (for 8x10" films enlragement and they project it on wall, something that i never like doing myself), and the serives is really great which makes works for museums etc. how many people go to this service in order to get "perfect analog print?????? in most of the places in the world, the situation is not dramaticaly far from this although there might be a bit more srvices like this in many places.....

so, how u can make perfect print in analog??? again.. either u do it yourself, or use high quality service which will be more expenssive as far as i know....

in nyc for example... a fine b/w print made by fine printer costs at least 100$ for the classic american size of 11x14". am i wrong???? of course it worth it if u have no ability to do it yourself (equipment and knowledge) :-))))))))))

 

for the person who mentioned the inferiority of film vs digital... the same talks all the time....

take a few photos on astia fuji film for example if u r so concerned about smoothness and reolution... make a good developpemnt of the film (in e6), put it on light table... have a glance look, then look carefully... then tell me if it is so obvious that digital file is better. and yes.. in darkroom with good enlragerr and lenses and proper knowledge u can reproduce the qualities (yes, even if there is still the degradation from the original). no need to mention here b/w darkroom work....

now... this doesnt mean that u neccesarly should use this method of work.. it is up to u. if u make five weddings a month - im sure it is better to use your canon mark2 camera in any case and by all means...

but that doesnt make analog work inferior...

that only shows that digital workflow is more convinient for many cases than film with high quality prints. but lets face it... even a high quality digital workflow is not so eassy as people all the time describe... u should work with raw, pay attention to alot of deails and nueances etc etc...

 

for person who mentioned the importance of good film developing.. it is so true... i have mentioned this issue many times on this forum....

one hour lab is not good film..

b/w - develop it yourslef and study how to do it properly.

slide film - develop only in real six step e6.

and so on...

u dont have to do it.. but if u want really best quality then this is what u have to do.. there is not much liberty in choices when it comes to high quality work. u shouold follow some rules if u want to get highest quality work.

 

again.. those are not theoretical talks.. im not technichen..im not engeenerer or what ever.. im photographer, and as if classic and modern dance, my photographic art should have strong techncial base for high quality. the high quality tech aspects are not the goal of my work and activity but they are good background for photography and art. beyound it, the technical issues are not interesting to me. "what i see is what i see" :-))))

just an example.. when i ahve examined the leaf digi back for the first time, the guy asked me seriously if i had a look at technical specifications etc, and should we go and talk about it now or later... i told him simply... dont care, saw on website, sounds good although doesnt tell me much. now the only thing i want to see is how i work with this back and what output i can get at the botton line.

 

the same about the scanner.... nikon has this, minolta has that, epson calls themselves proffesional solution, creo talks about equvalent resolution and XY, imacon about virtual drum and high point of light and placing of lens..... DONT CARE about it. it is a job of technichals and engeneers and those things are extrimly important to them. to me it is what i see at the botton line and what i can do with that or this. put your film in epson nikon minolta and u dont have DIGITAL REPRODUCTION OF FILM. put it in creo and imacon and u do have it as good as it is possible.

 

again.. u dont have to do it.... u dont have justify any other scanner or what ever... but if u do want digital reproduction of your film then this is the way to go.

and again... digital reproduction = u get about the same feeling as if u see it on light table. and from here... startiing with aristic stuff and games is very eassy and up to your unique vision etc.... in any case... your quality will be top and your art and your work is up to u.

[cpclee]

LFI had an article a couple of years ago comparing a Howtek scanner to several desktop scanners, including an entry level Imacon, Nikon LS5000 and Minolta 5400. Their conclusion was the Howtek was superior to the desktop scanners with respect to really deep shadows and corner sharpness. The Imacon was disappointing and didn't really do any better than either the Nikon or the Minolta. If I remember correctly they operated some of the scanners using third party software (like silverfast) which could scan an extended dynamic range thus narrowing the difference between them and the Howtek.

