Back to Scanners and Comparisons.

In article ,
rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:17:36 -0800, Gordon Moat
wrote:

Snip

The inability to scan LF film, with the quality it deserves,
with a reasonably priced scanner, is the main reason
my LF kit sits idle at the moment.

BS-could be, I won't delve too far into personal motivation
because from time to time I shy away from carrying my LF
camera (because yes it can be an ordeal) and this is the MF newsgroup.
However there are other options. One can have the images scanned, or
optically printed you just have to be choosy which one you do. Secondly
one could shoot with a roll film back, it accomplishes two things,

one-you can take many more shots on a journey, and bracket & still have
VC movements.

two-you can scan the originals in your Nikon scanner.


You'll notice that the Microtek scan in the comparison
was in fact done by me. I am/was under no delusions
that it could match a Howtek, Tango or ICG drum scan.
The Microtek has since been sold.

Now, if Nikon made a (modern, current) LF film scanner,
I'd snap it up in an instant.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

www.gregblankphoto(dot)com

In article ,
rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:17:36 -0800, Gordon Moat
wrote:

Now, if Nikon made a (modern, current) LF film scanner,
I'd snap it up in an instant.

I agree although why you and I write Nikon and convince them
there is a market.
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

www.gregblankphoto(dot)com

"Gregory Blank" wrote in message
...

BS-could be, I won't delve too far into personal motivation
because from time to time I shy away from carrying my LF
camera (because yes it can be an ordeal) and this is the MF newsgroup.
However there are other options. One can have the images scanned, or
optically printed you just have to be choosy which one you do. Secondly
one could shoot with a roll film back, it accomplishes two things,

one-you can take many more shots on a journey, and bracket & still have
VC movements.

two-you can scan the originals in your Nikon scanner.

I have considered a roll-film-back but in some regards it's the worst of
both cases -- the bulk, weight and inconvenience of LF coupled with the
"smaller" film area of MF. Of course, the one big advantage would have been
to scan the resulting images on the Nikon.

For the nature/landscape photography that I do, most of the camera movements
I need are for focus, not for perspective correction.

In terms of sheer megapixels, I get almost as many from scanning 6x7 on the
Nikon as I used to get from scanning 4x5" film on the Microtek.

Drum-scanning 4x5... I haven't found a place that will do that for less than
$50 for a 2500 or 4000 dpi scan. Optical printing is not an option (for me.)

I keep tabs on eBay auctions of drum scanners, hoping to find one selling at
a decent price and within driving distance. For some odd reason I can't
bring myself to buy an Epson 4990. The Microtek (for which I paid $1K) just
wasn't up to the job.



rafe b

www.terrapinphoto.com

In article ,
"rafe b" wrote:

"Gregory Blank" wrote in message
...

BS-could be, I won't delve too far into personal motivation
because from time to time I shy away from carrying my LF
camera (because yes it can be an ordeal) and this is the MF newsgroup.
However there are other options. One can have the images scanned, or
optically printed you just have to be choosy which one you do. Secondly
one could shoot with a roll film back, it accomplishes two things,

one-you can take many more shots on a journey, and bracket & still have
VC movements.

two-you can scan the originals in your Nikon scanner.

I have considered a roll-film-back but in some regards it's the worst of
both cases -- the bulk, weight and inconvenience of LF coupled with the
"smaller" film area of MF. Of course, the one big advantage would have been
to scan the resulting images on the Nikon.

And the camera movements, and increased sharpness by being able to stop
down to 32 or 45. And don't quote the old then your into lens
diffraction (BS) I know the image is hugely sharper at 45 using my Apo-
Symmar.


For the nature/landscape photography that I do, most of the camera movements
I need are for focus, not for perspective correction.

Which is very important in some scenarios.


In terms of sheer megapixels, I get almost as many from scanning 6x7 on the
Nikon as I used to get from scanning 4x5" film on the Microtek.

Drum-scanning 4x5... I haven't found a place that will do that for less than
$50 for a 2500 or 4000 dpi scan. Optical printing is not an option (for me.)

Like I said, must be choosey.....or have a defined purpose.


I keep tabs on eBay auctions of drum scanners, hoping to find one selling at
a decent price and within driving distance. For some odd reason I can't
bring myself to buy an Epson 4990. The Microtek (for which I paid $1K) just
wasn't up to the job.

Yeah I know the 4990 looks good on some fronts - and pee poor on others-
I have a huge pile of 35mm I keep telling myself I need to scan and
market. I have thought about the option of buying the dedicated Nikon
35mm scanner for around 975 and the 4990 for MF and LF. I would like to
convert my 8x10 camera to 4x10 and then scan the color films I would be
shooting.

Wanta go halfs on a drum scanner?
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

www.gregblankphoto(dot)com

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:31:54 -0500, Gregory Blank
wrote:

Wanta go halfs on a drum scanner?


Possibly... I sometimes wish I'd kept (and tried harder to fix)
the ScanMate that I briefly owned last year.

