Drum scanner or Leica M8 ?

Dear all,

 

I am a happy MP shooter. I do sent my films to lab for developpment. I am

thinking of buying a drum-like scanner (the recently discontinued Imacon 343) in

order to (i) digitaly back-up film and, most importantly (ii) to 'Photoshop' my

shots.

 

Now that I have collected the budget a new question hit my mind : shouldn't I

put the Imacon budget on an M8 (roughly same price). As a matter of fact M8

color pictures are far more better than any high quality scans both in color

balance and sharpness. For BW I still prefer film from what I have seen.

 

Did anyone face the same kind of questions ? Any comment is welcome !

 

Francois

scanner + film body and an M8

you need both imo

digital is ok-ish and fun but it will never have soul like film does

film has a soul? Does Pope Benedict know about this?

You've more or less answered your own question. Your a candidate for the M8. If you buy an expensive drum scanner now and then eventually the M8 next year. . . then where will you be? You haven't considered getting a serious Nikon film scannner at the $1000 range (I'm out of date here) PLUS the M8. Then everyone's happy. Cannot see the advantage of a drum scanner, frankly. If you have 3 photos that just have to be drum scanned, can't you send them to a pro shop and pay by the frame?

I was shooting and scanning my MP and M7 pictures for years on a Nikon Coolscan V which works very well. Since I received my M8 in January, I've shot over a thousand pictures on that and am still overwhelmed by how great the colors, detail, and the overall look of pics from the camera. Of course it saves hours of manually scanning film or slides.

 

I would recommend getting a less expensive scanner like the Nikon and also getting a M8.

 

Jan

Folks new to scanning usually assume that SCANNING is a quick process. the same folks probably got rock polishers as kids and then grew bored as it took alot longer to polish rocks than expected. One can grow ones own corn, make ones own bread too, make ones own nails, mine ones own iron ore too. The "fun" in in this hybrid "shoot film and scan it" often is reduced as one spends a couple of hours to scan a roll or two of film. Scanning is really not a problem for retired folks and folks who have no deadlines to meet. Scanning is cool to use on older negatives. Often real nice mint scanners are available from hybrid folks who "discover" that scanning actually takes some time. The lure of the rock tumbler and wazoo zillion dpi/ppi film scanner is great. Consider what your time is worth when creating new images. There is a cost in babysitting high end scanning. You can always buy the same scanner as a lab uses and consider your own time as worthless and "do it cheaper" than us; a print shop or lab.

Have you looked into a Nikon V or Nikon 5000? If you're not planning for larger film formats, the Nikon's are much less money for (probably roughly) comparable scan quality.

 

The Nikon V is about $500 new. Maybe you can squeeze this in along with the M8.

film has a soul? Does Pope Benedict know about this?

 

He does my Son and is pondering deepley.

 

As a matter of fact M8 color pictures are far more better than any high quality scans both in color balance and sharpness.

 

Francois was enlighted on the road to Damascus....a great shining light cast itself upon him and told him this was so;)

"As a matter of fact M8 color pictures are far more better than any high quality scans both in color balance and sharpness."

 

lol

Roll film has a soul that immediately goes to hell the instant it is scanned. Slide scans linger around in the purgatory but the sinner/scanner still goes to hell.

The real question is, with which medium are you best able to express your vision?<ul>

<li>Shooting film + scanning</li>

<li>vs. shooting film+ making wet prints + flatbed scanning of the prints (Ralph Gibson

does this while the prints are still wet)</li>

<li>shoot digital, make inkjet prints etc...</li>

<li>shoot digital, post online, never make a single print...</li>

<li>etc...</li>

</ul>

<p>

I've heard that drum scanners are amazing, but Coolscan-ers are also excellent and a

fraction the price. With respect to the M8's color, keep in mind that it's 8-bit, not 16-bit.

I owned a 343 for a few years and scanned 35mm to 6x17cm. The Imacons are not drum scanners but actually CCD much like a coolscan. The difference in the coolscan and the imacon is the flexframe film holders that keep the film flatter than traditional scanner holders. The Imacons are called virtual drums. A true drum scanner spins the film or print on a drum where a light beam is picked up by photo multiplier tubes not CCD's. PMT's are slightly superior to CCD systems. The Imacon uses a cold light diffused light source vs a LED source in the Nikons. Cold light sources tend to give better tonality and gradation with less dust and scratch problems vs the LED of the Nikons. both do very well but the Imacon is a little better but the actual drum scanner is even better. The one big problem with the 343 is speed. It's slow but the scans are exceptional in quality. The higher priced Imacons are much faster but much more expensive. The Imacon software is a dream. It's very professional in interface and relatively easy to use. It's not a cheezy interface and software like silverfast but was designed for professionals. I sold the Imacon about a year ago because I needed a scanner that would handle reflective and film up to or larger than 11x14. I went to the top of the line Fuji Finescan 5000. It's about 10 times faster and the scans are slightly better than the Imacon. The Imacon and Fuji have a true rating on Dmax unlike Epson, Umax and most others. The specs are actual when they sau a Dmax of 3.9. Many scanners including Nikon over rate the specs and when they say a Dmax of 4.0 in relaity it's more like 2.2. In scanners you get what you pay for.

