Drum scanning, do you think it still worth it?

<p>Hi there! Just a quick question for you guys, I know with the upsurge in digital cameras with an ever increasing MP, some can say the film has been made redundant.<br>

But those who still use film, would you use a drum scanner to achieve the best results (as even with a flat bed, you can't achieve a result comparable from an Imacon scanner, provided you know your stuff!) Also are clients still willing to pay extra when investing in a better quality result? <br>

Finally, would you rather buy an expensive drum scanner and have a go at scanning, or are there lab services which you prefer to use?<br>

thanks!</p>

<p>"as even with a flat bed, you can't achieve a result comparable from an Imacon scanner, provided you know your stuff!"</p>

<p>It sounds like you've made your mind up already on this. What advantage do you expect to get from a drum scan Sureyya? Improved resolution? If that's the case then all you're paying for is a massive file size with very little image data content. Claimed drum scan "resolutions" of 5 to 6 thousand ppi are pure nonsense, since the film itself doesn't have that sort of resolution, let alone any affordable LF lens.</p>

<p>Better dynamic range? Very probably, but most of that will be lost if your final output is going to be a reflective copy (print).</p>

<p>The only real answer, IMHO, is to compare a variety of scans made from your own work. If there's a perceived improvement in a particular scanning method, be it in quality or time-saving, then you have to weigh that advantage against cost or initial outlay. But only you can really make the decision, on the evidence of your own eyes, and not on the hearsay of this forum.</p>

<p>As a footnote. I think that film-scanning has been abandoned by most manufacturers, leaving you with little real choice these days. Epson (spit!) are one of the few players at the cheap (in both cost and quality terms) end of the market. There are far better options out there, but it mostly means buying second-hand or spending a small fortune, or both.</p>

<p>I meant to say vertical drum scanner *not* imacon, sorry!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>would you use a drum scanner to achieve the best results</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. I use an enlarger to achieve best results. </p>

<p>Rethinking your sweeping generalisation, I'll tackle this from the digital side.<br>

On the one hand, there are <em>techniques</em> (combining some or many source images), such as aligning, fusing, stitching and HDR that can get you an output image of just about any size you have the RAM to handle, more or less pixel-sharp. I've used a dSLR and stitching to ape the narrow DoF and image-quality of a medium-format (6x6) scan, to my own satisfaction before now. You can do all these techniques with film-scans as sources too, if you really want: there's nothing to say you couldn't make many scans of an LF frame, all slightly offset a few px at random, and use focus-stacking/fusing to get the greatest pixel-sharpness possible, overcoming the softness of flatbed scanner's glass, if you want.<br /><br /><br>

However, it's still true that the greater the image-quality of your sources, the sooner you get to the desired optimal output. Notably, coming from an 18-megapixel dSLR, it took me about 5 hours to stitch 14 frames together to make my pin-sharp 6000*6000px output. There's also GIGO to consider: there's little point scanning a film at the equivalent of 6400ppi if the camera was facing the wrong way or you failed to weight it down in the wind or focus precisely or you used expired fixer whilst dev/processing it.</p>

<p>So the real question is, what do you call `the best results'? What are your aims and how much spare time do you have to spend on processing, per photo? Answer those, and choose your equipment and workflow accordingly. If it's a 1600x1200px JPEG shoved on flickr, go buy a 5-megapixel digicam and be done. If it's a poster print you're after, you can get perfectly acceptable scans from 5x4" LF film using a flatbed scanner, printable up to at least 20x25". Above that, that's where a drum-scanner starts to justify itself.</p>

<p>It's not the glass of a flatbed scanner that gives poor definition, it's the crappy lenses used, the poor film holders and the shaky sensor transport. Tightening up the tolerances all round and spending more than 10 dollars on the lens would see a big improvement.</p>

<p>Tim,</p>

<p>I not sure if I understand you. An 18mp single frame is 5184 wide. Why would you need 14 frames to get an image 6000 wide? I get about 7600 wide with a 3 image stitch. Am I missing something?</p>

<p>Dave. A sheet of 5"x4" film gives an image area of approximately 120 by 90 mm. Now if you're going to re-photograph that area using a full-frame DSLR at 1:1, then you need to take at least 16 shots to do it - 4 across by 4 along, allowing for some stitching overlap. If you're using a DX format camera then you need even more frames, but you'll get theoretically better resolution.</p>

<p>Actually Tim's post has inspired me to try this technique, since it's probably a lot quicker than waiting for a conventional flatbed scan at 2400 ppi and 16bit depth. I wonder if I can still find one of those old Bowens film copier thingys? What was it called, an "Illumitran" or some such?</p>

<p>There is no question that drum scanners have superior resolution and dynamic range in comparison to an Epson-caliber flatbed. In my experience as an owner of both, the difference is extremely obvious. Whether or not you need this extra resolution and dynamic range for your purposes and intended print sizes is your call. Buying a used drum scanner can be a crapshoot. However, if it works, it can pay for itself in short order by producing scans that would cost on the order of $100 a pop at a service bureau. </p>

I wish that drum scanning were somewhat less expensive than it is today, but that's not likely to happen given the labor and expertise

required to do it well and the cost of owning, opeerqting, and maintaining a high end scanner.

