what can a flatbed really do??

[buzz]

I am considering investing in a flatbed scanner, the epson v750, for scanning 120

film,( 6x7).

 

I am not a professional, so I do have some budget constraints. I have read many

archives, and researched scanners a bit. I also currently own a Minolta dimage

scandual III (which I am having some problems with).

 

My real dilemma is quality, I shoot film, and do at least 50% of my work in B&W

in my darkroom. I would like to add some med format in color and not rely on a

lab for output, just developing, either negatives or transparencies. I have 2 film

systems, 35mm and 120, since I do mostly b&w, I would like to keep what I have.

Can I expect similar quality to an optically printed print with a properly scanned

120 neg printed on a professional quality printer....Or could I get similar results

with say for example a Canon G9 file printed similarly to 8x10, 11x14, even 16x20.

 

I have come to the realization that dpi's are not the only factor in quality, dynamic

range, dust and scatches, color are all just as important.

 

I have an inclination that a Nikon Coolscan 9000 might surpass the results of a

high end digicam, however it is nearly 3x the cost.

 

Thanks for any input

[Lou_Meluso]

Buzz, You don't mention the type of photography you are interested in. That would inform some of your direction. If you like traveling light and are only making 8x10 prints a digicam can work pretty well and it may be the least expensive route. For larger prints, images properly processed and scanned B&W film will yeild an extremely high quality result suitable for a fine art approach. A high end Nikon or Imacon film scanner will extract the most from your negs. However, in addition to an Imacon 848, I have an Epson V750-pro and it is really quite good. The Imacon has slightly better shadow detail but the V750 stands it's ground well with medium and large format film. The trick with the Epson is to buy Doug Fishers adjustable 120 film holders here:

http://betterscanning.com/

You won't get the optimal results with the Epson 120 holder. The 35mm holder seems OK. There is an option for wet scanning that I dont use. In the end your results will be a combination of all links in the imaging chain. Not that these a re great photos but here are a few examples of images I just scanned on the Epson V750-pro to give you an Idea of the relative quality. The first is from 35mm, 400speed film, handheld with a cheap Vivitar zoom.<div></div>

[Lou_Meluso]

This scan is from a locked down Canon T90 with an excellent nFD 100mm f2.0 lens on Efke 50 film. The inital capture quality comes through.<div></div>

[Lou_Meluso]

Here is a 21/4 neg scanned on the V750 with Doug fishers film holder on Tmax 400.<div></div>

[Lou_Meluso]

This last one is another medium format shot shot on the Bronica<div></div>

[User_503771]

Really nice work, Louis.

 

Buzz, I might add too, though, that you might like the results you get from scanning black and white prints, if you need to get B&W into your digital domain.

 

I've never liked the results I've gotten taking B&W negs into Photoshop; I think it's far more effective and efficient to just make good prints and then, as needed, scan the prints.

 

But for color -- oh my! I think that the film-scanner combination is terrific.

 

I have an Epson 4870, and just recently acquired, and had overhauled, a Nikon Coolscan 4000.

 

For 35mm, the Nikon has a narrow lead over the Epson, but not by as much as I would have thought! Especially if you're using good software, the flatbeds these days are phenomenally good -- as Louis's prints above amply demonstrate!

 

Just a few years ago I would have said that flatbed scanners wouldn't hold a candle to dedicated film scanners -- but not anymore!

 

I haven't used the V750, but if Epson has continued their trend over the few years since the 4870, I'd go for it -- and I think they probably have, by the way....

[rene gm]

Louis, I like your images, but you could just as well have used a digital camera for this. Maybe at larger sizes the advantage of medium format might shine through. Obviously, your images are that good because of the quality of light, not the expensive equipment you use.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

You can get decent scans with a flatbed, but the resolutions are much lower than stated for the consumer-grade models (about 2,000 dpi tops). Also you won't be able to dig info out of the dense parts of the film.

 

I purchased a Nikon 9000 for myself. I'd rather just scan once and dig as much info out from my film as possible.

