wbesz Posted December 31, 2006 Share #41 Posted December 31, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) David's question is valid and a point I have always been aware of, ..why have great lenses and end up with (technically) poor quality images. As for me, I have peace of mind that my images are preserved for the future, and in the best possible way with film. Today I can scan and play with the image as I need, and sometime in the future I have the capability of using the best optical means to extract and print those images. (Actually, I'm not sure that any scanner can do justice to film as can the best optical/chemical process can, but that's another thread ). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 31, 2006 Posted December 31, 2006 Hi wbesz, Take a look here Scanning for quality. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
vic vic Posted December 31, 2006 Share #42 Posted December 31, 2006 ken... is it good enough... made on epson scanner with silverfast... proff scan.... no retaching in photoshop and nothing... good enough to be proof... good enoug for internet.... JUNK to be printed... printed - only in darkroom... internet - monitor... are not indicators of quality... 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/12159-scanning-for-quality/?do=findComment&comment=130436'>More sharing options...
Danny2p Posted January 3, 2007 Share #43 Posted January 3, 2007 for any body who thinks about getting scanner... listen... dont buy anything "better" than nice epson flatbed scanner . Vic, I don't agree with your above statement. The photo below was scanned with a Nikon CoolScan V ED which is very basic. In my opinion this is a fairly good scan with no changes whatsoever. I don't even own Photoshop... The photo was captured (not the baby seal...) at Arcola Beach in Vancouver using M7, Elmarit 90/f2.8 at f4 on Fuji Reala 100 Cheers! Daniel 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/12159-scanning-for-quality/?do=findComment&comment=132419'>More sharing options...
mikel Posted January 3, 2007 Share #44 Posted January 3, 2007 I have used an Epson v750 and Nikon Coolscan 9000. There is a definite difference in detail and shadow detail when viewing 8x10 prints. It may be my inexperience with Silverfast, but after two weeks of tweaking I still couldn't get similar quality prints as I could with the Coolscan. I'm going to follow David's advice and have the few 35mm and 6x6 I like drum scanned and printed large (for me). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted January 3, 2007 Share #45 Posted January 3, 2007 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. May I have a humble request, Marc? Could you grab two identical shots, one with the M8 another with a M but scanned with your 949? ... or let me know if it's pure waste of time. I'm very curious to see ... if possible. Thanks a lot in advance. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vmo67 Posted January 3, 2007 Share #46 Posted January 3, 2007 You can get a working drum scanner for about the same as a good digital camera. Speaking on a business point of view only, and with all due respect to those opinions posted supporting the "overkill factor" here as being the only way, BUT: I preached the gospel of the high rez scan to my clients till I was blue in the face and in the end they just can't justify the cost or they just don't care. I don't sell film or scanning services, I sell photo solutions to their needs. I shoot architectural for a living. It's been a long time since I did a complete commercial shoot using film. My average price a few years ago for each 4x5 shot alone was at around $300.00 after drum scanning at a normal 8x10 at 300 dpi, Polaroid proofs and film costs. Few average clients couId afford more than 3-5 shots. While shooting digital I now yield over 100 shots per day with a rare film shot for a poster size blowup. I document a site. My client receives so many great shots they feel they are truly getting a deal. In most cases, the rez is more than they will need and the quantity delivered tells a complete story of the assignment. My equipment investments are only purchased if I know that it will directly increase my profit, my delivery and my reputation as an excellent service provider. In todays tight budgets and tough competition fewer and fewer customers are paying for something they simply don't need. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted January 3, 2007 Share #47 Posted January 3, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes Chris, I compared them. I not only have a working wet darkroom (quiet for awhile now, but still there), and I collect signed prints from master photographers ... which are hanging all over my home as a constant reminder of what a B&W can and should look like. The Holy Grail for inkjet printing for me is to approximate that look using high-end scans of film shots. The closest I've come has been Imacon 949 scans printed on Crain's Museo Silver Rag: 100% cotton Gloss finish (more like a Luster) @ 300 GSM ... which has the double weight heft of a good silver print and actually looks very close to a silver print ... well ... as much as can be expected sans the silver : -) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted January 3, 2007 Share #48 Posted January 3, 2007 Mike, I think commercial work is a whole different subject. I haven't shot a commercial job on film in years now. Few clients are willing to pay for the film and scanning expenses anymore. Personally, I'd hate to go back to film for Commercial assignments. I think the subject as David is presenting it is more about fine art images. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidada Posted January 3, 2007 Author Share #49 Posted January 3, 2007 Mike, I think commercial work is a whole different subject. I haven't shot a commercial job on film in years now. Few clients are willing to pay for the film and scanning expenses anymore. Personally, I'd hate to go back to film for Commercial assignments. I think the subject as David is presenting it is more about fine art images. More of my commercial clients are shooting digital for this very reason (cost) , as a result this filters down into there exhibition work,however , the goal of digital silver prints gets closer. It is only five years ago that the standard in digital printing was the Iris dye based printer with its comparitive low archival life and extreme metamarism. Now we have three strong manufacturers with strong products. ie. Epson, HP and Canon, all now using pigment based inks with extremely long life and virtually no metamarism. Also the paper manufacturers are stepping up to the plate and we have a wide range of papers from Crane,Somerset,Hahnemuhle and others. The top contenders for the most silver like are Crane silver max and a new paper from Hahnemuhle for HP in think to be called Litho? The sad fact is that even today's silver (wet) papers are sadly lacking in silver content compared to the papers of the past. I firmly believe we are on the edge of seeing the finest loooking and most archival prints in the coming few years. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted January 3, 2007 Share #50 Posted January 3, 2007 I agree about the lack of silver content in most analog papers nowdays. I have master prints in my home done many decades ago, and the depth and richness is astounding. My hope is that as film and analog printing becomes more and more specialized, some cottage industry will spring up and make the papers of yesteryear. That would get me back into the darkroom. As I said I've been using Cranes Museo Silver Rag on an Epson as being the closest in so far. I finally sourced 13"X19" sheets of this paper, and can't wait to try it. I've not tried the Crain Silver Max, nor even heard of it. What type finish is it David? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidada Posted January 3, 2007 Author Share #51 Posted January 3, 2007 I agree about the lack of silver content in most analog papers nowdays. I have master prints in my home done many decades ago, and the depth and richness is astounding.My hope is that as film and analog printing becomes more and more specialized, some cottage industry will spring up and make the papers of yesteryear. That would get me back into the darkroom. As I said I've been using Cranes Museo Silver Rag on an Epson as being the closest in so far. I finally sourced 13"X19" sheets of this paper, and can't wait to try it. I've not tried the Crain Silver Max, nor even heard of it. What type finish is it David? Sorry I miss- typed I meant Crane's Silver Rag ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vmo67 Posted January 4, 2007 Share #52 Posted January 4, 2007 Well if the subject just changed over to B/W printing then that is a whole different thread don’t you think? Printing B/W to later scan so that you don’t spend the $$$ for a drum scan, is that where this one is going? Selling prints here? Making posters? What. Be more specific. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidada Posted January 4, 2007 Author Share #53 Posted January 4, 2007 Well if the subject just changed over to B/W printing then that is a whole different thread don’t you think?Printing B/W to later scan so that you don’t spend the $$$ for a drum scan, is that where this one is going? Selling prints here? Making posters? What. Be more specific. It is a very valid method of producing prints ie. scanning a (wet) exhibition print on a flatbed scanner , what you gain is one time spotting.dodging burning etc etc , you also pick up the sublimation effect that a print made wet from an diffused light source enlarger gives. This works equally well for color and B&W. The Crane silver rag also prints color, the name silver rag was given as it is Cranes best attempt at a paper that has a tradional silver print feel. This scanning thread is open to color and B&W scans, also the act of scanning is assuming a print somehow is going to be made therefore print issues will naturally creep into this thread. I do not understand your reference to (Selling prints here? Making posters? What. Be more specific.) ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vmo67 Posted January 5, 2007 Share #54 Posted January 5, 2007 Mike, I think commercial work is a whole different subject. I haven't shot a commercial job on film in years now. Few clients are willing to pay for the film and scanning expenses anymore. Personally, I'd hate to go back to film for Commercial assignments. I think the subject as David is presenting it is more about fine art images. The topic switched to paper 2 posts back and you through me off. Printing B/W to scan then clean in Photoshop. I see. my mistake. I thought the goal was to have as few generations as possible. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan States Posted January 5, 2007 Share #55 Posted January 5, 2007 Of course 99 percent of what people shoot with their Leica's is rubbish so what does it matter? Do we really need 80" prints of our cat anyway? If ultimate technical quality is the goal you have purchased the wrong product. Leica's are about great handling and classy mechanics...literally since day one. Consider that a Yashica 124 will blow my Leica into the weeds in tonal scale and sharpness at equal print sizes. Now the M8 has taken up the mythological role once filled by the film cameras. If pixel peeping is the goal get an H2d and save your scanner money. If you are making PRINTS that normal people hang on normal sized walls all this is moot. The viewing public does not care about what they can't see Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted January 5, 2007 Share #56 Posted January 5, 2007 I have a H2D (now becoming a H3D), ain't the same as film. Love it. But it ain't film. I have to print 50 to 100 frames per wedding, including 4 to 10 large prints that are part of my packages. 90% of my shots can't be crap or I'd be out of business : -) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
humanized_form Posted January 5, 2007 Share #57 Posted January 5, 2007 great thread. i get my 35mm slides drum scanned and made into chromira prints with the image files saved to cd for future use online or wherever. the combination of analog capture and scanning for print output works great for me. i really like having the slide as a reference for any tweaks needed for the scan before printing. i also like having the original slide around for future use, as scanning technology improves i can take advantage of that progress. i like that. this thread reminds me that i still have to go check out David's studio and see some M8 prints at some point! kevin Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 5, 2007 Share #58 Posted January 5, 2007 If you are really, really serious about quality, wouldn't you use a plate camera? There is a letter in a current issue of one of the magazines over here at the moment, that's a real cracker. It's from a member of a camera club who's throwing 98 octane on the digital vs film debate (something that I am most definitely not doing here, btw). However, his comments are pertinent to my first sentence here, and made me laugh out loud over my complimentary parsnip crisps and ham sandwiches on the train home this evening. He's writing about his experiences at his local club meeting, during the autumn. "Prints and 35mm slides taken during summer meetings, projected 6x6cm transparencies and some digital images shown using our shiny new and quite expensive digital projector" [were exhibited] "Which format produced the best quality images? By a very wide margin, the 6x6cm transparencies, with the digital projector coming a poor last. The colour rendition seemed to be not very good compared to film, and the resolution at 1024 x 768 pixels was very poor indeed" "For showing images at their very best, which in my opinion is done with a slide projector, film is without equal. Erm. Am I missing something here? I know it's a very long time since I went to a camera club. I think that FP3 was still the weapon of choice then. Certainly an OM1 was at the bleeding edge. But, aren't digital projectors designed for Keynote and Powerpoint presentations? Does anyone actually think that projecting a digital image via one of these things is a good idea? Maybe I should go to a camera club again, and see what is really going on... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 5, 2007 Share #59 Posted January 5, 2007 Andy, I made the point about low resolution projectors when I was a member of a local camera club a couple of years ago. The images were dreadful. I'd taken some of my photographs along, and because I didn't have time to make prints I used images projected from a CD. The results were appalling. Low resolution, high contrast. Imagine the worst that Jessops could due and then crank up the crapometer several notches. I was embarassed at the results. Digital projection may have a future, but my experience is that the future hasn't arrived yet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 5, 2007 Share #60 Posted January 5, 2007 > crank up the crapometer several notches. 1024 x 768 spread across an eight feet wide screen must be a bit of a challenge... Let me work that out... each pixel has to cover 2.38mm width Of course the image is going to look a bit worse than a 6x6cm slide projected... (Sorry, drifting a bit off topic here...) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.