need drum scans - can anyone match these prices?

<p>I need high quality drum scans, mainly 4x5 but some medium format as well, and am looking for a company or competent individual in the USA who can do the job for prices similar to --<br>

http://cheapdrumscanning.com/prices/<br>

Their drum scanner is currently down.<br>

Anyone?<br>

Thanks!<br>

Tom </p>

<p>I use NancyScan's in NY. Probably more expensive but I'm not concerned with anything more than top quality scans and someone that treats my film well. They do both. </p>

<p>Tom, those are really good prices and I think hard to match in UK.</p>

<p>Thanks for the post.</p>

<p>Moderator, Please do not delete -- Archive.</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

<p>I would suggest that you don't want a scan at those prices. I scan professionally, can't match those prices, won't come close. When it takes 10 minutes to mount a scan, another 1/2 an hour or longer to scan it, some more time to take a look at it in PhotoShop and make sure there weren't bubbles, or you didn't "double-apply" a profile, it all adds up to about an hour or more per scan. That doesn't even include actually looking at the image to see what the photographer was after, adjusting the scan to match their particular aesthetic. Scanners are not "automatic" by any means. There are a lot of choices the operator can make. Most professionals agree that the operator is the number one factor in getting a great scan. That means you have to look at the image, usually talk to the photographer and make sure that what you are setting up for them is what they are after. I don't know anyone here in the US that would work for less than $100 for an hour to an hour and a half on a machine that costs $20K-$40K, that takes years to master. You won't get a good scan if you don't pay the operator for his or her efforts. Everyone has to be reasonable, on all sides of this equation.</p>

<p>Check A&I in Los Angeles. Price is dependent on the file size required. Any size film, up to 8" x 10", drum-scanned @ 8,000 DPI: e.g., $25 USD for a 30MB file, up to $70 USD for a 200MB file (larger sizes available at $0.35/MB):</p>

<p>http://aandi.com/drum-scans</p>

<p>I don't want to cast aspersions at other providers, but there are two things I would say. The smaller the company, the more likely you are to find an experienced operator, and one that is a photographer. In a lab, its often some kid running the scanner. They just click on the endpoints and go... The other thing is that I don't like this pricing per megabyte. I think anyone paying good money for a scan deserves one they can use to make a great print, and one they can archive their image with. For a 4x5, my scans are just under 2 gigs. They are a far cry from a 30, or even 100 mb scan. You can do whatever you want with the image and hold all the image quality you had to start out with. If you are going to make the effort to use film to begin with, and send your film out to be scanned, you deserve a good scan.</p>

<p>A few thoughts:<br>

* If (as that website indicates) you can really get a 2000 ppi scan of 4x5 film for 15 UKP, wow, that is cheap. Maybe the quality is low relative to other drum scans, or maybe not.<br>

* In the U.S., for many uses, West Coast Imaging IMO presents a good price/performance point; $25 will get you a 16-bit TIFF of a 1000 ppi drum scan of 4x5 film (or a higher-resolution scan for more money). I don't doubt that <em>at times, with certain images</em>, the careful personal attention that Lenny offers produces an appreciably-better results. Of course, you pay more for it; whether the extra cost is justified depends on many circumstances. On the other hand, I also don't doubt that often, the results from West Coast Imaging, or maybe even cheapdrumscanning.com, are a huge step up in quality over the next alternative, at a price which is already at the upper end of some budgets.<br>

* Pricing--or discussing at all--scans in terms of megabytes is a confusing and not-too-useful practice, but it is the norm. The correlation between file size and overall image quality, or even just resolution, can be poor. The differentiation between color and B&W, and between 8-bit and 16-bit scans, can be a source of confusion. I guess in terms of scan pricing, <em>maybe</em> it has a certain a logic to it. On the other hand, what West Coast Imaging actually offers is not (as I described it above) a 16-bit TIFF of a 1000 ppi drum scan of 4x5 film for $25; it's a 100 MB, 16-bit, color drum scan for $25. In practice (where WCI errs on the side of generosity in their scan resolutions), that means (1) a 3800 ppi scan of 35mm film, or (2) a 2000 ppi scan of 6x6 film, or (3) a 1000 ppi scan of 4x5 film--but of course, the customer is left to figure that out, assuming the proper conceptual understanding and math skills. And that's not intended to pick on West Coast Imaging--they're just who I use--same goes for most other labs.<br>

* A just-under-2 GB scan of 4x5 film means a scanning resolution of about 4400 ppi, or about 87 lp/mm. I am very skeptical that there are many combinations of subject, technique, lens performance, taking aperture, and film that will show appreciable detail to that high resolution (even on 35mm, but especially on 4x5). Likewise, such a scan would give you an uninterpolated 300 ppi print at about 56x70 inches (1.4 x 1.8 m). Where the point of diminish returns might be for any given scan is impossible to answer in the abstract. But I think there has been a tendency among many people to buy much more scan than they need, or will really benefit from.</p>

