Minolta 5400 Tests

[tomweis]

<p><i>The procedure with black nad white is to not overdevelope the film or it will

be hard to scan and/or print. T grain and reg grain seem to scan well. -Ronald</

i></p></i>

 

<p>True, having a lower D-Max in your highlights will allow a scanner to "punch

through" the heavier silver content in the highlights. However, I have found that

scanning a B&W neg as a color transparency will give me more detail in the highlights,

and lowers the overall contrast of the image. Then you would desaturate and inverse

in Photoshop to get a neutral B&W positive image.</p>

<p><i>...although I seem to have more trouble with Ilford b/w film negs - they seem

to show more grain than others. - John</i></p>

<p>This may be because Ilford films generally have a higher Base + fog than other

B&W films. This would cause more light to scatter and give the impression of more

grain... Just guessing.</p>

<p><i>Does it make sense - in b/w - to scan AND PRINT as opposed to a wet

darkroom? I mean, looking at the monitor and having a print are two different things.

Up to now, while color is fine, b/w inkjet prints are not really that good, and I am

considering a wet darkroom since I have an old enlarger somewhere in my home. -

Jean</i></p>

<p>Darkroom prints on fiber paper can be beautiful, and are difficult to match even

with quad inks. However, (for me at least) the whole point of scanning is to be able to

retouch in Photoshop. I shoot a lot of fashion and everything in that industry is

retouched or altered in some way. I also need to submit digital files for publication.

As far as

inkjet output for B&W you can convert a printer (such as an Epson 1280) to a quad set

of B&W Lyson inks for really nice B&W output. Also, consider having your digital files

printed onto photo paper. The newest Noritsu, Lightjet, Lamda machines produce

very neutral B&W images onto color RA paper. Adorama in NYC does them very

cheaply, as do places like Mpix.com.</p>

[jorge]

Christian,

<br><br>

<i>>>I have done a dark-room vs scan comparisons. For delta 400 film, the scan won. But with delta 100, the darkroom had better resolution and less grain/noise.<<</i>

<br><br>

The only test I made was with an HP5+ negative souped in HC-110-B. Very sharp grained but with visible grain. I made an 11x14 in the darkroom with a 4x5 LPL and Schneider Componon 50/2.8 lens at f/4 (optimum aperture) on glossy RC paper and then a similarly sized print with my Epson 2200 on glossy digital Ilford paper (as identical to the chemical paper as it gets) from a full resolution scan with the 5400 of the same neg. Then scanned the prints at 600 ppi resolution on my Epson flatbed and enlarged on the monitor at 1:1, side by side. The difference in actual detail resolution is awesome favoring the digital method.

<br><br>

<i>>>Does it make sense - in b/w - to scan AND PRINT as opposed to a wet darkroom?<<</i>

<br><br>

Jean,

<br><br>

While I have completely replaced my color printing in the darkroom with the output of the 2200 (the colors are incredible and the Ilford Gallerie paper beats the hell out of Supra III & IV), try as I may, I haven't been able to come close to a selenium toned silver print on fiber, not by a long shot. I really don't like the look of the matte prints and other surfaces look absolutely ersatz. Even Ilford Gallerie Pearl which is a quasi perfect match for their MG-IV/RC of the same surface, pales in a side by side comparo. For me, the darkroom is still the king of B&W.

<br><br>

OTOH, I'm looking with very pleased eyes at a hybrid technique. Dan Burkholder's teachings have me -at last- making decent digital negatives for contact printing over silver paper. For this you need only a controllable light source and a vertical Nova tank. Results are stunning and the degree of control makes ellaborate burning and dodging a-la Eddie Ephraum's look like a Ford T to a new Audi A8.

<br><br>

Russell, I'm working on adapting a very thin AN glass to my neg holder. I think it will be feasible if I find a source for 1mm glass.

<br><br>

Jim, the 5400 can be focused manually, or you can select the point of AF. Focusing manually is kinda involved tho, requiring some three or four trial and error cycles.

