I started a 35mm B&W darkroom forum

On 17/12/04 2:56 pm, in article , "Tom Phillips"
wrote:



Gregory Blank wrote:

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

A smart choice. I'm not familiar with the Epson
film scanners, though. So I couldn't say if that's
a good choice or not.

Probably the best choice for the money,

It's always a choice between $$$ and scan quality
If I need a scan, I get a high end or other appropriate
one from a service bureau, since _my_ optically enlarged
prints are far better than any desktop inkjet both in
image detail (resolution) and range of tonality and/or
color (gamut.) Can't speak for frank's printing skills


If I can chip in here, I'd like to ask what your take is on dedicated 120
film scanners for pre-press work, as opposed to a drum scan or a bureau?

Gregory Blank wrote:
In article ,
The Wogster wrote:


It's true there is no digital need for a dark room, the term "digital
darkroom", does have meaning for anyone who understands the photographic
processes, especially if you have done traditional film processing.


Does 23 years of film printing and processing as well as doing computer
work, qualify me to say digital darkroom is a "buzz word"?


It does, however a lot of buzz words have, over time, found their way
into normal language. I expect this to be another one....

W

Gregory Blank wrote:
In article ,
The Wogster wrote:


It's true there is no digital need for a dark room, the term "digital
darkroom", does have meaning for anyone who understands the photographic
processes, especially if you have done traditional film processing.


Does 23 years of film printing and processing as well as doing computer
work, qualify me to say digital darkroom is a "buzz word"?


It does, however a lot of buzz words have, over time, found their way
into normal language. I expect this to be another one....

W

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:


: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: In rec.photo.darkroom Gregory Blank wrote:
: : In article ,
: : Frank Pittel wrote:
: :
: : A person can buy a real nice LF camera and a nice selection of lenses
: : for the price of one of those 10+mp cameras.
:
: : Hey but then the person might have to actually learn something about
: : photography instead of just snapping away carelessly hoping for good
: : shots out of the 1,000's of "free" pictures one can take with digidiot
: : cam ;-) And since photography isn't art and is a dead media who gives
: : a rats ass if five years from now no one can support themselves by doing
: : it ;-)
:
: Since digital "imaging" isn't photography and photography isn't art can
: digital imaging by art?? ( this should get a good flame war going! :-) )
:
: I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of grief here but last weekend I got an
: Epson 2200 and made a print from an image I took with my long obsolete 4mp
: digital P&S. All I can say is that the 8x10 prints

: No grief, just not a true comparison. Inkjets are
: sprayed ink which gives the impression of "continuous
: tone" and detail, but in reality it's a bunch of dots
: smeared across the paper at 300 dpi that lack true
: detail. You also need to compare the _same_ subject
: under the same output conditions for an honest side
: by side qualitative comparison.

A color print is made from dye clouds and isn't continuous either. The side by side
comparison between my digital P&S and 35mm is far more work then I have any desire to do
so I won't.

: I made from it compare
: very well with 8x10 prints I made from 35mm negatives and hours in a darkroom
: with an enlarger!!

: True, real world comparison:

: Try a 16x20 print (_assuming_ you have a high quality
: negative with fine grain and good detail), but this
: time take it to a pro lab and get high end Lightjet
: prints (photochemical output.) You don't need a lot
: of pixel resolution to make a 8x10 smeared inkjet look
: halfway "good" to the eye, but real photographic output
: is different.

A 16x20 print of a 35mm frame is going to look like crap and I'll
bet a 16x20 print from my digial p&s will look just as bad. Also if you
think that a print from a modern inkjet printer on "photo" grade paper is
smeared you might want to get you eyes checked out. (no offense intended)
I've looked at the prints from a number of inkjet printers made by Epson
and Canon under a 20x lupe and the "dots" are clearly visible as dots and
there is no "smearing". If you haven't seen the output from a modern higher
end inkjet like the Epson 2200 on "photo" paper you may want to take a look.
You may be pleasantly surprised.