 

If you have an image on film

and you need to digitize it to the highest level of quality, then drum scanning is worth it. However, if you plan

to have a large volume of images processed this way, you'd better plan your budget carefully. At some point the cost of

high end digital capture (medium-format solutions such as those from Hasselblad and Phase One) will make drum scanning seem like an expensive luxury, especially with the added cost of the processing time involved. For high volume fashion and advertising

shooters, that transition has already occurred. For the rest of us it might not be too far ahead.

<p>Drum scanning of 4x5 is over 1/4 century old. A drum scan always delivers a high quality scan. They have always had a decent cost since there is much labour and the hardware is high in cost too.<br>

Dynamic range and colours are better with a drum scan.<br>

<br /> A flatbed can be good enough for many applications. One needs to figure out what purpose that scan is for. Getting a high end drum 4x5 scans for 16x20's may not be not be any better than a flatbed scan. Viewing distance matters too.</p>

 

<p>In my color EXHIBITION work, and only in color, I use the analog to digital to analog procedure. Since I am unable to make any decent negative color scan on my Agfa Studioscan (unable to get rid of the film's color mask) I turned to professionals. A 4x5 negative is scanned on a drum scanner to 150-200 MB, retouched in a photoshop and printed using Durst Lambda on a photosensitive paper.<br>

I emphasize EXHIBITION prints, enlarged to some 80 cm wide. That means relatively few works I make that way.<br>

In the US they want 1$ per megabyte and, at a final discount, you may pay about half of this for scanning, i.e. ~70-100$. Cheap? Then comes the cost of Lambda job.<br>

This summer I looked for opportunities in Poland. First we tried to obtain a high quality scanns at friends studio on some pro Agfa scanner (flatbed). We got perfect file ~150 Mgb but it took us at least 1.5 hour to make one.<br>

Then I turned to a scanning specialist around the corner. He charged me 50 zl for each 200 Mgb scan on Tango drum scanner (a 4x5 negative). 50 zl is equivalent of 15 US$!<br>

Next I found the photolab with a Durst Lambda machine and they charged 160 zl per 1 square meter of final color print on Kodak paper. So here you are.<br>

I got the prints as good as those made by the top US labs (my first series of prints were made by NancyScan, but those bastards lost my negatives and never took any reponsibility for that, so I kissed them good bye forever). My costs in Poland were 1/5 of those 300$ per print I paid in the US.<br>

There is a link to the preview of these photographs on my bio page.<br>

Cheers!</p>

<p>The short answers are yes, probably not and yes.</p>

<p>I still prefer the look of film so I recently switched back for all of my documentary projects and as much of my client work as possible.</p>

<p>Many clients will go with the cheaper option. If that's digital, that's what they'll want. It's a sad reality--though there are some good cients out there who will give you creative freedom. That does happen, thankfully, but not always. You should be charging clients some sort of 'digital fee' so if the costs are equal, clients will more likely be ok with film.</p>

<p>I had been scanning my 6x7 negs with a Nikon LS9000, which after some fiddling with neg carriers could do a decent job. However as I feel committed to film for as long as it's available, I just took the plunge and bought a Howtek HR8000 drum scanner. The results so far have been amazing. A good drum scan in my city costs around $50-100, so outsourcing wasn't an option. And now I have the ability to scan larger formats as well. </p>

<p>Flatbed scans aren't in the same league as properly-done drum scans. If my only option was flatbed scans, I'd go to digital capture. However I still think a drum-scanned film photograph compares well to even high-end digital backs.</p>

<p>Take a look at this shoot out from one of my clients in Switzerland... Our drum scan won all three categories in their test of Imacon film scanner and the Tango drum scanner: http://www.fineartgiclee.com/drum-scanning/<br>

<img src="http://fineartgiclee.squarespace.com/storage/Comparative_scans_3Labs.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I wish to share this link that shows some crops of a 3 Gb drum scan from a very good Kodak Portra 160 8x10" negative. <br /> <br />It shows how much quality and resolution are achievable from a large format color negative. As you can see, it's possible to extract up to 3 Gb of true and crisp detail from a 8x10" shot (the crops published are at 100% of magnification). <br /> <br /><a href=" <br /> <br /><a href=" <br /> <br /><a href=" <br /> <br /><br /></p><div></div>