<br><br>

Lutz, I'll try to scan something right now and upload.

<br><br>

Scott, I don't know for sure as I don't have a NIkon scanner not any way to compare but a past article on LFI magazine said that the best 35mm scanner for silver B&W film was the 5400 (at the time, over a year).

[jorge]

Lutz,

 

Per your request; same negative (FP4+ on Xtol 1:3) scanned at 5400 and 2700.<div></div>

[jorge]

Detail A, 5400 ppi.<div></div>

[jorge]

Same area but from the 2700 scan.<div></div>

[jorge]

Different area from the 5400 scan. Forgot to mention, the film was focused manually on the detailed area, although the film was quite flat on the holder (a frame from the center of the strip).<div></div>

[jorge]

And from the 2700 scan...<div></div>

[jorge]

PS, for anyone questioning the relevance to the forum, the last images were shot with a Leica M2, Color Skopar 50/2.5, film as mentioned above. ;-) And BTW, anyone read the article on the current LFI magazine on the opinions of Leica new CEO Coenen where he says being firmly convinced that film based photography is here for a long time thanks to scanners? It's interesting...

[lutz]

Thanks a lot, Jorge. I appreciate your effort and will be back for a comment. :-)

[jean_.]

Thanks on all your input regarding my question about b/w printing. The scanning somehow starts to become annoying to me, and I'll see what i can get with a wet darkroom print, since I don't have to deliver digital files. I'll also try those lyson inks and see how the b/w inkjet improves, but as much as photoshop is convenient to me, I really hate the digital "workflow" as opposed to the analog way.

 

Probably however my darkroom prints will completely suck, and I'll return to my scanner tail between legs!

[jtk]

Leitz slide glass (plain or Anti-Newton) would be an easy source for thin glass (for a carrier) ... may be available larger than 35mm sicj as Super Slide (46mm) and even plate-size...Leitz may still make it for microscopy in interesting sizes.

 

Anti-Newton would be best if the scanner can cope...it doesn't show up in huge, critical slide projections but it might be a problem for a scanner. Newtons Rings are tough to fix with Photoshop :-(

[jorge]

John, thanks for the suggestion of slide glass. I'll try to find a source for it in Mexico or try to order from the USA if I hit a dead end. I have two neg holders for my scanner (got the 2nd one when it was replaced by Minolta to fix a holder jam) and plan on doing some surgery to the lid of one in order to adapt the glass.

[jorge]

Another test. Kodak Gold 400 negative scanned at 2700 on the MInolta 5400 and resampled to 2400, no sharpening, versus scan on Epson 2450 at 2400.<div></div>

[jorge]

2400 ppi detail from Minolta scan.<div></div>

[jorge]

Now the Epson scan.<div></div>

[russell_brooks]

The manual focus doesnt help the flat focal plane issue so dont let that trick you. Only glass. Why? The curvature of the film. It's 3 dimensional. Even if you get it sharp in foucs at 1/3 the distance from the center it's just a compromise. Also Lutz's idea of layering different scans at different focus points has merit except that it a) takes at least twice as long b) the layers dont match up exactly - the focal length has changed - and this adds up to about 20 pixels in my experience at full resolution.

[lutz]

Well, thanks a lot again, Jorge. I've tried to do a comparison with the help of your scans. With FP4 developed in xtol there isn't much room left for finer detail in a real world situation. So, I upsampled the 2700dpi scan to 200% to be able to compare the result to the 5400dpi scan at 100%. While the JPEG artefacts grow substantially and unpleasantly in the blow up (for an ultimate comparison you would have to blow up the original detail from a scanned TIFF, before uploading to PN), there actually isn't much more detail in the hi-res scan. The grain is the limit - and it appears to have been more or less reached by the 2700dpi resolution. So, there does not seem to be a real world reason to upgrade from a 2900dpi scanner to the 5400dpi model, at least as far as scanning detail is concerned. Leave alone the increase in processing time and storage space. Or am I missing something here? Cheers.<div></div>