: Photograph a subject with very fine detail (a product
: type shot of a herringbone patterned sport coat.) Then
: have your film scanned with a high end film scanner
: like the Imacon (which is what my pro lab uses; for
: most purposes it's almost as good as a more expensive
: drum scan but far cheaper.) Again, assuming a high
: resolving 35mm film, scan at 300 pixels per inch and
: output to a 16x20. Then have them output the 4MP file
: to the same 16x20. Or if you want, borrow a typical
: prosumer 6 MP camera. Get a decent loupe and compare,
: though I doubt you'll need the loupe.

Again that's a lot more work then I ever plan on doing. I also know
that at 16x20 both images are going to look like crap.

: BTW, for typical consumer digital cameras (the p&s
: most people buy) 4MP isn't really "obsolete." Still
: very common. Most don't spend $7,000 on a prosumer
: digital camera with 10-11 MP. The Sinar digital cameras
: I've used provide about 25MP, about equivalent to 35mm
: film, and having shot Kodachrome for years and seen
: 30x40 prints from such, I'm just not impressed with less.

The camrea I got a number of years ago is no longer being made. It
was discontinued when the new latest and greatest camera was released.
Fortunatly it still works and does what I got it to do so I've never found
a reason to get a new one.

: Now, if you want a real world LF test do the same but
: enlarge to 50, 60, or even 120 inches.

Even more work then making a 16x20 from 35mm.

: I also just got home a little while ago with an Epson 4870
: scanner. Tomorrow I start scanning the hundreds of 4x5 negatives I have.
:
: Tom will be happy to read that I still intend to do the image capture with
: my 4x5 and will keep the negatives for archival purposes. :-) :-) :-)

: A smart choice. I'm not familiar with the Epson
: film scanners, though. So I couldn't say if that's
: a good choice or not.

It's a good scanner.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:


: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: In rec.photo.darkroom Gregory Blank wrote:
: : In article ,
: : Frank Pittel wrote:
: :
: : A person can buy a real nice LF camera and a nice selection of lenses
: : for the price of one of those 10+mp cameras.
:
: : Hey but then the person might have to actually learn something about
: : photography instead of just snapping away carelessly hoping for good
: : shots out of the 1,000's of "free" pictures one can take with digidiot
: : cam ;-) And since photography isn't art and is a dead media who gives
: : a rats ass if five years from now no one can support themselves by doing
: : it ;-)
:
: Since digital "imaging" isn't photography and photography isn't art can
: digital imaging by art?? ( this should get a good flame war going! :-) )
:
: I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of grief here but last weekend I got an
: Epson 2200 and made a print from an image I took with my long obsolete 4mp
: digital P&S. All I can say is that the 8x10 prints

: No grief, just not a true comparison. Inkjets are
: sprayed ink which gives the impression of "continuous
: tone" and detail, but in reality it's a bunch of dots
: smeared across the paper at 300 dpi that lack true
: detail. You also need to compare the _same_ subject
: under the same output conditions for an honest side
: by side qualitative comparison.

A color print is made from dye clouds and isn't continuous either. The side by side
comparison between my digital P&S and 35mm is far more work then I have any desire to do
so I won't.

: I made from it compare
: very well with 8x10 prints I made from 35mm negatives and hours in a darkroom
: with an enlarger!!

: True, real world comparison:

: Try a 16x20 print (_assuming_ you have a high quality
: negative with fine grain and good detail), but this
: time take it to a pro lab and get high end Lightjet
: prints (photochemical output.) You don't need a lot
: of pixel resolution to make a 8x10 smeared inkjet look
: halfway "good" to the eye, but real photographic output
: is different.

A 16x20 print of a 35mm frame is going to look like crap and I'll
bet a 16x20 print from my digial p&s will look just as bad. Also if you
think that a print from a modern inkjet printer on "photo" grade paper is
smeared you might want to get you eyes checked out. (no offense intended)
I've looked at the prints from a number of inkjet printers made by Epson
and Canon under a 20x lupe and the "dots" are clearly visible as dots and
there is no "smearing". If you haven't seen the output from a modern higher
end inkjet like the Epson 2200 on "photo" paper you may want to take a look.
You may be pleasantly surprised.