One thing I know is that I will only buy it locally. I'll have to
see it working first, and bring it home myself. Somewhere
within a day's drive of Boston.

Already, you have the problem (with most drum scanners)
that the cost of maintaining one will be prohibitive. Ie., you
might be able to find a decent used machine for, say, $2K,
but it could cost you that much or more to fix it, first time it
breaks. I heard a figure of $5K for a PMT assembly, for
example. Oh yeah, and figure anywhere from $500 to
$2K for a decent driver, most likely.

They are large, heavy, fragile, precision mechanical-
electrical- optical devices. The ScanMate was a "desktop"
model that still weighed around 80 lbs.

From the cost POV, I'm sure a wet darkroom is much
more cost effective. No quarrel there. I have an old
Omega B22XL in the basement...


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com/drumscansaga

"rafe b" rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:

From the cost POV, I'm sure a wet darkroom is much
more cost effective. No quarrel there. I have an old
Omega B22XL in the basement...

But that only does up to 6x6...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 12:15:44 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:


"rafe b" rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:

From the cost POV, I'm sure a wet darkroom is much
more cost effective. No quarrel there. I have an old
Omega B22XL in the basement...

But that only does up to 6x6...


Yeah, I know. The real question is what the hell
I'll ever do with it. Not sure why I kept it -- mostly
it's a relic, but a very nice piece of engineering
for its day.

There's not much likelihood of my ever setting
up a wet darkroom again.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

In article ,
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

"rafe b" rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:

From the cost POV, I'm sure a wet darkroom is much
more cost effective. No quarrel there. I have an old
Omega B22XL in the basement...

But that only does up to 6x6...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Omega used to make a C760 that covered
6x7,....about 700.--with the color lamp house but
no more, to get 6x7 you would have to buy a 4x5
enlarger, unless you could find a good work C760
which should be rather difficult because the chassis
had a number of mechanical issues.

All told i have about five figures in optical
darkroom equipment. I have a color 4x5 enlarger
dichroic lamp hse, and a Fuijimoto roller color paper
processor and a lot of other stuff. I also have an B&W 8x10
enlarger.
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

www.gregblankphoto(dot)com

In article ,
rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 12:15:44 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:


"rafe b" rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:

From the cost POV, I'm sure a wet darkroom is much
more cost effective. No quarrel there. I have an old
Omega B22XL in the basement...

But that only does up to 6x6...


Yeah, I know. The real question is what the hell
I'll ever do with it. Not sure why I kept it -- mostly
it's a relic, but a very nice piece of engineering
for its day.

There's not much likelihood of my ever setting
up a wet darkroom again.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

You should have kept your fathers camera and ditched the enlarger ;^)
less lost space.
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

www.gregblankphoto(dot)com

rafe b wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:17:36 -0800, Gordon Moat
wrote:



What I found interesting is that I could actually see differences in the
JPEGs. Obviously, we both know that a JPEG is a poor way to judge how a
printed item will turn out, though the fact that differences are visible
in such a low quality representation of scans is interesting. I have
been mostly opposed to these internet challenges mostly due to the
degradation of images by posting and viewing JPEGs.


And it's been demonstrated again and again that
your fears and concerns on this score are quite
unfounded. They might be founded if the creator
of the site had been stupid enough to use extreme
JPG compression, but fortunately he knows better.




Perhaps if you read a bit closer to what I stated; I don't print from
JPEGs, and my concern with image files is their printing quality.
Obviously, storing TIFF files would take up a huge amount of space, and
is not practical for websites. The JPEG algorithm also functions with a
sharpening effect, even at the least compressed settings.

I stand by what I stated: "a JPEG is a poor way to judge how a printed
item will turn out". That has nothing to do with "fear", and I highly
disagree in your assertion that my "concerns" are "unfounded". If you
want to believe otherwise, you are entitled to your opinion.




I agree that there is lots of information on film, though the problem is
that few people will ever have their films scanned on a high end drum
scanner. Even for commercial work, the Creo flatbed scans are much more
common, more cost effective, and often a faster turnaround. A
professional might consider getting a new Creo iQSmart 1 for under
$9000, but would rarely ever consider an ICG for over $30000.



The inability to scan LF film, with the quality it deserves,
with a reasonably priced scanner, is the main reason
my LF kit sits idle at the moment.

You'll notice that the Microtek scan in the comparison
was in fact done by me. I am/was under no delusions
that it could match a Howtek, Tango or ICG drum scan.
The Microtek has since been sold.

Now, if Nikon made a (modern, current) LF film scanner,
I'd snap it up in an instant.


Nikon does fairly well with medium format scanners. Of course, that
would mean no larger than 6x9 images, though I don't think that is a bad
use of a view camera.

I actually thought the Polaroid made a very nice compromise. That with
the latest SilverFast Ai might make a good combination. The biggest
problem is that it is a used scanner.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com