drum scanning

[Pindy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a friend who wants to make about a half a dozen enlargements for framing. The photos are all ones I've taken and it's an honor to be complimented this way so I want the prints to be top notch. My question is... should I look into drum scanning the winning selects for this purpose? The scans I have now, from the negs, are 5035x3339, made on a Noritsu machine. Will a drum scan be that much better for, say, a 16x20 enlargement?

 

I'm thinking the resolution of the Noritsu scans are fine—it's the image quality of the drum scans I'm asking about.

[Advertisement]

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

[Pindy]

That's what I thought: A room full of virgins...

 

I'm getting three frames scanned and will report back.

[earleygallery]

Why not just have proper photographic prints made?

 

I don't have experience of drum scanners but IMHO for your purposes, if your current scans are good for the print size and of good quality etc., I doubt under normal circumstances/viewing conditions there will be much if any noticeable difference.

 

I'm probably going to get blasted now!

[andybarton]

What? A room full of virgins? How is that going to get a response to your question?

 

I have printed beyond 16x20 with scans from negatives using my Nikon Coolscan V and I am very pleased with them.

 

However, a better scan will always yield a better result, provided the person doing the scanning knows whatthey are doing. If your Noritsu scans were done at the same time as your processing, virtually any scanner will give you better results than those.

[ndjambrose]

You're probably getting few answers because there's not much context to the question.

 

You don't need a drum scan for size because 5035 pixels is already enough for a 16x20 print. A drum scan is useful for enhanced resolution, or for film with flatness problems, or a negative that's been scratched, because the film is mounted in fluid and held under tension. But whether that resolution is needed (or perceptible in relative terms) depends on the quality of your current scan - likewise the benefits of fluid mounting might not be relevant.

 

If you're looking for a broad brush response about quality, then I'd say that for an undamaged 135 frame a drum scan is wasted effort. You can get 98% of the same thing for about 15% of the price if you get a quality CCD scan instead.

 

(Don't confuse quality CCD scans with what you get from a mini-lab. You'll need to have scans made on a 9000ED or similar, not a Noritsu).

 

Personally I think drum scans only come into their own on much larger formats, 4x5 or higher.

[roguewave]

That's what I thought: A room full of virgins...

 

I'm getting three frames scanned and will report back.

 

I'd call that a Self Description. I'd rethink your approach to posting & inquiries.

[Pindy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What? A room full of virgins? How is that going to get a response to your question?

 

I have printed beyond 16x20 with scans from negatives using my Nikon Coolscan V and I am very pleased with them.

 

However, a better scan will always yield a better result, provided the person doing the scanning knows whatthey are doing. If your Noritsu scans were done at the same time as your processing, virtually any scanner will give you better results than those.

 

Sorry guys—didn't mean to sound cranky. I just saw 80 views and after the time that had passed I wondered why nobody had a comment. And somebody pissed me off 5 minutes beforehand. Not fair to pass on the attitude to the group. Apologies to the forum. It was a lame attempt at levity, which failed.

 

Back to business, though, the scans were done at the same time as processing (minilab I believe) so I take your point.

[Pindy]

Why not just have proper photographic prints made?

 

I don't have experience of drum scanners but IMHO for your purposes, if your current scans are good for the print size and of good quality etc., I doubt under normal circumstances/viewing conditions there will be much if any noticeable difference.

 

I'm probably going to get blasted now!

 

That's a really good question, and one I asked myself yesterday. I think the issue is that I have no experience in a wet darkroom and am unsure how to communicate with a live printer (i.e., an expert). I suppose I use digital tools to get what I want creatively out of the print. Oh, that and the cost. A&I are $90 for a 16x20 print. That may end up being all right but maybe I can find somebody cheaper who is also good at taking direction.

[Pindy]

I'd call that a Self Description. I'd rethink your approach to posting & inquiries.

 

Agreed. Very unbecoming of me to have posted such twaddle. Were that I could strike the whole thing from the public records.

[Pindy]

You're probably getting few answers because there's not much context to the question.

 

You don't need a drum scan for size because 5035 pixels is already enough for a 16x20 print. A drum scan is useful for enhanced resolution, or for film with flatness problems, or a negative that's been scratched, because the film is mounted in fluid and held under tension. But whether that resolution is needed (or perceptible in relative terms) depends on the quality of your current scan - likewise the benefits of fluid mounting might not be relevant.