: Photograph a subject with very fine detail (a product
: type shot of a herringbone patterned sport coat.) Then
: have your film scanned with a high end film scanner
: like the Imacon (which is what my pro lab uses; for
: most purposes it's almost as good as a more expensive
: drum scan but far cheaper.) Again, assuming a high
: resolving 35mm film, scan at 300 pixels per inch and
: output to a 16x20. Then have them output the 4MP file
: to the same 16x20. Or if you want, borrow a typical
: prosumer 6 MP camera. Get a decent loupe and compare,
: though I doubt you'll need the loupe.

Again that's a lot more work then I ever plan on doing. I also know
that at 16x20 both images are going to look like crap.

: BTW, for typical consumer digital cameras (the p&s
: most people buy) 4MP isn't really "obsolete." Still
: very common. Most don't spend $7,000 on a prosumer
: digital camera with 10-11 MP. The Sinar digital cameras
: I've used provide about 25MP, about equivalent to 35mm
: film, and having shot Kodachrome for years and seen
: 30x40 prints from such, I'm just not impressed with less.

The camrea I got a number of years ago is no longer being made. It
was discontinued when the new latest and greatest camera was released.
Fortunatly it still works and does what I got it to do so I've never found
a reason to get a new one.

: Now, if you want a real world LF test do the same but
: enlarge to 50, 60, or even 120 inches.

Even more work then making a 16x20 from 35mm.

: I also just got home a little while ago with an Epson 4870
: scanner. Tomorrow I start scanning the hundreds of 4x5 negatives I have.
:
: Tom will be happy to read that I still intend to do the image capture with
: my 4x5 and will keep the negatives for archival purposes. :-) :-) :-)

: A smart choice. I'm not familiar with the Epson
: film scanners, though. So I couldn't say if that's
: a good choice or not.

It's a good scanner.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:


: Gregory Blank wrote:
:
: In article ,
: Tom Phillips wrote:
:
: A smart choice. I'm not familiar with the Epson
: film scanners, though. So I couldn't say if that's
: a good choice or not.
:
: Probably the best choice for the money,

: It's always a choice between $$$ and scan quality
: If I need a scan, I get a high end or other appropriate
: one from a service bureau, since _my_ optically enlarged
: prints are far better than any desktop inkjet both in
: image detail (resolution) and range of tonality and/or
: color (gamut.) Can't speak for frank's printing skills

I've been told that I do a good job printing. I don't know how printing skill
is going to increase the amount of detail in a print though. With an enlarger
you can't create detail.

: I have a 2450 which was
: a few generations ago....it produces "nice" scans. I have actually done
: scans with it, which have been successfully used for four color offset
: printing with the 2450. Part of the process is understanding how to use
: the software.

: Certainly you have to know how to get the best scan
: for the purpose. But it also depends on the quality/
: final output (end reproduction) of the scan.

: My experience with Espon is their claimed specs don't
: match real world s/n ratio tests results of those specs.
: Which isn't to say Epson doesn't make halfway decent
: consumer scanners. I have a 1600 pro flat bed. The 4870
: is an inexpensive flat bed ($500-600.) Epson marketing
: claims "What if the quality and enhancement capabilities
: of a powerful, dedicated film scanner were available
: without the premium price?"

That's called marketing. Everyone including Kodak streches the
truth about their products to the point of lying.

: Fact: the _price_ of a film scanner reflects the quality
: of the components. In otherwords, cheaper scanners must
: sacrifice some high end components in order to keep the
: cost down. It's the difference between buying a Mustang
: and Jaguar. Both will get you down the road and perform
: well but the Jaguar will always outperform the Mustang
: when high end performance really counts. That's why
: Jaguars cost what they do. In other words Espon claims
: a 3.8 D-max for this combination flat bed/film scanner,
: which is close to what you could get with a high end
: scan. Reality is for that price it's not going to happen.

