From analogue to digital

[bengt_ljungkvist1]

Having a H-blad series of CT*-lenses, accessories and a 503CW-body I would like

to enter the medium format digital community without having to buy an

expensive digital back. I would be grateful for comments on using analogue

transparencies and scanning for printing. Scanners? Printers? not too expensive.

[godfrey]

If you want to get at least most of what that film can deliver, you need a dedicated film

scanner like the Nikon 9000 ED. You can use a flatbed scanner ... the Epson V700-750 are

very good ... but as good as they are, they're not going to deliver all the quality you paid

for with that set of lenses.

 

The Epson R2400 will do a beautiful job of printing up to 13x19 inch. If you want more

than that, the Epson R3800 is the next step up and can handle 16x20 inch output. Its

larger ink tanks will cut ink costs over time, even if you print smaller than maximum sizes.

 

Of course, add into your budget money for software (Lightroom and/or Photoshop),

adequate RAM and hard disk space, archive storage, etc ... assuming you have a computer

with enough horsepower to handle the burden of image processing medium format film

scans.

 

Godfrey

[roland_haid]

Hello Bengt,

 

Of-course you can buy a (good) scanner and then print or have it printed.

 

Since some time I wonder myself if one of the cheaper DSLR would do the job. Not by taking the photo but in order to digitalise MF. An Olympus E-510 with the 3.5/35mm Makro is not expensive. The overall resolution (for 6x6) is comparable to good standard flatbeds. At first glance it seems unlogical, because you could take the photo directly, but it has some advange. One is, that you wife could use the Olympus as well, that is'nt exactly possible with a scanner.

[jean-louis llech]

<i>"One is, that you wife could use the Olympus as well, that is'nt exactly possible with a scanner."</i><br>

Why ? Technically speaking, (network, scanner sharing...) or she is too stupid ? ;>))<br>

[howard_slavitt2]

My advice is to have a good professional shop do your scans. From years ago, Nancy Scans in NY, would do 8 bit scans of medium format of up to about 100MB, I think, for $50 or so each. I also suspect that if you did a package deal, say 50 scans of slides you sent them at one time, you could negotiate a decent discount. You'll save a lot of time, and get much better scans, even if it's only 8 bit vs. 16 bit, by paying a professional drum scanning outfit to do them for you. I know -- I had an Imacon and was shooting 6 cm x 9cm transparencies for several years before converting to an all digital workflow. In retrospect, I'd have been better off paying for scans than buying a scanner, it would have been cheaper or as cheap; I would have spent more time taking images than scanning; and I would have had better, dust-free files (albeit fewer). . . How many images do you really want to work on a year? If you're not doing this for a living, I'd be surprised if you have more than 25-50 images a year that you really want to work on printing.

[aplumpton]

With 120 chromes or negatives, of relatively large size, an Epson 4990 (or the newer one, V700) or a similarly priced Microtek, will probably give you sufficient quality. You can do better (this is true with everything, of course) at a price, but these flatbeds are much improved and good options. I did a full book cover (8 x 10) recently with a scanned 35 mm chrome (Epson 4990) and it came out very well; a scanned image from 6 x 6 cm would certainly be fine for prints up to 15 x 15, and probably greater.

[jon_bergman1]

I use a flatbed Canoscan 9950F and I scan medium format and deliver to Magazines and I

know others that do that to with the Epsons.

[david_henderson]

Of course you can buy a film scanner (of the current models the Nikon 9000ed is close to the only game in town) and you would need a glass carrier. You can also buy a current generation printer for quality inkjets.

 

But there's a few things you need to think about.

 

Do you want to/are you able to buy, set up and run well a fully calibrated sytem to do this and develop the skills in scanning and photoshop and printing to realise your objective in a way you enjoy. If so fine- thousands do it and reach standards they are happy with for themselves. If not you can subcontract some or all of these tasks to a lab and pay a higher variable cost but lower fixed costs. For example only, you could elect to have your best transparencies drum scanned, make the print file yourself in PS, and send the finished file for printing on a labs printer - which they will often do pretty cheaply if you've done all the hard work.

 

Second what do you want your prints to look like? If you want inkjets you can make them at home or at a lab. If you want a digital type C approach on a LightJet or Chromira or Lambda then speaking practically you have to print at a lab.

 

Third, whats the volume? This relates to the economics of a particular route. If you want to make prints from lots of discrete images then its going to be relatively cheaper to set up your own system. If its a small quantity you could save a big outlay and learning curve by getting a lab to do it.

 

Fourth whats the print size? If you want only small prints then its possible that today's flatbed scanners might give you what you need more cheaply. This is a very personal call. I bought a Nikon 9000; others might swear that only a drum scan will do; still others will say that the prints they make from flatbed scans are wonderful. If this is a serious venture for you then you are going to need to compare scans and printed outputs from a range of sources before you leap.

[fotografz]

You are analog now, so I presume you have optical prints made in the traditional manner.

If so, then to digitally match that level of quality will NOT be an inexpensive venture.

 

As already mentioned, you can be selective as what you have scanned and have a scanning

service do them ... or continue printing analog silver prints at a size you can flatbed scan,

which actually gives you the best of both worlds ( a couple of famous photographers do

this).

 

I use a Epson flatbed to scan films for contact sheets, and also have scanned many of my

prints done over the years to get them into digital format. It's actually amazing what you

get with a good photo level flatbed and a silver print. Some that I've done are better than

the originals because of the tools and control available in PhotoShop.

 

If you do your own darkroom enlargements now, this is a very viable way to get started in

digital works.

[bengt_ljungkvist1]

Thanks all for your detailed and sensible good pieces of advice!

Especially the consideration on the number of pictures I am likely to take and the cost to "go digital" for each one of them! So far I am working the old way with B&W, mostly portraits. My equipment stimulates to far more than that, which opens up for colour, but in a modest scale, beeing a happy amateur.

[jacob_brown]

"analogue"?

 

I remember when it was called film.

[bengt_ljungkvist1]

Yes, Jacob, I remember that too, quite clarly, I also even use the word! But in our digitalized world "analogue" is, for me, in the same conceptual frame as "digital". If that is a reason.