 

If you're looking for a broad brush response about quality, then I'd say that for an undamaged 135 frame a drum scan is wasted effort. You can get 98% of the same thing for about 15% of the price if you get a quality CCD scan instead.

 

(Don't confuse quality CCD scans with what you get from a mini-lab. You'll need to have scans made on a 9000ED or similar, not a Noritsu).

 

Personally I think drum scans only come into their own on much larger formats, 4x5 or higher.

 

Helpful—thanks. It was the overall image quality factor I was questioning, not the resolution, as the resolution I'm working with is already fine enough, but I suspected—as you pointed out—that the minilab scans, no matter the resolution, lacked the ability to produce a really good print at that size. I distill what you're saying as "yes there is better quality to be had, but you could a good enough result from a better scanner without the cost of drum scanning."

 

In the end, this really is a roundabout way of getting a film negative to a piece of paper. Perhaps I'd be better served learning to annotate a proof for a human being, one with vastly more experience than me.

[noah_addis]

Don't you know--humor doesn't really work on the internet.

 

Anyway, as you've found out the minilab scans are useful for some things but not for high-quality prints in most cases. You have plenty of resolution but there are many other factors.

 

You didn't mention if the negs/prints are black and white or color? For B&W I'd go with a wet print if at all possible. It's hard to match the beauty of a darkroom print on fiber paper. If it's not an option then a good scan and inkjet print can also be a thing of beauty if done right.

 

For color, digital is definitely the way to go.

 

I have to disagree with Neil here--I don't think the decision of whether or not to use a drum scan has anything to do with the size of the negative--it has more to do with the amount of enlargement. I can scan 8x10 negs on my cheap epson scanner and get great 16x20 prints. But I wouldn't think of using it for 35mm unless I was printing wallet-size photos. Smaller negs tend to be enlarged more, and so it's even more important to make a good scan.

 

Your 16x20 prints represent a fairly high degree of enlargement for a 35mm negative. I don't think a drum scan is a waste for 35mm--quite the opposite actually. The wet mounting has a way of smoothing imperfections and grain--both things that are more problematic when you shoot with smaller formats. On a drum scanner the scanning aperture can be matched to the film grain in such a way as to reproduce the film grain faithfully without grain aliasing or other problems common to ccd scanners. Getting good focus across the film is not a problem as it can be with the Nikon (and yes, even Imacon) ccd scanners.

 

I don't shoot 35mm anymore but when I did I scanned at home on an LS9000 and occasionally outsourced drum scans from Laumont in NYC, which is probably one of the best labs anywhere. And I see a noticeable difference between scans from the LS9000 and drum scanner at any print size but definitely at 16x20in. So much so that I'm installing a Howtek 8000 in my studio this week.

 

So the short answer is that you need at least a high-end CCD scan from a Nikon or Imacon. And a properly-done drum scan will be better, but perhaps incrementally so depending on your standards of quality and the skill of the scanner operator. Whether it's worth the extra expense is up to you. But if you're looking for 'top-notch' prints, it's the way to go.

[Pindy]

I got three scans back. The difference is immediate:

 

 

 

The second is the drum scan. The drum scan certainly holds it's midtones better and nothing is blown out as in the minilab scan.

 

Here's the full frame:

 

 

Drum scan:

 

 

The drum scan seems a little softer, although I haven't yet applied any kind of sharpening. These are with no processing of any kind.

[Pindy]

Even more profound is with this (imperfect) exposure:

 

Mini:

 

 

Drum:

 

 

The orchestra actually looks exposed properly in the drum scan, despite being well OOF. The console itself also has more detail.

 

The better scans make the images look like a photograph.

[marcusperkins]

Hi Pindy,

 

Some interesting results.

 

I have few observations that may muddy the waters slightly:

 

Does the minilab operator understand how to use his scanner properly (this is a question not an accusation) - very few of them do.

 

I get most of my scans done at my local minilab. The guy who does it for me always turns off all adjustments (sharpening, auto contrast etc), and sets the output to the unit's native resolution (6500dpi) then scans out 16 bit tiffs, which come out at about 174MB per image.

 

There is no question a drum scan will definitely get out more detail if there is more detail to be had - but the Noritsu unit is an impressive piece of equipment (which cost in the region of £16,000) producing some great results. And of course it is quick and very convenient for me.

 

However, for really important single images, I will always go for a drum scan for the reason noah_addis made clear.