 

<p>[[Moderator, Please do not delete -- Archive.]]<br>

<br>

photo.net should not be archiving spam. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"photo.net should not be archiving spam."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I checked, couldn't find any evidence it's spam.</p>

<p>But I'd agree with the other folks here. You get what you pay for with scans. "Cheap" and drum scans don't seem to go together, even if the scanner operator doesn't do any spotting, etc. I've seen plenty of "high resolution" scans from high end equipment that were miserable - full of artifacts and generally unusable unless scaled way down to minimize the flaws. And I've seen some remarkably good scans from Epson flatbed/film scanners - mostly because the folks doing the scanning knew what they were doing.</p>

<p>Thanks to EVERYONE for your most insightful comments. I'm not totally new to my quest for seeking excellent scanning at reasonable prices. I've thus far worked with three scanners, one of them being West Coast, and have not found any noticeable different among them. One was at absolutely outstanding prices but may no longer be doing this work. I 'tested' them all by spending a little extra and sending them all the same chrome as part of the batch. Obviously they were all very, very "good" to scan that image at comparable, if not indistinguishable, quality.<br /> Agree with you, Dave, from what I've seen so far 2000dpi is very, very sufficient to make outstanding 4x5 scans that can be printed extremely large, and I'm a bit dubious that upping to 3000 or 4000 would capture appreciably more (or any more) resolution for images made in a real world situation. For a resolution test shot carefully focused with a 50x magnifier - as I have done - maybe (and that could translate into certain real shooting situations). But I have not yet tested for this. Also that the use of different dpi and megabyte files as a pricing criteria can be a bit confusing for the newcomer to navigate. But worth it to understand.<br /> Fortunately for me I've not yet encountered the 'miserable' scan quality that Lex speaks of; I'm sure its out there, though. Ultimately the largest factor seems to be 'operator' skill - probably true of any profession, certainly so with medical doctors and even more especially, dentists!<br /> Lenny, thank you especially for your insights. I'm sure there will be a place in my future for your services for certain very select images and usages.<br /> Best to all - and please keep the most useful comments coming.<br /> ... Tom</p>

<p>Dave, the numbers do speak for themselves. Consider this: it is generally agreed that maximum quality comes at a minimum of 300 dpi at the print stage. Some say 360 dpi, others say 720. Let's go with 300 for the moment. A 1000 ppi scan of a 4x5 yields, without cropping, a total of 5000 dpi image (at the long edge). If you want to make an 8x10, you're good. If you want to make a 16x20 you aren't. 5000/20 inches = 250 dpi.</p>

<p>I'm sure we can all agree that 16x20 is a popular size. Why would you want to send off your film, pay for a scan (at any price) and not be able to make a 16x20? Why would I want to bother making tiny scans? My scanner previews at that size. It is my opinion that this is a disservice, for any purpose other than small ads in magazines or for display on the web. </p>

<p>When I make a scan for someone I want to make sure they have all the dpi they want. There are plenty of people who want to crop a little here or there. There are times when you decide that after all, you really do love that image and want to make something larger, a 20x30 or 30x40, or whatever. You shouldn't have to go back and get another scan to do it. Then you are paying more. If you are going to pay good money, and send your original film through the mail system, then you should have to do it only once. When I was a youngster, my father told me, "Do it right - or don't bother doing it at all." I still live by that. There is a difference between a business that is based on quality and another which is based on volume. One can't put too much faith in drum scanners vs the people who run them.</p>

<p>I would also disagree that there is less than 4000 ppi worth of data. I know what the word on the street is about these things, but the results show something different. You can ask Greg O'Hanlon, one of my recent clients, who just took a 6x17 print to 10 feet, totally sharp. It's just one example.</p>

<p><br />I won't suggest for a moment I am the only one, there are many good drum scanner operators out there. If you pay the low dollar amounts, or you go to a place where the focus is on volume, you will get a scan where people put the film on the drum and press go. This is not a good scan. It's mediocre, at best. It's best to find someone who will learn who you are and make the adjustments that you would if you were doing it. I agree it is not for every image, only those that warrant it. However, for one's portfolio, it's great to have the files you need.</p>