 

If you really want the best out of your B&W negs then wet print them. As good as scanned negs are the limiting factor is in the printing. Epsons top of the line printers like the 2400, 7800 and 9800 can deliver fantastic quality but the choices of printing media that gives a true darkroom look is very limited if not non existant. I love digital for my commercial business but for my documentary work I still use B&W film (35mm to 8x10) and wet print in the darkroom. There's absolutely nothing more beautiful than a fine silver gelatin print from the darkroom. I don't want to sound like digital B&W is bad because it isn't it's just different and I personally like the film look in B&W.

 

Unless you're prepared to spend hours scanning and doing PS work then a quality digital camera is the answer. Having said that I personally would not buy the M8 unless you're into paying $4750 to beta test the camera. I would rather spend less money for a quality and proven DSLR like a Canon or Nikon and buy a very good printer. You'll probably have enough left over to take a photoshop class to improve your PS skills.

I have been scanning Leica color neg and black and white with a Minolta 5400 for years now. I can`t tell difference between them and the Nikon D200 I got three weeks ago. You have to establish base settings for color and density and go with those and not try to tweek every frame. Move to photoshop for that. Auto levels.

 

To select the good ones, I scan the whole roll on an Epson flat bed.

4 strips of 6 frames each, then 2 more. Takes 1/2 hour. Machine separates the different frames in thumbnail mode. Or do a strip of 6 four time with 4 marques, then two more. Paste on a 8x10 page just like wet.

 

 

If you are going to scan whole rolls, there is serious time involved on a flextight.

 

Individual scans are done on the 5400, 10 minutes with loading and cleaning each frame. Never use ICE unless desparate.

 

Digi cam, plug in card, pick file location, hit go, wait 2 minutes. All done. Never a dust partical. Never a drying mark. No time to develope color film.

 

CS2 makes very nice black and white. Go to the bottom of layers pallet, select new adj layer button, select channel mixer. Adjust RGB sliders to simulate any color filter you want. Want infrared, blue zero, red 75, green 150. Just like Kodak IR film.

 

You no longer need red, yellow, green filters. No otho film. No IR film, no IR filters.

 

The M 8 makes better pics than the Nikon, but not by much. I put some viso lenses on the Nikon with Camera Quest adapter. There is a difference, but not much. And it is shadow detail and color, not sharpness just like wet.

 

 

 

M8 magenta problem- just do a color range selection set to low tolerence and desaturate. I would not want to do a wedding like this, but a few pics are fine.

 

If you like Summars, Summarits, Sumitars, this does not translate well to dig. Stay wet.

Ben, the statement you scoff at is true - I have about 10 years of experience scanning using mainly Nikon scanners. Of course you have to know how to get the M8 to produce accurate colours (this mainly involves using IR cut filters), just as you need to know how to get a scanner to produce accurate colours, but the fact is that the colours and sharpness are far better than what I have produced from a scanner.

 

I'm guessing - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that you have no practical experience of the M8.

Steve, I do have experience with the M8, two of them shooting weddings and some

commercial work since last Nov. ... and the scans I get from my M7 and MP3 negs exhibit

color that's just as pleasing ... and, IMO, often produce more of a sense of visual depth.

 

The mediums are different and we should appreciate both for their own qualities.

<div></div>

Or,Hell and Heaven.

Marc, I don't think we are in disagreement, I was just responding to the 'lol' posting of the previous poster. Film and digital are different and both require work if they are to appear at their best. Like yourself I happen to like both.

The M 8 makes better pics than the Nikon

 

Really,best post some photos to prove your point. I have not seen a single photo on this forum from an M8 that can better my little LX1.

 

But i have an open mind and happy to be proved wrong...show me.

I'll go first to start the ball rolling.....<div></div>

Nikon....<div></div>

Allen, almost impossible to show in a small Jpeg. I've used a varity of reasonably high end dSLRs including Canon 20Ds and a 5D and the images I'm getting from the M8 are the best of any of those. But in an attempt to try and illustrate this here are a couple of shots...

 

Colour

 

<img src="http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/81763-1/L1002716+Arles.jpg">

 

B&W

 

<img src="http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/81765-1/L1003393+Dungeness.jpg">

Okay.Steve, point taken. However, you can still get a good feel for a photo.

 

So, let's have a little think and see what a stock agency would choose. Let us have a look at Getty; image quality all important.

 

http://contributors.gettyimages.com/workwithus/article.asp?article_id=1346

 

Hmm, D200.......

I'm sure that that the M8 is a very capable cam, as good as any other digi in the right hands, but superior....i don't think so.

Allen -- I am sure that they don't list the M8 because it is fairly new and quite uncommon. If

you worked for getty and said, "Hey, can I use an M8", I am sure they would be fine with it. I

don't know if the M8 is the best 35mm digital camera around, but I would agree with

you...good as any other that I have used (5D, DMR). I think the difference is really in the

lenses, which are better than any others I have used (with the exception of the latest APO R

lenses). But anyway, images right? <P><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/sikh-

parade1.jpg"><P><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/misty-

morning3.jpg"><P><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/noelle-relish3-

bw.jpg"><P>Things look better in person of course.