Digital vs Scanners??

Hi,
Circa 1970 I had a photo business specializing in 4x5 but have done nothing
serious since. Now I'm retired to Florida (where else :-) I would like to
get back in. I have 4x5 cameras, some old lenses, even some dark room
equipment, but absolutely no place for a dark room. But I do have a
computer and that raises many questions.

I have a 4 mp snapshot camera and have looked at the new 10-12 mpixel SLRs
but frankly the prints I've seen are snapshot quality - not that good for
one brought up on Ansel Adams et al. Moreover, for the $2-10,000, I could
build an addition on my house!!

But what about scanners? I've used Polaroid. Has anybody had good luck
scanning P-prints then "enlarging" them digitally? How do resulting 8x10 &
larger prints compare with 'analog' darkroom prints and with prints from the
digital SLRs?? If so, what scanners/printers do y'all recommend? How do
"dpi's" compare with "megapixels"??

Thanks much,
Vito

"Vito"
snip
I have a 4 mp snapshot camera and have looked at the new 10-12 mpixel SLRs
but frankly the prints I've seen are snapshot quality - not that good for
one brought up on Ansel Adams et al. Moreover, for the $2-10,000, I could
build an addition on my house!!

I think you need to look at some better places. I shoot a 10MP camera
(definitely below $1K) and I have some very beautiful 20x30 prints here in
my office that are tack sharp. As it's been said a thousand times, it's not
[only] the equipment, it's how the photo is taken.

Take a look at some pictures at www.photo.net. While there is still many
film there, mostly is digital, and most of the time you can't tell without
looking at the technical info what type of camera/medium was used.


But what about scanners? I've used Polaroid. Has anybody had good luck
scanning P-prints then "enlarging" them digitally? How do resulting 8x10
&
larger prints compare with 'analog' darkroom prints and with prints from
the
digital SLRs?? If so, what scanners/printers do y'all recommend? How do
"dpi's" compare with "megapixels"??

I don't own a [photo] printer, but I've heard that those high end prosumer
printers (especially from epson) will produce prints with better quality
than photo paper/enlarger. I've seen a few prints and they are absolutely
beautiful. The only disadvantate that I see is that they only go up to 13x19
I believe.

Regarding the dpi x megapixel question, they don't compare, but they are
related. For example, my sony a100 is a 10MP camera. It will take pictures
with dimension 3872x2592 pixels (~10 million pixels). If you take it to a
lab that uses printers with 240dpi, you can make prints as large as 10x16
inches. With photoshop or other applications, you can easyly go up to 20x30
using modern sharpening algorithms.

At first, it may seem that higher the MP the better, but in my opinion, what
is really important is the sensor size. Most of today's dslr's use APS-C
sized sensors (the only full frame 35mm I know is the canon 5D). If you
start increasing the MP using the same size sensor, you start having
problems with noise, and there's the optical limitation of how much
information it is possible to capture in that area.

If you want to capture a lot of information, 4x5 is orders of magnitude
ahead of digital (and 35mm as well), but there are a lot of other advantages
to digital. For me, the immediate feedback is the best one.

I think digital will take place of most film photography (gee, it has
already in several niches), but LF will always have its place. Why? Economy
of scale.
Why dslr's are soo cheap nowadays? Because everybody is buying them, what
makes it cheap. LF will always be reserved for very specific purposes.
That's why I don't believe prices for digital backs will ever be cheap
(compared to dslr cameras).

Finally, as you'd expect, both systems have its pros and cons. I'm sticking
to both.


Cheers

Padu

"Padu" wrote
: I think you need to look at some better places. ....

Thanks for the inputs - I bookmarked the URL. People are doing great things
with digits, as with 35mm, but in both cases even sharp pic's seem to lack
the range of greys, and equivalent tonal range. Like you say, it's a matter
of how much info can be packed into a given amount of media. Looks like
digits will replace 35mm and perhaps even 2 1/4 and certainly has a place in
most photog's kit.

regards,
Vito

In article ,
"Vito" wrote:

"Padu" wrote
: I think you need to look at some better places. ....

