Film or flatbed scanner for B & W's?

[sheridan]

Dear readers. Admitting my lack of knowledge in this area..For

the purposes of posting black and white images to this forum

with the aid of an iMac, would a film scanned negative,say on a

Canon 4000s,be easier and/or give an equivalent quality to a

black and white print, flat bed scanned and properly

posted?Thank you in anticipation for answers.

[art_karr]

Shridan:

 

<p>

 

For the purpose of posting on this forum [which is what you

asked], a flat bed with a transparency adapter will work as well

as anything. The limitation is not in the scanner but in the

resolution problems with everyone's moniter. I use such a flat

bed set-up for 4 x 5 negatives on a regular basis.

 

<p>

 

Art

[mostly sports]

I have found that my scanner (Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II) doesn't get all the detail in highlights. Some of my older, denser, overdeveloped negatives just won't scan well. But a print with the #1 filter cuts right in and delivers the beads of sweat on the forehead, or the textures of the snowdrifts. So, for that kind of negative, there's no substitute for the flatbed, reading a print. I also like to "paint with light" under the enlarger, and have yet to master PhotoShop to the extent that I can dodge and burn as I can in the darkroom. If I could have only one scanner, then it would be a flatbed. On the other hand, the scanner seems to do very well with slides and color negative material and chromogenic B&W. So if an image scans well to start with, it's a relief not to have to go through the stages of the wet darkroom to get to the image in the form of a print. Finally, in an interview with Ralph Gibson, he suggested that a digital image is best when scanned from a print. I knew a photo store owner who did a lot of commercial digital work, who told me the same thing. You would think that information is lost between the negative and the print and the scan, but what is lost is the defects that you want to loose. Shoot XP-2 Super and scan! (Unless you don't mind hours in the wet darkroom to produce those prints to scan on your flatbed!

[todd frederick]

I am also thinking that I can get out of the wet darkroom but still

use traditional film by getting a flatbed scanner with medium to

large format capability and a good printer. I truly want to spend

more time outside and taking pictures. I guess the only way to find

out is try. I saw a flatbed advertised for about $300 that has large

format capability but I can't recall the brand.

[tod_hart]

I recently purchased a Canon D-1230U for right at $300 and I'm very

well pleased with it for web type images. It only goes to 1200 dpi,

so I'm not sure what it would do for print outs, but then my old HP500

printer is essentially a text only printer and I still prefer B/W

prints made in the darkroom.

 

<p>

 

It handles prints up to 8.5x11 inches and has film holders for 35mm,

120 (6x4.5, 6x6 or 6x9) or 4x5.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Sheridan; Flatbed scanners require alot more work to produce a great

scan than a dedicated film scanner ; <b>for a difficult negative

</b>...For posting to this board; a canon 4000 is way overkill;....

unless one needs the extra resolution to zoom in to a small area to

show the resolution of a lens or something.......<BR><br> here is my

rule of thumb for the maximum resolution possibily picked up by a

scanner:

<br><br>epson 1200U 1200dpi= 47.2 d/mm = approx 23 lines/mm MAX

<br><br>epson 2400photo 2400dpi= 94.5 d/mm = approx 46 lines/mm MAX

<br><br>canon 2700 FS 2720dpi= 107 d/mm = approx 53 lines/mm MAX

<br><br>canon 4000 4000dpi= 157.4 d/mm= approx 78 lines/mm MAX

<br><br>Thus if one places ones DR Summicron @f5.6 on a granite block

and uses ASA 4 Summicatomic-X developed in MicroHyperDOLL 1:3; one

may get a 90 lines/mm on the negative as seen by a microscope; if one

has a high contrast lighting on the 1951 resolution USAF test

charts...Scan that super unobtainium negative in the above scanners;

and one might get numbers approaching the numbers I listed above...In

the long run ones scanners resale value goes to zero; but the time

spent in scanning ones negatives is what the real cost is; If one

uses scanners alot.....My 2 year old Canon 2710FS with scsi is quick;

about 2 minutes for a full 28Mbyte color scan ......The epson flat

beds above are used to scan 120 film; and paper prints....Make sure

your computer has a CD writer; one bottle neck is filling up ones

hard drive and burning CD's..... The Nikon film scanners are

better....Kelly

[gee-bug]

I just got a Nikon Coolscan IV ED and am quite happy with how it

scans B&W (esp. chromogenic) but not so happy with how my Epson

Stylus Photo 785EPX prints them - and from what I understand, this

is the chief problem with the B&W dry darkroom. I haven't

investigated rumours I've heard about grayscale inksets - Anyone

know?

[kelly_flanigan1]

Ken; one problem is that inkjet uses all the C M Y K inks to make the

black and grey tones...the mono greyscale scans on some color

printers appear differently under different lighting...A black &

white inkjet print may appear great under one type of lighing; and

appear too greenish or blueish under different lighting...

[chris_chen4]

Ken:

 

<p>

 

If you're serious about digital B&W prints, there's really no

substitute for having a dedicated B&W printer w/good

pigment-based inks (e.g., Cone Piezography, MIS quad or

hextones, etc.).

[ralph_barker]

For the purposes of posting here, Sheridan, either scanning from a

print on a flatbed, or using a film scanner (or, flatbed with

transparency attachment) is adequate. That said, there are the usual

assortment of caveats, as mentioned by others. Most inexpensive film

scanners have a relatively low D-Max capability. That means you'll

lose detail in highlights and often in shadows when scanning your

negs. Even top-end film scanners have a D-Max of only 4.2 or so,

subjecting scans of difficult negs or chromes to similar problems.

 

<p>

 

I've found that doing the B&W prints in the wet darkroom (with the

normal dodging, burning, etc.), and then scanning from the final print

on a flatbed gives better control and results in better, more

representative scans. The compression of the tonal range in the print

also tends to overcome some of the scanner shortcomings.

[sheridan]

Dear readers. Many thanks for your helpful,genuine responses

which are based on practice,not theory.As a footnote:to those

photographers like me who need to be dragged into the 21st

century,I have just found a helpful site ... www.kenrockwell.com.