[david_henderson]

"Can I expect similar quality to an optically printed print with a properly scanned 120 neg printed on a professional quality printer...."

 

Yes, and potentially better. Providied the original is high quality and the print is made from a very good scan by someone who understands what they are doing. It is not a question of simply going out and buying a few boxes. You have to invest time in getting to learn how to get the best from them, and the fact that this is not automatic gives rise to the thousands of questions on here about scanning, editing and the process of making a print that matches what you see on your monitor. Clearly you will get better scans from a Nikon 9000/ Imacon/drum scan in ascending order of quality than you will from a flatbed. How much of this you notice will depend on the original ( do you need the slightly better dmax associated with the more expensive scanners?), on the size and criticality of the output and on your standards. Note also that commercial scanning is getting pretty cheap and it is perfectly tenable to keep a flatbed at home for less critical applications whilst getting a film scan for those few images where you want to make a large print. I bought a film scanner 18 months ago after rigorous testing vs drum scans etc, but I wouldn't buy one today when I can get decent scans on an Imacon or Nikon 9000 for a few dollars (well GBP in my case, but you get the message).

 

"....Or could I get similar results with say for example a Canon G9 file printed similarly to 8x10, 11x14, even 16x20? "

 

IMO the answer is no, but at the smaller end of the size spectrum you indicate you may not notice much difference. The thing you have to grip here is that digital and film images to me look somewhat different. And that the G9 doesn't have the dynamic range of most colour neg films. Plus of course if you are printing at home you'll be using an inkjet whereas most labs can use papers and digital processes that mimic traditional colour prints pretty well, down to using the same papers.

 

Its a complex area and all the "answers" have caveats and assumptions built in. You need to either go to a dealer and see some ( Calumet often have demos ) or take a risk and sell if it doesn't work. You can of course use labs short term to test alternative scanners etc until you're sure you see what you want.

[buzz]

thanks for the responses.

 

Louis, My photography consists of snapshots(a Canon fd system), and portraits (rb67system and home studio), and some landscape (also 120 format). Most of it like I said is b&w in the darkroom. Nice images btw.

 

I much prefer the look of film, I also like having negatives and slides that I can pull out easily and access 5,10, or 20 years down the road.

However, far fewer pro labs or still going strong, and it is becoming much more expensive for large color prints, hence my desire to scan and print digitally. If I could develop color and print in my darkroom I would, but it is not as easy as b&w, there are far more chemicals, the need for total darkness during the printing stage, etc. It is not overly expensive to have film developed, either locally or through mailers.

 

I really do feel that no digital camera can recreate the look of tri-x, or delta 100 printed on fiber paper. But for color, I feel that a good, clean, sharp, and color accurate image would be the main concern for me.

 

I also understand that there is a learning curve as anything else, the potential is critial factor.

 

I might have scanning done by a lab short term in order to do further research.

 

thanks

[Lou_Meluso]

"Louis, I like your images, but you could just as well have used a digital camera for this."

 

Hi Renee: You are quite right. To post on the web, I could have easily shot those with my D300 system. a point and shoot, or a pinhole camera for that matter. People make photographs not cameras. But keep in mind a couple of things. As Buzz mentioned, film has look all it's own that some find appealing. Like many folks, Buzz mentioned a desire for a cost effective solution for film eqipment he already owns. There is no doubt a dedicated Nikon or Imacon film scanner is better. Those scanners cost thousands. I picked up a referb Epson for $500. You mention the expensive equipment I use. The reallity is it's digital camera equipment that costs significantly more. My Canon FD and Bronica film equipment is DIRT CHEAP!. Yet the IQ is high due to quality constuction and superb lenses. The film scanner is the bridge that keeps vintage film equipment usable in the digital age and the combo provides a Bang-for-the-Buck that digital can't touch (yet). I love my $2000 Nikon digital camera and mega-buck Nikkor AF glass. The many advantages are undeniable. But when making a 24"x24" print, a good scan from the $300 Bronica is FAR better than a digital Nikon anything. No maybees about it. Now as an old guy, I still love old manual focus Canons FD 35mm cameras. The digital Nikon kit definitely yields similar or better IQ and adds autofocus. BUT, the Canon T90 and Vivitar zoom lens I used for the top photo above costs $175. My similar Nikon Digital kit cost around $2500. That Civil War re-enactment was a hot, very dusty day. Which camera would you drag through that dust bowl, or rain and mud, or sea spray and sand or a dozen other situations that are unkind to cameras? For my work, manual focus film cameras still have a lot of life left. But you need a good scanner so you can access all the power of digital tools like Photoshop and digital printing. For a photog on a budget, the Epson V750-Pro is a good, affordable tool that does a decent job.