Thanks for the inputs - I bookmarked the URL. People are doing great things
with digits, as with 35mm, but in both cases even sharp pic's seem to lack
the range of greys, and equivalent tonal range. Like you say, it's a matter
of how much info can be packed into a given amount of media. Looks like
digits will replace 35mm and perhaps even 2 1/4 and certainly has a place in
most photog's kit.

regards,
Vito

I think getting sharp color images from digital SLR's is the result of
two factors, good lens and knowledge of how to use DOF. A good printer
and someone that knows how to optimize a digital file for printing will
get you a very very close to a optical print for tonal range if not
every bit as good. That said no digital camera shy of a very $$$ machine
will come close to a scanned or optical print from 4x5 & up film.
--
George W. Bush is the President Quayle we never had.

"Vito" wrote in message
...
Hi,
Circa 1970 I had a photo business specializing in 4x5 but have done
nothing
serious since. Now I'm retired to Florida (where else :-) I would like to
get back in. I have 4x5 cameras, some old lenses, even some dark room
equipment, but absolutely no place for a dark room. But I do have a
computer and that raises many questions.

I have a 4 mp snapshot camera and have looked at the new 10-12 mpixel SLRs
but frankly the prints I've seen are snapshot quality - not that good for
one brought up on Ansel Adams et al. Moreover, for the $2-10,000, I could
build an addition on my house!!

But what about scanners? I've used Polaroid. Has anybody had good luck
scanning P-prints then "enlarging" them digitally? How do resulting 8x10
&
larger prints compare with 'analog' darkroom prints and with prints from
the
digital SLRs?? If so, what scanners/printers do y'all recommend? How do
"dpi's" compare with "megapixels"??

Thanks much,
Vito


Hi Vito,

Here's how I play the game. I have an old Calumet 540 4 x 5 with a
selection of decent lenses. That's the front end of my system. The backend
of my system consists of a Dell 3.0 Ghz dual core processor computer with
multiple raid zero disk arrays, I have about a terabyte of storage in the
box. I also have two Epson Pro 4000 printers, one for color and one for
black and white. I use Photoshop CS2 for software. I use the Epson 4990
scanner for input of negatives or chromes into the computer system. While I
am well aware, and I'm certain others here will point out, it would much
nicer to have a drum scanner for the 4 x 5 negatives, as the drum scanner
would provide higher dmax as well as other various features and benefits as
far as picture quality is concern. But I like you did not want to have to
take a second mortgage out to afford a single component of my system. For me
the 4990 does pretty good. As it was the first printer nearly broke the
bank and I got a heck of a deal on it. But in technologies rush into the
future, the 4000's got left behind as troublesome and cantankerous what with
newer and "better" models being sold, anyway I got the second for little
more than the cost of shipping. It was a fixer upper that the guy I got it
from didn't have "time" or inclination to mess with, he got himself a new
4800 I think. Took about 30 minutes and $1.95 in o-rings (25 of them to a
pack I used one) to fix the unit he didn't have time for. Lucky me.

Frankly with this system I can make 16 x 20 prints, that'll make your eyes
bleed, if you're really concerned with sharp. Another benefit to the
digital backend is that within a reasonable amount of time and practice with
CS2, you can produce prints that would take a lifetime of training and work
to be able to produce in the wet dark room, and once you have a print, its
there for every, always ready to print, the same each time, no more making a
half a dozen prints just to get back the technique you used to make a decent
print in the wet darkroom. I've gone back and digitally reprinted negatives
from 30 years ago from which I made prints that were at that time, at best
mediocre to OK, on the digital system, and they are stunning. Some negatives
that were junk as far as wet printing, can be printed the way you had it in
your minds eye when you tripped the shutter.