I have no illusion that the 4870 can give the same quality that's
possible from a drum scanner. I have compared scans made by an ImaconSP?
and it can hold it's own. Once again you might want to give the current
generation of equipment a try. You may be pleasantly surprised. I know I
was. I was expecting the type of results you're describing and did much
better.


: Probably fine for Frank's inkjets, though, since no
: inkjet could reproduce the detail of a high end film
: scan anyway.

Very true. An inkjet can't print the detail I get from the scans from
my 4870!!
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:


: Gregory Blank wrote:
:
: In article ,
: Tom Phillips wrote:
:
: A smart choice. I'm not familiar with the Epson
: film scanners, though. So I couldn't say if that's
: a good choice or not.
:
: Probably the best choice for the money,

: It's always a choice between $$$ and scan quality
: If I need a scan, I get a high end or other appropriate
: one from a service bureau, since _my_ optically enlarged
: prints are far better than any desktop inkjet both in
: image detail (resolution) and range of tonality and/or
: color (gamut.) Can't speak for frank's printing skills

I've been told that I do a good job printing. I don't know how printing skill
is going to increase the amount of detail in a print though. With an enlarger
you can't create detail.

: I have a 2450 which was
: a few generations ago....it produces "nice" scans. I have actually done
: scans with it, which have been successfully used for four color offset
: printing with the 2450. Part of the process is understanding how to use
: the software.

: Certainly you have to know how to get the best scan
: for the purpose. But it also depends on the quality/
: final output (end reproduction) of the scan.

: My experience with Espon is their claimed specs don't
: match real world s/n ratio tests results of those specs.
: Which isn't to say Epson doesn't make halfway decent
: consumer scanners. I have a 1600 pro flat bed. The 4870
: is an inexpensive flat bed ($500-600.) Epson marketing
: claims "What if the quality and enhancement capabilities
: of a powerful, dedicated film scanner were available
: without the premium price?"

That's called marketing. Everyone including Kodak streches the
truth about their products to the point of lying.

: Fact: the _price_ of a film scanner reflects the quality
: of the components. In otherwords, cheaper scanners must
: sacrifice some high end components in order to keep the
: cost down. It's the difference between buying a Mustang
: and Jaguar. Both will get you down the road and perform
: well but the Jaguar will always outperform the Mustang
: when high end performance really counts. That's why
: Jaguars cost what they do. In other words Espon claims
: a 3.8 D-max for this combination flat bed/film scanner,
: which is close to what you could get with a high end
: scan. Reality is for that price it's not going to happen.

I have no illusion that the 4870 can give the same quality that's
possible from a drum scanner. I have compared scans made by an ImaconSP?
and it can hold it's own. Once again you might want to give the current
generation of equipment a try. You may be pleasantly surprised. I know I
was. I was expecting the type of results you're describing and did much
better.


: Probably fine for Frank's inkjets, though, since no
: inkjet could reproduce the detail of a high end film
: scan anyway.

Very true. An inkjet can't print the detail I get from the scans from
my 4870!!
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

teflon wrote:

On 17/12/04 2:56 pm, in article , "Tom Phillips"
wrote:



Gregory Blank wrote:

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

A smart choice. I'm not familiar with the Epson
film scanners, though. So I couldn't say if that's
a good choice or not.

Probably the best choice for the money,

It's always a choice between $$$ and scan quality
If I need a scan, I get a high end or other appropriate
one from a service bureau, since _my_ optically enlarged
prints are far better than any desktop inkjet both in
image detail (resolution) and range of tonality and/or
color (gamut.) Can't speak for frank's printing skills

If I can chip in here, I'd like to ask what your take is on dedicated 120
film scanners for pre-press work, as opposed to a drum scan or a bureau?


I'd say it depends entirely on the scanner and whether
you do a lot of scanning for prepress. I know photogs who
only shoot for reproduction and for them it's worth
investing in a suitable film scanner. If you only do
occasional, likely a bureau is cheaper.

