A question about scanners

[Derrel]

Ctein (pronounce Kuh-TINE) has some great articles about scanning and resolution and printing, and how "much" information can be recorded and outputted.

The Online Photographer: A Perfunctory Guide to Converting Photographic Film to Digital Prints, Part I

The Online Photographer: A Perfunctory Guide to Converting Photographic Film to Digital Prints, Part II

Bottom line: there is a very REAL cutoff point in both scanning, and in inkjet printing, where higher numbers and more data and bigger storage needs mean squat in terms of results. If one's printer is not up to the task, those super-high dots per inch figures don't represent any real gain.

 

[djacobox372]

A dedicated film scanner is better then a flatbed. The OpticFilm scanner mentioned above looks like a nice one. Or you could get a used Nikon Coolscan or Minolta Dimage. I've used many scanners in my time in labs. By far the best is the Noritzu 1800 I use at work. Of course the common man can't afford $25,000 for one.

I dislike dedicated film scanners as I don't have time to baby sit it for every frame. They're also limited to just 35mm typically.

 

[TiCoyote]

I've ordered the CansoScan 9000F MkII. I needed a new flatbed anyway for documents. The price went up in the past few weeks, but meh.

I'm always thinking about the next step though. If I do this a lot, in a year will I want to get the Pacific Image 120 ($1200-1500) OR send rolls to Millers to get scanned ($5 each +S&H).

Even if shipping brought it to $10/roll, that would mean I would need to shoot at least 120 rolls before the scanner paid for itself. That would be a whole year shooting 2 rolls/week, which I probably won't.

Then there's time. If I scan them myself, figure at least 3min/frame. That's 72 hours. That's probably worth at least $2k.

The flip side is the psychology. If I'm paying per scan, I'm going to be apprehensive about shooting and scanning a lot. If I already have the scanner, I'll want to use it as much as possible.

Thoughts. Thoughts. Thoughts.

I suppose the next step would really be to send a few rolls to Millers and see what I think of their service.

 

[TiCoyote]

It turns out Miller's charges $5/negative, not per roll. The $5/roll price doesn't apply to true B&W. Harumph.

 

[Gavjenks]

I'd go for the V600. If I recall, it is not large enough to do 4x5 large format in a single pass, but MF yes? But it gets excellent reviews from anyone I've heard using it, including the folks over at the large format forums (not as good of reviews as the 700 of course, but much more $$$ efficient).

For medium format, scanning with your DSLR is also a quality option. It's not really up to snuff for 35mm, but MF I'd say yes. The setup I have used in the past to great effect is:
1) A tripod capable of mounting the camera underneath it more or less pointing straight down
2) A couple of boards on sawhorses or something like that
3) Two sheets of glass large enough to hold your photos between them flat
4) A remote flash with a softbox.
5) A macro extension tube
6) And a good, low-distortion lens (like a 50 prime or something)

This all costs more than a V600, but if you already have all those things (perhaps save for the glass), then you can save a lot. The glass goes between the boards suspended over mid air, with the camera tripoded above it looking straight down (use a level). The negative goes in between the glass, and the softbox down below. The softbox ends up being far enough away that DOF will render it a completely blurry, perfectly diffuse backlight. Then focus manually using live view maximum zoom in for perfection, and just snap photos of your negatives one by one. A little tedious to set up, but quite fast if you have a batch to process all at once.

You'll get a 4000 x 4000 pixel scan or whatever (using square MF as an example) of your negative, which you simply flip in photoshop and edit accordingly. The pixel count is lower than a scanner would imply, but in my experience, scanners don't actually capture detail down to their alleged pixels, and it ends up being pretty similar, actually. Unless your client is making prints to cover their entire living room wall, it's good enough.

AND if you're really hardcore, you can take photos and then pan the image around and stitch it all together later for essentially the maximum possible resolution a piece of film can hold.

Here's a large format I "scanned" using this method:

This is massively downrezzed for the internet, too, and from a single pass. In full size, if you take it in 4 shots and stitch, you can pretty much make out TEXTURAL DETAILS on individual bricks in the building in the middle. More than anything anyone would need.

 

[Derrel]

^^^ Nice post, Gavjenks. This is the kind of stuff I love to see on TPF!