I shoot mostly B&W and use Polaroid type 54 film, plunk the negative in the
tank with the sulfite, then wash and was bingo ready to us negative with no
darkroom needed. Most of the color I shoot is medium format or 35mm chromes
and goes out for processing. I prefer to scan negs or chromes, I have never
been able to get a reflective scan to look as good as the stuff from the
negs and chromes even color negative material seems better than reflective
scans. I started to setup a wet darkroom, I got the room built, a few years
ago but Hurricane Charley went right over my house and the darkroom is now a
storage room, and like as not will never get turned into the darkroom it was
intended to be.

Any way that is how I play at photography these days.

Later Larry

Hi Larry,

What you got now is what I'm planning on building in a near future...

Here's how I play the game. I have an old Calumet 540 4 x 5 with a
selection of decent lenses. That's the front end of my system.

I just got one of these bodies from ebay... waiting for shipping. Still need
to get a few decent lenses and some other gadgets in order to start with
4x5. I can't wait.

snip

I use the Epson 4990 scanner for input of negatives or chromes into the
computer system.


Perfect, that's what I intend to do. I've heard a lot of people saying that
the closest you can get from a drum scan on those flatbeds is by doing a wet
scan. Some people use a kit sold by one or two companies, and some other
people even use baby oil with excellent results. Do you wet scan?

snip

Another benefit to the digital backend is that within a reasonable amount
of time and practice with CS2, you can produce prints that would take a
lifetime of training and work to be able to produce in the wet dark room,
and once you have a print, its there for every, always ready to print, the
same each time, no more making a half a dozen prints just to get back the
technique you used to make a decent print in the wet darkroom. I've gone
back and digitally reprinted negatives from 30 years ago from which I made
prints that were at that time, at best mediocre to OK, on the digital
system, and they are stunning. Some negatives that were junk as far as wet
printing, can be printed the way you had it in your minds eye when you
tripped the shutter.


I'm a photoshop lover. It goes way beyond of what we could do years ago in
the darkroom. Sometimes I think it is cheating. At least it is how I feel
with things that give you that much better result taking only a fraction of
time it use to take.


I shoot mostly B&W and use Polaroid type 54 film, plunk the negative in
the tank with the sulfite, then wash and was bingo ready to us negative
with no darkroom needed. Most of the color I shoot is medium format or
35mm chromes and goes out for processing.

Have you ever tried to process E-6 by yourself (without those expensive
JOBOs)? Or is it something so delicate that you will want specific machinery
(in a pro lab) to do it?



Cheers!

Padu

Vito wrote:
Hi,
Circa 1970 I had a photo business specializing in 4x5 but have done nothing
serious since. Now I'm retired to Florida (where else :-) I would like to
get back in. I have 4x5 cameras, some old lenses, even some dark room
equipment, but absolutely no place for a dark room. But I do have a
computer and that raises many questions.

I have a 4 mp snapshot camera and have looked at the new 10-12 mpixel SLRs
but frankly the prints I've seen are snapshot quality - not that good for
one brought up on Ansel Adams et al. Moreover, for the $2-10,000, I could
build an addition on my house!!

But what about scanners? I've used Polaroid. Has anybody had good luck
scanning P-prints then "enlarging" them digitally? How do resulting 8x10 &
larger prints compare with 'analog' darkroom prints and with prints from the
digital SLRs?? If so, what scanners/printers do y'all recommend? How do
"dpi's" compare with "megapixels"??

Thanks much,
Vito

Hi Vito,

Here is my take on the issues you raise. I have 5 or 6 4x5 cameras,
one 8x10 deardorf, many 35mm, 2 DSLRs and some p&S digitals.

In 1996 I moved into a new house and started a darkroom (I had one
in me previous house). I got the room built, painted black and
was starting on plumbing when I bought my first scanner.
I never finished the darkroom. With digital scans of 35mm to 4x5 and
8x10, I can control color, contrast, and fix problems digitally
like I never could with traditional enlarging. I had my best
work drum scanned. I have a fair number of articles at:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail

Pointing out some specific pages that answer your questions:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html
but don't just look at figure 1, it doesn't tell the whole story
of image quality with digital.