[brian_ellis19]

I used a Pentax 6x7 system exclusively for many years until it was replaced by various 4x5 and 8x10 systems. I used b&w film exclusively. I printed all three formats in my home darkroom for a long time. About seven years ago I stopped printing in the darkroom and switched to scanning my 4x5 and 8x10 negatives on Epson prosumer flatbeds (currently the 4990, which is basically the same scanner as the V700/750) and printing digitally using Photoshop and various Epson printers (currently the 3800). A very steep learning curve but that's another story. A couple years ago I started using a Canon 5D with various L lenses and I've been using that more and more and 4x5 less and less. I sold the Pentax system and the 8x10 system a few years ago.

 

IMHO the 5D with L lenses and always using a tripod, cable release, and mirror lockup can be used to make prints that up to about 11x17 are pretty much indistinguishable from what I used to do with the Pentax 67 system in my darkroom with 11x14 prints. I suspect that the Pentax system in a darkroom would do noticeably better than the 5D with prints larger than about 11x17 and probably would do better at virtually any size in comparison to 6x7 negatives scanned on my 4990 flatbed. I'm not sure of that because I stopped using the Pentax system before I started scanning and printing digitally. But I know that for me, using my standards, a print of about 13x17 is as big as I'm happy with from 4x5 negatives scanned on my 4990 so I'm assuming something a good bit smaller than that would be the limit for 6x7. I think the prosumer flatbeds like the Espon V700/750, Microtek M1, et al work best with 4x5 and bigger negatives, that with medium format you're better off using a film scanner (or a drum scan from a pro lab of course). But different people have different standards and I never tried my 4990 with 6x7 film so I don't know for sure.

 

I've shown b&w prints made in the darkroom and prints made from film scanned on my home scanner and printed digitally on my Epson printers in the same exhibit and nobody knew the difference (or if they did I didn't hear about it). I'm pretty sure I could do the same with a b&w print from my digital camera up to about 13x17 but I've been doing mostly color lately so I haven't had the opportunity to exhibit film and digital camera b&w prints side by side.

 

I don't know if this is any help or not but I'm guessing that if you're serious enough about photography to have a home darkroom you probably have pretty high standards when it comes to quality. I don't believe you'd be happy with prints made from medium format film and scanned on a flatbed scanner like the V700/750 unless the prints were fairly small, like 8x10 at the largest and maybe smaller. I'd be very surprised - in fact amazed - if you could make a 20x24 print from a G9 that rivalled your darkroom prints of that size from your medium format system. 8x10 maybe but probably not 11x14 and certainly not 20x24. I'm pretty sure I couldn't make a 20x24 print even from my 5D and L lenses that would rival my darkroom prints of that size from the Pentax 67 negatives. But if you can, let me know and I'll sell my 5D system and buy a G9. : - )

[buzz]

..Brian, I certainly don't think a G9 could make a print even close to something printed in the darkroom, I was just trying to gauge what a flatbed was capable of..what that cutoff point is of a good print from a flatbed scan compared to a good digital camera..if your know what I mean.

[big toys are better]

I'm curious, is anyone here scanning anything larger than MF and 4x5 on the V-750?