Drum scanners are a different type of scanner technology
altogether (photomultiplier) and at a service bureau
a good technician will match the scan to the intended
output or easily adjust the scan for areas that need
attention to particular details. A good CCD film scanner
can also do this using a film term, but I don't keep
up on consumer scanners (so-so vs good.) Also depends
on the quality/size of the reproduction. If newsprint
you have a very low quality threshold for the scan (90
LPI.) If National Geographic, much higher. Calendars,
post cards, tear sheets, promotionals, all depend on
what you want offset quality wise.

Best thing to do is do IMO would be to ask your printer
what they need/recommend, since you can't always go by
the brand/manufacturer's claims. Transparencies need a
very high D-max (3.6 minimum to 4.0 ) plsu excellent
signal to noise ratio; negatives less so (D-max 2.8.)
Problem is most Dmax specs are based on bit depth whereas
the real measure of Dmax is signal to noise. So unless
you can test a scanner before buying best to ask the
folks who do your reproductions.

teflon wrote:

On 17/12/04 2:56 pm, in article , "Tom Phillips"
wrote:



Gregory Blank wrote:

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

A smart choice. I'm not familiar with the Epson
film scanners, though. So I couldn't say if that's
a good choice or not.

Probably the best choice for the money,

It's always a choice between $$$ and scan quality
If I need a scan, I get a high end or other appropriate
one from a service bureau, since _my_ optically enlarged
prints are far better than any desktop inkjet both in
image detail (resolution) and range of tonality and/or
color (gamut.) Can't speak for frank's printing skills

If I can chip in here, I'd like to ask what your take is on dedicated 120
film scanners for pre-press work, as opposed to a drum scan or a bureau?


I'd say it depends entirely on the scanner and whether
you do a lot of scanning for prepress. I know photogs who
only shoot for reproduction and for them it's worth
investing in a suitable film scanner. If you only do
occasional, likely a bureau is cheaper.

Drum scanners are a different type of scanner technology
altogether (photomultiplier) and at a service bureau
a good technician will match the scan to the intended
output or easily adjust the scan for areas that need
attention to particular details. A good CCD film scanner
can also do this using a film term, but I don't keep
up on consumer scanners (so-so vs good.) Also depends
on the quality/size of the reproduction. If newsprint
you have a very low quality threshold for the scan (90
LPI.) If National Geographic, much higher. Calendars,
post cards, tear sheets, promotionals, all depend on
what you want offset quality wise.

Best thing to do is do IMO would be to ask your printer
what they need/recommend, since you can't always go by
the brand/manufacturer's claims. Transparencies need a
very high D-max (3.6 minimum to 4.0 ) plsu excellent
signal to noise ratio; negatives less so (D-max 2.8.)
Problem is most Dmax specs are based on bit depth whereas
the real measure of Dmax is signal to noise. So unless
you can test a scanner before buying best to ask the
folks who do your reproductions.

Frank Pittel wrote:

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:

: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of grief here but last weekend I got an
: Epson 2200 and made a print from an image I took with my long obsolete 4mp
: digital P&S. All I can say is that the 8x10 prints

: No grief, just not a true comparison. Inkjets are
: sprayed ink which gives the impression of "continuous
: tone" and detail, but in reality it's a bunch of dots
: smeared across the paper at 300 dpi that lack true
: detail. You also need to compare the _same_ subject
: under the same output conditions for an honest side
: by side qualitative comparison.

A color print is made from dye clouds and isn't continuous either. The side by side
comparison between my digital P&S and 35mm is far more work then I have any desire to do
so I won't.

Wrong. It's a silver grain pattern that is replaced
by dyes which mirrors the silver grains. Print grain
is so fine as to be virtually "continuous" and
undetectable. It's silver halide based, same as B&W
paper.

Inkjets are dots of ink nowhere near as fine. They
are not continuous but in fact spread on the paper.
It looks continuous, but isn't.


: I made from it compare
: very well with 8x10 prints I made from 35mm negatives and hours in a darkroom
: with an enlarger!!