<p>Lenny, I come at what is IMOPO a sensible scanning resolution the other way--what is the maximum real resolution that the film is likely to contain? Scan at much higher than that and all you do is resolve the grain better; you don't get any more real image detail. Look at, say, Fuji's data sheet (publication AF3-036E) for Provia 100F. The graph on p. 6 shows that that (presumably at normal pictorial contrast) even Fuji only rates the film as capable of maintaining 50% MTF response out to about 40 lp/mm, which is about 2000 ppi; it's down to 25% at about 60 lp/mm (about 3000 ppi). So even if you have a perfectly-flat subject (to eliminate loss of resolution / detail due to limited depth of field), and a rock-solid tripod with a no-force cable release, and a lens that performs perfectly (how many lenses that will cover 4x5 with decent extra for movements have really high MTF response at 60 lp/mm?), it really makes little to no sense to ever scan Provia 100F at above roughly 3000 ppi.</p>

<p>Depth of field: if for the sake of discussion we use a normal 150mm lens on our 4x5, and specify a circle of confusion at the film plane equal to 1/2000-inch, for a focus distance of 10 ft, even at f/32 the depth of field is only about -0.5 to +0.6 ft. Anything closer or farther means blur due to the depth of field will give you a circle of confusion on that part of the subject that renders a high-resolution scan irrelevant. (Make it a 90mm lens and a 25 ft focus distance, and at f/32 you still only have -7, +16 ft, limiting how much detail you can capture for a landscape.)</p>

<p>Now throw in those various other real-world limitations and even 3000 ppi is way overkill for the vast majority of LF shots.</p>

<p>Why would I get a 1000 ppi scan of 4x5 film? Because I have a 4x5 mostly for movements, not to print large, and I rarely get prints larger than 11x14 inches. Occasionally I do want bigger prints, and get higher-resolution drum scans. But regardless of how big a print I wanted, I don't see getting more than about a 500 or 600 MB scan from 4x5 film, because I think there is very, very little more real detail to be captured.</p>

<p>There may be very unusual exceptions to this. On the far, far reaches of reality, way out on the tail of the bell curve, all kinds of unusual things occur. But IMO many, many scans are made at resolutions that don't offer more detail, just bigger file sizes and bigger processing headaches. And that's true whether I expect to get a real 3200 ppi from my Epson 3200, or somebody expects a drum scan of 4x5 film to capture a lot more real detail when made at 4400 ppi instead of 2200 ppi.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Lenny, I come at what is IMOPO a sensible scanning resolution the other way--what is the maximum real resolution that the film is likely to contain? Scan at much higher than that and all you do is resolve the grain better; you don't get any more real image detail.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I used to think this too. I was, in fact, convinced. Then I bought a drum scanner. I spent six months scanning for hours every day, and trying to figure out how to optimize scanning, how to get the most off the film. I spent the rest of those days trying to figure out how to optimize exposure and processing (B&W) for drum scanning.</p>

<p>Those months shattered a whole lot of my preconceived notions. A lot.</p>

<p>What it comes down to is learning the difference between image detail as delivered by a lens, image detail as recorded by the film, and image detail as recovered by the scanner. One size does definitely <strong>not</strong> fit all. Every film behaves differently, every film scans differently. Much depends on the exposure and processing of the film, and the subject of the exposure, and the technique of the exposure.</p>

<p>But the bottom line here is that Lenny is correct. There's a lot more actual visible information on the film than most people would think, a good drum scanner operator can recover most of it, and it's easily visible on a print on the wall when all is said and done. I've scanned one negative over and over and over and over, changing one parameter at a time. Then I've made prints from the exact same area, in the exact same size, hung them on the wall side by side by side, and had other people (friends, neighbors, whoever I could find, people who had no idea about what I was doing) have a look. I asked them a single question: "which is your favorite?" Once they picked (and it was surprisingly consistent) I asked them why, which was again surprisingly consistent. I did this several times with different images trying to learn what's visible and what isn't, what people can see and what they can't, how people look at a print, etc.</p>

<p>You won't really understand it until you've dedicated (as in, that's all you do during your waking hours, seven days a week -- eat it, breath it, live it, learn it) a decent chunk of a year to learning it. And you won't get really good at the subtleties of scanning without years of experience. </p>

<p>And BTW, you can't resolve film grain with any scanner, of any type, that's ever been on the market. Not possible outside of some highly specialized laboratory equipment. You can't even resolve film grain clumps, or dye clouds. You can't because film grain is 3D and stochastic in nature (location, shape, size, orientation, you name it), and scanning is 2D only and completely deterministic. Do a thought experiment -- how small does the grid size in a piece of window screen have to be so you can image sand grains when you lay your window screen down on the beach? Remember, each grid square can have exactly one value (level for B&W, rgb triplet for color) that is the <strong>average of what's under that spot in the grid</strong>. So how much smaller must the grid square be than the sand grain you are hoping to image, and how many grid squares do you have to have, to describe the size and shape of a single sand grain?</p>

I have made a lot of scans, and had them made by a variety of sources and methods. The knowledge and craft of the

person making the scans is paramount.