 

[Tiller]

I've got an Epson 4990 and it produces nice scans and has holders from 35mm all the way to 8x10.

 

[gsgary]

Ive got the V500 and get good 10x15 prints from 1600dpi scans

 

[minicoop1985]

To hell with the scanner, is that a Jaguar V12? In an E-type??

 

[compur]

Looks like a 6-cylinder E Type engine to me.

 

[Joxby]

I was never very impressed by flatbed scanners.
I mean they're ok for digitizing to post on forums and blogs or whatever, but I always struggled to obtain something really nice.
Its not just the output either, there are a multitude of faff factors to consider before you can say flatbeds are quicker and easier to use than dedicated scanners.
I've spent hours fannying about with film holders, adjusting heights, altering the way the holders grip the film to make the frame flat, the software and numerous other things, and I never managed to find the magic combo, I don't think it exists.
I've used the Epson 4490, 4990, V500, V700 and V750 with wet mount, non of them was less of a faff than a dedicated scanner.
Ok, the dedicated can't scan as many frames at once as a flatbed, but I just shove the thing in there in its glass carrier (which keeps the frame perfectly flat), it auto focuses on the frame (no height adjustments) and off it goes, a decent and true 4000dpi scan, the best copy of a frame available to a person yet to fulfill millionaire status
I see the cost implication for scanning, 35mm isn't too bad, there are quite a few really good dedicated scanners that don't cost the Earth, once you move to MF things start to get expensive, from a cost perspective this is where the flatbeds move in.

 

[gsgary]

6 cylinder E Type

 

[AlanKlein]

I'd go for the V600. If I recall, it is not large enough to do 4x5 large format in a single pass, but MF yes? But it gets excellent reviews from anyone I've heard using it, including the folks over at the large format forums (not as good of reviews as the 700 of course, but much more $$$ efficient).

For medium format, scanning with your DSLR is also a quality option. It's not really up to snuff for 35mm, but MF I'd say yes. The setup I have used in the past to great effect is:
1) A tripod capable of mounting the camera underneath it more or less pointing straight down
2) A couple of boards on sawhorses or something like that
3) Two sheets of glass large enough to hold your photos between them flat
4) A remote flash with a softbox.
5) A macro extension tube
6) And a good, low-distortion lens (like a 50 prime or something)

This all costs more than a V600, but if you already have all those things (perhaps save for the glass), then you can save a lot. The glass goes between the boards suspended over mid air, with the camera tripoded above it looking straight down (use a level). The negative goes in between the glass, and the softbox down below. The softbox ends up being far enough away that DOF will render it a completely blurry, perfectly diffuse backlight. Then focus manually using live view maximum zoom in for perfection, and just snap photos of your negatives one by one. A little tedious to set up, but quite fast if you have a batch to process all at once.

You'll get a 4000 x 4000 pixel scan or whatever (using square MF as an example) of your negative, which you simply flip in photoshop and edit accordingly. The pixel count is lower than a scanner would imply, but in my experience, scanners don't actually capture detail down to their alleged pixels, and it ends up being pretty similar, actually. Unless your client is making prints to cover their entire living room wall, it's good enough.

AND if you're really hardcore, you can take photos and then pan the image around and stitch it all together later for essentially the maximum possible resolution a piece of film can hold.

Here's a large format I "scanned" using this method:
View attachment 65940
This is massively downrezzed for the internet, too, and from a single pass. In full size, if you take it in 4 shots and stitch, you can pretty much make out TEXTURAL DETAILS on individual bricks in the building in the middle. More than anything anyone would need.

That's really a nice BW. But on the left side, the rocks, water ripples and trees are blurry, maybe the clouds. Is that in the negative or from the scans?

 

[imagemaker46]

I use a plustek 7600, it does the job ok, but certainly does have some limitations. The digital ice system works fairly well, bottom line is that if it's a good neg, you'll get a good scan. I'm happy with it.

 

[vintagesnaps]

FWIW I have a Canon Pixma which has worked fine with 35mm up to 8 1/2 x 11; I've done my own prints for photos framed and displayed in juried exhibits. That's the thing, you need a good image to start with no matter what you're doing with it.

Next time you post a picture of an E type, show the car!! (not just the engine lol).