[Pindy]

I have few observations that may muddy the waters slightly:

 

I'm keen to ask about the settings next time. I would personally prefer to start from a baseline that resembles the negative as much as possible. TIFs I imagine might be impossible without spending more (I expect it takes more time), but worth looking into.

[marcusperkins]

I really doesn't take that much longer. The scanner can rip through a roll of 36 frames producing A4 300dpi scans in less than a minute.

 

Scanning a full res 16 bit tiff takes about 10 seconds actual scanning time (My Nikon at max quality and x16 takes about 35 minutes, but that's nearly 10 years old now). I guess there's also setup time, but if the operator knows what they're doing, the whole thing should be done in a couple minutes.

 

I think we're all so used to scanning systems developed 10 years back, but modern commercial scanners (like modern cameras) are very quick.

[menos I M6]

Pindy, your observation in difference between the Noritsu and the drum scans are differences in operation of the machines, to net the best result.

 

When I had 135 negative scans made from an Imacon scanner, instead of doing them myself on a flatbed, the image quality in detail and resolution was a lot higher with the Imacon, but the used profiles and exposure were completely off.

 

The Imacon scans from the lab looked astonishingly similar to your Noritsu files - I guess, there is a common understanding of automated lab processings, that B+W files must look gritty and extremely contrasty with a punch ;-)

 

I would throw in a third solution here:

I experimented lately with using a dedicated reproduction macro lens on a DSLR, to "scan" my negatives in an attempt of finding a better solution to the lab and my flatbed scans.

 

I found this with a comparison of a TriX 400 @ 3200 in D-76 negative:

 

1:1 crop - EPSON flatbed scan

 

1:1 crop - Nikon D3 | 60 mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor | 1:1 repro

 

full frame - EPSON flatbed scan

 

full frame - Nikon D3 | 60 mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor | 1:1 repro

 

The Nikon files do look actually worse, than they could, as I used exactly the same (not ideal for the Nikon files) development and sharpening profiles, as has been used for the EPSON scans, to see the most genuine difference in this comparison. This resulted also in different contrast and exposure. These points were not my primary concern though, as I have fought endless battles with uneven, curled film and therefore soft, not detailed scans from the flatbed.

 

I have mounted the negative in the same negative holder, I scanned with the EPSON.

I used a lightbox as lightsource and placed the negative holder on top. I mounted the D3 with 60mm macro lens on a small table tripod and shot with mirror lockup and cable release. I used autofocus in the center of the negative and used a small aperture to fight the curled TriX.

 

What you see, is TriX 400 @ ISO 3200 in D-76. I used a Leica M7 + Noctilux @ ca f2, shooting from a bypassing car.

The woman is not in the plane of focus, as the motorcycle was already at an angle.

 

I will from now on do all my negatives this way (I print exclusively digital). The comfortable limit for the 12MP Nikon D3 files without upsizing is 13x19, which I do at home.

 

The resolution limit here is just the used digital camera.

 

I went into some more detail in my flickr stream on this process.

The benefit for you from this procedure would be first and foremost, to have full control over exposure, contrast and character of the scan files for further post processing.

From my comparison up to 13x19 prints, this process with the equipment, I used held up with better prints, which is the reason, why I skip the lab scans and my flatbed from now on. I have stopped, searching for a good deal on a Nikon Coolscan as well.

[noah_addis]

While I'm sure the sharpening can be turned off the Noritsu machines, I personally have never been to a lab using one (or any of the other minilab/scanning machines) that can manage to turn it off. Perhaps they just can't be bothered...

 

Imacon scanners also have some default sharpening, even when sharpening is set to zero. You need to set it to -120 to truly disable the sharpening if I remember correctly.

 

Operators of minilab machines tend to try to make your scans ready-to-print, so they may boost contrast a bit too much. A good drum scan operator will try to capture as much information as possible from the negative and leave you some room to do your own final tweaking of tonality and contrast. The trick is not to scan so flat as to ruin midtone tonality and separation.

 

I'm glad you're happy with your scans. How are you printing them? I can strongly recommend the Hahnemuhle FineArt Baryta paper on an x880 or x900-series Epson. It's a beautiful paper for B&W.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest]

how about 'virtual drum-scanners' like the hasselblad/imacons?

i made excellent experience with a german berlin based scanning service

 

HIGHEND-SCANSERVICE

[Amsterdam]

Hi guys. I am owner of m7 and thinking myself what drum scan to buy. I think this link may give you some taste of the quality of different scanners - flatbed and drum.

 

Collaborative Large Format Scanner Comparison