The megapixel equivalent of different films and film formats is he
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...digital.1.html

Some scanner tests:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html

For scanning 4x5, like others have noted here, I use an Epson 4990:
Flatbed Scanners versus Drum Scan Comparisons
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...atbed-scanners

Epson has newer scanners, V700 and V750 that may be slightly better.

This page shows an advantage of digital printing over traditional
wet prints. I find I can get consistently better prints with
digital processes than traditional enlargers. I have not had traditional
prints made since about 2002 or 2003. My still favorite method
is a Lightjet done at a local pro lab. I just take them a CD/DVD
that is color balanced for the paper using color managed digital workflow.
Sharpness, color, tonality, everything is better and more consistent
than I could ever get with traditional enlarging. Note the lightjet
is still exposing light on photographic paper that is developed
with wet chemistry. I currently prefer Fuji Crystal archive paper.

A local gallery in Evergreen, Colorado does all large format work
and Epson inkjet prints. Simply stunning! I was floored when I
inquired, as I thought the prints looked like lightjet prints
done at the same pro lab I use. I'll probably move to an Epson at
some point for large prints. I do prints up to 4x5 feet.

But now the kicker! Several of years ago I dropped 35mm and only
shot 4x5 film and DSLRs. I found that with an 8-megapixel camera,
I could make impressively sharp 16x24-inch prints (no, not as sharp
as 4x5). For reference, I could not get what I consider
sharp prints from 35mm in 14x18 inch size (I was frustrated
with the quality). I could get impressive 20x30-inch prints
from rare Velvia 35mm slides that were drum scanned (the rainbow
picture on my home page is one such image) (obviously still
not near 4x5 though).

Now the double kicker: I haven't shot a 4x5 sheet in over a year. I've
moved to digital mosaics, and in many cases I'm surpassing 4x5 Velvia
in terms of image quality, including sharpness, dynamic range and
tonality (and total pixel ****). Here are some links:

Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large Format Film
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics

Some recent digital mosaics of moving subjects:

Panorama of zebras in fog at sunrise in Tanzania on the Serengeti:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...1-6c-1200.html

Cheetah:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...48-9f-800.html

A high ppi scan of a 4x5 Velvia sheet might produce an image
on the order of 11,000 x 15,000 pixels. But at the pixel level,
the detail is not sharp. But compare this digital mosaic of
a mother zebra and colt,
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...4-91d-800.html
which at 9976 x 6056 pixels and at the pixel level is sharp. This is
pretty close to a 4x5 in terms of detail in a large print.

So, I'm moving further away from 4x5 and film, and producing
images that can be printed as large as large format film, but
with the knock-your-socks-off wow sharpness factor with
digital mosaics. The digital mosaics allow me to get images
I never could with 4x5, especially wildlife photography. It also
frees me regarding the aspect ratio (square to long panorama).

One other link that may be of use: my digital workflow:
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/digitalworkflow
Important in that workflow has been the use of Richardson-Lucy
deconvolution to improve image sharpness on digital camera images.
Tools like unsharp mask do not actually improve sharpness;
they increase accutance and give an illusion of sharpness.
Algorithms like Richardson-Lucy deconvolution attempt to improve
resolution, but at the sacrifice of increased noise. Digital
camera images, however, and DSLRs in particular, have very
high signal-to-noise ratio data, especially when compared to film.
That high signal-to-noise ratio allows the use of tools like
Richardson-Lucy deconvolution.

Photo galleries and other articles can be found at:
http://www.clarkvision.com

Roger

digital mosaics takes the fun out of photography and the art of
composition.

try taking mosaics of fast-changing light. it doesn't work. For example,
sunrise/sunset/rainbows/storms/etc.

Thanks!
"Larry Heath" wrote
: Hi Vito,
:
: Here's how I play the game. .....

Thanks ... will bookmark the URLs and read the articles ASAP.

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote :
Hi Vito,
:
: Here is my take on the issues you raise. ......