Can Nikon8000 at $2500 = traditional print?

Hi all,<br>

I'm trying to figure out if spending a huge amount of money for a

medium format scanner will get the results that medium format negs

can produce in an 8x8 print (B&W).<br><br>

 

Apparently the Nikon 8000 is the prime scanner, however, will a

scan and print (via piezography) <i> really </i> be able to hold up

to the results from a wet darkroom? Really? For that much money, the

results should be astounding in my opinion.<br><br>

 

I'm hoping that someone has had some experience with this or a

similar scanner since for the outlay, I could get one of those new

wide angle rolleiflexes that are about to hit the market.

<br><br>

thanks for any advice.

Some traditionalists will say absolutely no. And they will until their grave. Others with more open minds will say in some ways yes, in others, no. The results are different and some images look better printed digitally while others have more pizazz done traditionally. I currently scan with a LS-4000, print on an Epson 1160 with MIS full spectrum neutral inks on Photo Rag and the results have been nothing short of spectacular.<p>

 

But it's not pleasing to all. I'd say you need to do a full inspection first hand of digitally produced B&W prints and decide if the result is what you'd like to see. Meanwhile, a great group for some good advice and discussion as to the capabilities of digital B&W printing can be found here:<p>

 

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint</a><p>

 

Good group of people always will to help out.

As others have said, it depends. One poster on Internet newsgroups, Leonard Evens, says he's pulling better 8x10's from an Epson 2450 than he ever printed in his darkroom. He's an experienced photographer so I don't take his observation casually (search his name in Google for exact quotes). He posts a lot on the comp.perips.scanners forum.

 

Beyond 8x10 I'm sure the expensive Nikon rig will visibly outclass the Epson, but for the price you could probably afford to try out the Epson and still have a useful flatbed scanner around if you decide it doesn't quite live up to your photo needs.

My advice corresponds along with Richard's in that you should look at some properly done digital B/W ink-jets before jumping in.

 

The mechanics of ink-jet /piezo printing are simply too radically different from conventional silver-halide printing to offer a solid yes or no depending on your personal style and preferences. Different set of advantages and limitations.

 

If you're used to printing on glossy Ilford Multigrade you'll likely be dissapointed at even the best produced monochrome ink-jet/Piezo images. This is where conventional wet-lab printing still holds a clear advantage, and that's on the high gloss papers that seem to always look synthetic when you try to emulate them with mechanical printing of any sort.

 

It's the heavier, fine-art type printing media that's really causing the stir and allows ink-jet/Piezo to immediatley close the gap on fine art B/W printing and certainly allow a greater degree of control. I played around with platinum printing in college, and I'd swear my carefully printed standard B/W ink-jets on Somerset Velvet and Hanehmule rag where done in the same lab session. Richard isn't exaggerating - those materials are THAT good.

 

It's the semi-gloss, classic silver gelatin print that is more elusive to emulate with digital. My experience is that the more matte you prefer your B/W final prints (for instance, Kodak N-type paper or platinum prints), the more you'll like the digital route.

 

I feel your choice of scanners is serious over-kill for B/W MF work. My 6x7 conventional B/W film scans from both my Epson 1640 and 2450 are superior to those same images scanned commercially on a Nikon 8000. All the Nikon does is produce more defined, harsh grain from Delta and Tri-X, and banding in dark areas. The Epson images are a little softer, but they look more transparent when printed.

I agree with Scott and Richard. However, since scanning at higher resolutions can bring some benefits in certain circumstances and can sometimes allow smooter transitions (using appropriate amounts of grain reduction in the scanning software to rid the harshness) I would suggest a Minola scanner over the Nikon. The quality is a close match, but the biggest reason I suggest the Minolta is so that you can avoid banding. There are a couple of minoltas, Dimage Scan Multis and so on that scan medium format. Their highest resolution scanner can scan up to 3200dpi for medium format. 4800dpi for 35mm.

"I feel your choice of scanners is serious over-kill for B/W MF work."

 

Since the question is 8x8 prints from 6x6, this is exactly right.

 

For color glossy inkjet prints from 645 Provia/Velvia/Reala, I found it quite possible to get good borderless A4s with the 2450, although it requires a disturbingly large amount of sharpening and clearly wasn't getting half what was on the film. With the 8000, 13x19 isn't a problem. But for 8x8 from 6x6, the 2450 is more than enough.

 

However, Epson has a new 3200 dpi flatbed (the GT-9800F) out in Japan that should be quite a bit better than the 2450, so the 8000 may not be all that necessary any more. (When the new model appears in your neighborhood, used 2450s should be available very cheap.)

 

By the way, banding is not a problem with the Nikon. It's a minor irritation to have to use "super fine" (i.e. slow) scan mode, but if you see it in scans, the user was incompetent.

Thanks all for your input. I found a place in the UK where I can rent an 8000 so I can give it a test drive, hopefully I'll locate a Minolta too. David's heads up about the new GT-9800F sounds real interesting... so I might hold off for a few months until we hear more about this scanner.

 

I tend to like wet printing on matt papers anyway, so it would seem that the piezography route would be a natural fit... I can't wait to start, so I might send out some negs for scanning while I try to rent and compare the above scanners.

 

Thanks for your help!