[lutz]

<i>Also Lutz's idea of layering different scans at different focus points has merit except that it a) takes at least twice as long b) the layers dont match up exactly - the focal length has changed - and this adds up to about 20 pixels in my experience at full resolution.</i><p>

Hmm, Russell. As I said, it works for me. Before I start obsessing about focus in a scan, I must be sure to want to print it *really* large - or to archive a *certain interpretation of it for digital use* (since there always is the archival neg, right?), once for good. At least that is my (arguable) workflow... Now, at this level of demand for perfection I am generally ready to invest at least 20 to 30 min. into tweaking curves, cropping and dodging, un-dusting and retouching. So, another 5 for squeezing the best out of the neg focuswise is not breaking my spine. On the other hand, keeping two glass surfaces dust and fingerprint free (and/or retouching those extras) can quickly comsume the gain in time. As far as matching two overlapping scans is concerned, I have not experienced a mismatch of more than 10 pixels in a 2900dpi scan and I challenge anybody to tell where blended borders in a 2700x5000 pixel file are hidden... ;-)

[robert_clark]

Lutz,

 

forgive my ignorance in these matters, but are you saying that scans from, say, the cheaper Minolta would be just as good as with this Elite scan?

 

I'm interested in printing B&W to A3 plus (19"x13")but want something to compare resolution and tone-wise to a darkroom print on RC Multigrade pearl.

[robert_clark]

I mean the Konica Minolta Scanner Scan Dual IV , which scans at 3200 dpi. (and costs half the price).

 

If I just want to do B&W is there going to be any difference between this and the Elite scan? - any difference at all?

[lutz]

Hi Robert,<p>Well, all I can deduct from Jorge's tests is that 2700 (or 2900)dpi appear to be enough, resolutionwise, for squeezing detail out of a normal speed b&w neg, developed in a hi-res developer. I can't tell how good other scanners are at 2700dpi compared to the 5400 Minolta. I know that my Coolscan IV is at least very detailed at 2900dpi.<p>As for your specific demand, the printer is the limit, not the scanner, IMHO. For A3+ 2900dpi are more than sufficient - unless you prefer to view your prints through a loupe. But then again, you will most probably see the printer's defects more than the scanner's.

[jorge]

Lutz,

<br><br>

<i>>>Or am I missing something here?<<</i>

<br><br>

I really don't think so, in practical terms. The decisive factors might be light source, focusing features (AF, MF, selective point), digital features (like ICE, for example) D-range and scan time.

<br><br>

The reason I had for the 5400 lies in the Epson scan I posted. With B&W it's even more noticeable.

[jorge]

PS, I cannot get the 5400 to resolve Velvia's grain, FWIW.

[lutz]

Fair enough, Jorge. I believe that 5400dpi can make a difference with some (few) fine grain transparency emulsions. For b&w, though, I guess the advantages you mention melt down (ICE is of no issue here since it's not b&w compatible, AF and selective focus are available in other, lower res scanners and the MF feature's benefit escapes me) to the light source - although I'd really love to see a side by side comparision between the Minolta 5400 and a Nikon Coolscan IV ED, with scans from the same neg. Plus I have no figures available as far as D-range and scan time are concerned (do you by chance?) - they might well differ. Since you were coming from a flatbed scanner I can well see your point in making the full quality leap. Cheers.

[robert goldstein]

The solution to the film flatness problem (with slides) is to leave them in strips rather than having them mounted, . Then, be certain that the frame to be scanned is in either the 3rd or 4th position of the Minolta film strip holder. These are the positions located closest to the clasp of the film holder and are where the film will be flattest. If film strips are cut to lengths of 6 frames, then all one has to do is divide them as needed into lengths of 4 and 2 frames to be able to use positions 3 or 4 with any frame.

 

I am astonished by the relatively fast scan times quoted for negatives when using ICE and GD. On my 5400, scan times exceed 10 minutes, and I have 1.8Gb RAM