 

My personal experience with drum scans (done by one of the most renowned shops on the west coast) have not been overwhelmingly favorable. The scans were good but didn't floor me. I can get very decent scans from my Minolta 5400 by using SilverFast with high dynamic range (12-bit per channel rather than 8-bit with the manufacturer's software), hardware grain dissolver (built into the scanner) and 16x over sampling turned on. I also manual focus every slide, though I don't bother to glass mount. The output is dramatically better than what one could get from the original software so this must be factored into any comparison.

[cpclee]

Summilux-R 80/1.4 Provia 100F Minolta DS5400

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[mwilliamsphotography]

With my 949, you would have seen the hair texture in the shadows : -)

 

I just rescanned a couple of Pentax 6X7 car shots for a friend of mine. He said the shadow detail was far superior to all the scans he had done prior to this one. The 949 does a full res scan in record time ... which is a factor in my line of work.

 

(I have a Minolta 5400 BTW, and there is no comparison).

[cpclee]

Marc: I'm sure the 949 is a superior scanner. The Imacon that LFI reviewed was a very entry-level machine.

 

I've been thinking about used Imacon and Creo scanners myself (drum scans are just too tedious). How have you found the 949 in terms of the ease of getting a great scan without tweaking? Aside from better sharpness and shadow details relative to the consumer scanners, any other differences that you find noticeable? Compared to your highend digital backs?

[ron110n]

Chris,

 

Studio lights is cheaper and that's all you need. Then your minolta will pull everything out. I almost bought a used older 4000 dpi drum scanner and the publishing company will toss a Mac G4 and Monitor together with it just to clear his inventory for the fiscal year. "At less than the price of a Nikon 9000ED". As you said, it is tedious and I can't stand taping each negative and cleaning the drums each time with special solution. Worst is the bulk taking space. Yes he offered me free training on how to use it. No problem with the weight since I have a pick-up truck. It is 300 lbs. I later decided for a Nikon 9000ED. Yes, still I find the 9000ED bulky. A month after the 9000ED I bought an MF. It answerd all my questions. Two to three stops better resolution. I just realize that f2.8 is very fast for an MF... geez.

 

Cheers!

-Ron

[mwilliamsphotography]

Marc: I'm sure the 949 is a superior scanner. The Imacon that LFI reviewed was a very entry-level machine.

 

I've been thinking about used Imacon and Creo scanners myself (drum scans are just too tedious). How have you found the 949 in terms of the ease of getting a great scan without tweaking? Aside from better sharpness and shadow details relative to the consumer scanners, any other differences that you find noticeable? Compared to your highend digital backs?

 

Chris, The 949 scans I just did today were on the money in the preview pass, and we just went straight to the real scan. Here's a timely quote from a thank you e-mail I just recieved from the photographer who shoots for Automobile magazines:

 

"Hi Marc,

Thanks for the invite and time. I enjoyed it. I printed the [Dodge] Charger from the Imacon scan. Wow. Super definition and great tonal gradation. It far exceeds my scans."

 

The Flexcolor software provides a huge list of film profiles to select from ... and you can adjust any of them to taste and add it as a choice in that list, or add any other custom profile you wish. Flexcolor is the same software used for the MF Hasselblad/Imacon digital backs and has excellent controls for tweaking the files ... especially the shadow depth and color. Most people who shoot with the Imacon MF backs won't use any other software.

 

These scanners are the easiest to load of any I've used, and the software allows you to set up a cue to batch scan with custom adjustments for each frame. In use, I've found this specific scanner to be the fastest yet ... scanning at full res so quickly, that I can hardly prep the next film strip before it's done.

 

Let's specifically speak to making Leica M scans per David's original post ... which for me eliminates studio lights as a consideration per the above suggestion. I scan a lot of available light M work where not only sharpness and micro contrast is important to maintain, but tonal gradations and especially shadow detail. At 16 bit, 8000 dpi with a D-Max of 4.9 you achieve excellent scans with one pass, not multiple ones which are to time consuming for my work with wedding images.