: True, real world comparison:

: Try a 16x20 print (_assuming_ you have a high quality
: negative with fine grain and good detail), but this
: time take it to a pro lab and get high end Lightjet
: prints (photochemical output.) You don't need a lot
: of pixel resolution to make a 8x10 smeared inkjet look
: halfway "good" to the eye, but real photographic output
: is different.

A 16x20 print of a 35mm frame is going to look like crap

O.K. Frank. Maybe your's do look like crap. I've been
doing it for 25+ years and mine look fantasic.

and I'll
bet a 16x20 print from my digial p&s will look just as bad. Also if you
think that a print from a modern inkjet printer on "photo" grade paper is
smeared you might want to get you eyes checked out.

Ink is absorbed by the paper. It inherently
spreads (smears.) Better paper and printers
help, but not prevent 100%

(no offense intended)
I've looked at the prints from a number of inkjet printers made by Epson
and Canon under a 20x lupe and the "dots" are clearly visible as dots and
there is no "smearing".

it spreads.

If you haven't seen the output from a modern higher
end inkjet like the Epson 2200 on "photo" paper you may want to take a look.
You may be pleasantly surprised.

Based on the consumer-type equipment you're buying,
like your scanner, I doubt it's high end. High end
output is what I'd typically get at my service bureau,
where they spend tens of thousands of dollars (sometimes
hundreds of thousands...) on "high end" equipment, not
hundreds of dollars for printers and scanners at Office
Max.


: Photograph a subject with very fine detail (a product
: type shot of a herringbone patterned sport coat.) Then
: have your film scanned with a high end film scanner
: like the Imacon (which is what my pro lab uses; for
: most purposes it's almost as good as a more expensive
: drum scan but far cheaper.) Again, assuming a high
: resolving 35mm film, scan at 300 pixels per inch and
: output to a 16x20. Then have them output the 4MP file
: to the same 16x20. Or if you want, borrow a typical
: prosumer 6 MP camera. Get a decent loupe and compare,
: though I doubt you'll need the loupe.

Again that's a lot more work then I ever plan on doing.

Not the point. The point is your subjective comparisons
are not professionally qualitative.

I also know
that at 16x20 both images are going to look like crap.

sigh.. You're so ignorant about everything frank.
Sorry to say but what's crap is your understanding of
professional photography and the quality professionals
I know are in fact able to obtain from 35mm enlargements.
High quality enough to sell as artwork to major corporations
across the country and at larger sizes than 16x20.

But you must have more extensive "professional"
experience than they?


: BTW, for typical consumer digital cameras (the p&s
: most people buy) 4MP isn't really "obsolete." Still
: very common. Most don't spend $7,000 on a prosumer
: digital camera with 10-11 MP. The Sinar digital cameras
: I've used provide about 25MP, about equivalent to 35mm
: film, and having shot Kodachrome for years and seen
: 30x40 prints from such, I'm just not impressed with less.

The camrea I got a number of years ago is no longer being made. It
was discontinued when the new latest and greatest camera was released.
Fortunatly it still works and does what I got it to do so I've never found
a reason to get a new one.

: Now, if you want a real world LF test do the same but
: enlarge to 50, 60, or even 120 inches.

Even more work then making a 16x20 from 35mm.

Yes. Good professional quality photography
takes a lot of knowledge, time, and work.

: I also just got home a little while ago with an Epson 4870
: scanner. Tomorrow I start scanning the hundreds of 4x5 negatives I have.
:
: Tom will be happy to read that I still intend to do the image capture with
: my 4x5 and will keep the negatives for archival purposes. :-) :-) :-)

: A smart choice. I'm not familiar with the Epson
: film scanners, though. So I couldn't say if that's
: a good choice or not.

It's a good scanner.

Perhaps a decent consumer scanner. Professionally
it's a cheap flatbed desktop scanner. A "good"
professional film scanner costs way more than $600.
Tell me, Frank, have you done a signal to noise test
to determine the actual Dmax (optical density?)