 

I now use Lenny Eiger to make my high end scans. The quality of his work is simply amazing.

<p>Hello Tom,<br>

Late at reading your post. I have twenty years experience with running several scanners. Our high end scanner is a screen sg 737 drum scanner. The wet mounts on the 737 scanner is very good. It does come down to experience. I am not sure if you are still looking for scans but you can contact me with more information. Our old company name is Separations Unlimited. New name is Tactics Branding. We still do scans. Call me (804) 794-4864. Or email john@tacticsbranding.com<br>

Regards John,</p>

 

<p>Yes, I can. <a href="http://www.proscanny.com">www.proscanny.com</a> - Karl Hudson maintained Heidelberg Tango, Lasersoft targets and profiling, Joseph Holmes color spaces with license to embed. Absolutely top quality. Scanned HDR in Silverfast and then converted in Silverfast 8 - Negatives look as good as chromes!</p>

<p>Thanks<br /> <br />Brian</p>

<p>Hi - it's Tim Parkin here who runs 'cheap drum scanning'. <br>

I get a lot of that "if it's so cheap it must be crap" comments. However, I've been chosen to scan work for various professional photographers for book publishing and fine art (Thames and Hudson, Victoria and Albert museum, Cicerone, Ahmed Ertug, Paul Wakefield, David Chow, etc) with many of these sending test scans out to various labs around the world. <br>

There are a couple of reasons I'm so cheap and also a couple of reasons why the scans I produce are still better than 99% of the people who run drum scanners worldwide. <br>

Why I'm cheap? Drum scanners used to be expensive ($300k for a new Heidelberg Primescan). So anybody that bought at that price needs to pay it back. In the last few years the prices have plummeted and a good drum scanner can be had for $10k. <br>

People who can operate drum scanners are rare. Most companies that have a drum scanner need a professional and then they have to work out what that professional is going to do whilst they're waiting for a drum to finish (a drum full of 35mm at high resolution can take 24hrs+). You're paying for that person, that machine and also for the rent, rates and maintenance on the place they work. <br>

Now I bought my drum scanners at a reasonable price so the purchase cost is pretty irrelevant in a years operating costs. Maintenance is essential, Karl Hudson does as good a job for me as for anybody who he maintains Heidelberg scanners for. <br>

I have a PhD in engineering and a background that includes design and print. My PhD included computer science and so the mechanical, optical and computing side of scanning is something that I'm happy with. There are few people out there who create there own custom profiles from multiple sources using ArgyllCMS. There are also few people who have worked out how to get non-sharpened transparency scans from Newcolor (myself and Derin Korman investigated this and found a solution which we're happily sharing). <br>

So for the costs involved, I only charge for the time taken to clean and mount your film to the drum, set the scans up, unmount and process. <br>

I don't charge for cleaning - there are many people who can do this cheaper than me and I spent the time instead getting clean originals (I've been told my scans are the cleanest most people have seen despite me not spotting them). <br>

So ... which scans are the best? Well that's a tough one. I tested all of the available drum scanners (including Lenny Eiger's services) and my conclusion was that the best balance of shadow recovery, colour rendition, sharpness and consistency came from either the ICG or Heidelberg scanners. The Heidelbergs weren't quite as sharp as the ICG but they were clearer in the shadows. The ICG could get sharper results but not quite as 'rounded' in look. <br>

The bottom line for me was that the ICG's charge a ridiculous price for support - a cost I would have to pass on to customers. <br>

Bottom line is that I'm happy to do a couple of test scans for people if they wish - drumscanning.co.uk</p>

<p>p.s. As for how much detail you can get from a drum scanner. We did a massive comparison of film vs digital and we used high end microscopes to check the results. No scanner available gets all of the detail out of a well exposed film. If you have access to a scanner that gets 5500dpi or higher you can get pretty close though (this seems to be about the break even point for most 'normal' films). If you're shooting T-Max or Adox CMS20 with a Mamiya 7 or good 35mm camera/lens all bets are off though!<br>

For your normal (f/22 or smaller) 4x5 transparencies, 3000dpi is usually enough, 4000dpi is the maximum you'll need. <br>

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/miroscope-700.jpg<br>

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/</p>

<p>p.p.s. If you've any questions I'm happy to answer them. Oh and one final spanner in the works. The sharpest scans I've ever seen are from an Imacon and a Screen Cezanne flatbed (and also from a macro lens on a 5DSr) these have there own issues though. Here's an example - including an Aztek Premier sample. This one to show that two scans at 4000dpi aren't necessarily the same (and demonstrate the clean scans from the Heidelberg at 4000dpi). <br>

http://www.drumscanning.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/portra400-mamiya7-differentscanners.jpg</p>