 

The obvious down side is the whopping cost. Since I love film, AND use the scanner to make money, plus it keeps my film images right up there with the MF digital work in terms of quality, it was an investment worth making for me.

[hamey]

I took this shot a few years back using a Leica SL, and scanned with the

Minolta 5400-2. last week.

Should I complain, don't think so.

 

Cheers.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[mwilliamsphotography]

A fine shot to be sure Ken, but this is a thread about technically squeezing everything possible out of a neg or transparency when scanning.

 

Not knowing what your actual film looks like, I'd look at this and wonder if there was any information in the blown highlight areas and blocked up shadows.

 

Now you may want the shot to look that way, which is a creative decision that cannot be argued with. However, with a well exposed film, that's scanned to provide the very best tonal range possible, you can make those creative decisions afterwards.

 

The 5400 is a fine scanner for the money, and through multi-passes or the technique of double or triple scanning and layering you can get a broader tonal range with it.

[hamey]

Thanks Marc.

 

You're right, compared this image to the Slide it's no contest.

The Slide is Magnificent, not because of my expertise, I am far from it, just simply Leica optics.

But I am very impressed with scans I get from this model, however some detail and highlights is still omitted from the original slide.

 

Ken.

[mwilliamsphotography]

But I am very impressed with scans I get from this model, however some detail and highlights is still omitted from the original slide.

 

Ken.

 

Darn Ken, if you weren't on the other side of the world I have you send me that shot for scanning and I'd FTP the Tiff back to you. How fun would that be?

[davidada]

Hi, the thread is really about the best scans for quality - not whether one scanner is preferable to another or whether any one can afford it.

 

Lets remember a great image has nothing to do with film,digital,scanning etc, take a look at one of the most expensive images ever to auction at over $1,000,000.00 a steiglitz that technically is really not great, however, the image is gorgeous.

 

Back to scanners, what I have found in terms of the lower end scanners is that in the past few years the quality gap between them and high end scanners has shrunk remarkably, especially consideriing the price performance ratio.

 

The biggest difference is in shadow and highlight detail, not only in the scannners ability to capture these extremes but in the smoothness of the tonal ramp. A high end scan will give you very smooth tonal gradations with little posterization, whereas a lower end scanner can not handle these gradations and will posterize or clump information.

 

As to the multiple pass, yes it works on the Scitex very well to cancel noise in shadows, but on the lower end the scanners are just not built well enough to handle multiple passes. Take a look at the scitex supreme it weighs 300 lbs the minolta 5400 weighs 3 lbs. Then consider the scan mechanism of plastic gears driving a plastic holder with a peice of film held down imperfectly going in and out multiple times, what you get is a very mushy image then apply digital ice for the final frosting. Sorry it just does not compete.

 

In finishing if you have no alternative to a high end scan - then buy the best low end you can, do not use multiple pass over 2 or 3 times (experiment), no digital ice or dust and scratch removal (do it by hand in PS)

Consider the new Epson VR750 flatbed for scanning 8x10 analog prints, this captures the sublimation effect of the printed enlarger made image.

Cull out your very best images and try a high end scan - done by someone that has good recomendation.

 

Most of all enjoy!

[cpclee]

davidada: What would you recommend in terms of color depth and file size for archival (drum) scans of 35mm slides? How would you compare Scitex scanners to drum scans?

 

Marc: How did you draw your conclusion about film versus digital? Did you compare silver prints to digital prints?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[davidada]

davidada: What would you recommend in terms of color depth and file size for archival (drum) scans of 35mm slides? How would you compare Scitex scanners to drum scans?

 

Marc: How did you draw your conclusion about film versus digital? Did you compare silver prints to digital prints?

Color depth 16 bit if you can, (although a scan from an 8 bit Tango or Icg is miles better than a 16 bit from a Dimage)

Size - really should be optimized for the expected output ie. actual output size at 300 dpi or 360 if printing on Epson.

The scitex eversmart supreme is an excellent scanner - marginally bettered in shadow detail by the ICG drum scanner.