How do you veteran landscapers like to print velvia color slide film?

[jimpete]

<p> Hi, I noticed there isn't a lot of info on this forum for mamiya 6 and 7 on printing and scanning options. I am pretty new to all of this. I finally have a few decent transparencies that I can do something with. I have had a few small 8x10 prints made without scanning just to see what my M711 is capable of. I have been pretty happy so far. So what do you guys do? Anybody got a nice workflow dialed in? Right now I am only interested in 11x14's or 16X20's because that is all I can afford. However, I do take my time with each photo mostly with tripod so that I could go larger down the road. I am pretty much a landscaper with the 65mm and 80mm. Will get the 50mm or 43mm down the road. Definitely need the 150 for more distant f/16 shots. I use both Velvia 50 and 100. Do you all scan first and then manipulate a little bit for your needs? I'm not a computer geek. Do you use the Nikon Coolscan 9000? Do you scan yourself or send that out? How is that working out? Do you like inkjets or lightjets? Which is better? Are lightjets the same as RA4? Are there some labs you like that are excellent. I am looking for really good results but not a fanatic. I hope to just get a workflow that works well and is consistent and I like and don't have to worry about all this technical stuff and can just go out and do photography. I know- a lot of questions, but you guys are awesome.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Used to use a Nikon 9000. Now I just use an Epson V700, fluid mounting the rare MF and the often 4x5 formats. I use Velvia rarely. I prefer the finer grain of Astia with its larger dynamic range and more neutral pallete. I can increase saturation and contrast later. </p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>I use a Nikon 9000 as well. As opposed to Dave I'm a Velvia and TMAX person. It is not the punch of Velvia as much as the extra sharpness over Astia tha made me choose it. Both are great color films. I shoot TMAX the majority of the time though.</p>

<p>The 9000 will give you very good results (the best you can get without selling your car). </p>

<p>I have an Epson 3800 dedicated to glossy prints and an Epson 7880 dedicated to matte prints. Once again very satisfied with both.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>It looks like we are getting a consensus - I also use the nikon 9000 but like Dave I am a Velvia and TMAX person. I bought the EPSON 2880 (which only goes to 13x19)but this works for most of my prints and I just pay for the bigger ones. If you print a lot get a bigger EPSON printer as the inks cartridges are much bigger and last longer - for low volume work the 2880 is a good compromise - big printer quality but you only have a tenth or a fifth of the ink investemnt sitting in the printer (the big cartridges are cheaper for a given volume of ink but cost at least $70 each!).<br>

Like others I tried the Epson 700 scanner but was disappointed by the results. for black and white I still prefer the wet process to a scanning and printing process. I only scan and print balck and white if i am saving time or need to perform digital editing. If you plan to print black and white from a scan get an Epson printer as they are pretty close to a wet process results - unlike the HPs and canons I have seen.<br>

With Labs i have found that you get a better result if you send them a print ready image that if you send them a slide to scan and print. I think that if you are a commercial customer you can get good service but for low volumes they are really rather disinterested. Indeed most times I go into a professional lab you find that counter staff are generally very ill informed on MF film - you have to explain you want a TIFF (otherwise you get JPEG) and specify how you want it scanned. I shoot Fuji 6x8 and at least 2 commercial labs have staff who tell you that there is no 6x8 film shots as their price list only has 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9! My advice on a lab is get to know someone who has been there a long time and knows film - then just deal with them. These people tend to be the owners or managers - this is what I have done with the Lab I use and it has worked out well.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I use a Nikon LS-8000, which works well. It has about twice the resolution of the V700. I have to admit that Velvia is not my favorite film compared to Reala, but reversal film is actually quite easy to scan. The trick is to calibrate (profile) the scanner using a calibrated target slide and software to generate the ICC curves. At that point, you can scan any reversal film and "what you see is what you get".</p>

<p>Velvia is a very contrasty film. Always scan in 16-bit mode, then downsize later after adjusting and editing. A glass holder is essential for corner-to-corner sharpness in a Nikon LS-8000/9000 scanner. Grain is seldom a problem with medium format film until you enlarge to 40 inches or more.</p>

<p>I use Silverfast AI6, which comes with a 6x7 IT8 slide and built-in calibration software. The same profile works with Nikonscan, but with a twist. You can't name an external profile in Nikonscan, but you can "Assign" the profile to a scanned image in Photoshop (then "Convert" to a standard color space for compatibility). Unlike Silverfast, Nikonscan has full access to Nikon firmware, especially for image registration and gain controls. Silverfast has much better consistency for negative film than Nikonscan, but that's a moot point when scanning slides. Vuescan also has IT8 calibration capability, and is much cheaper (but less accurate) than Silverfast.</p>

<p>I get good results using Epson inkjets. My current one is an aging 2200. My lab has a 24" Epson, and I use them to produce 16x20 inch prints or larger with good results. My monitor and home printer are calibrated using an Eye-One Photo spectrophotometer.</p>

[stp]

<p>I use a Nikon 8000, for which I paid 33% more than you guys who have the (slightly better) 9000. It's a great scanner for medium format, and I prefer doing it myself rather than sending something out to be scanned. I use Velvia and Astia, depending on the season, the amount of color I'm expecting, and the tonal range I'm expecting. I also print on an Epson 3800; again, I'm very happy with the results. The best lab in Seattle closed; they made some great R-prints for me, but I'm happy to compare the results from the Epson to the lab prints. Processing is a problem; my last batch of four rolls of 120/220 was lost in the mail; I'll have a hard time ever again trusting the USPS with something as precious as exposed film. I'm split between digital and film, and when using film I'm split between a Pentax 645 and Mamiya 7II (all always on a tripod). The Mamiya lenses are awesome, but the system is not as versatile or as easy to use as the 645. Still, a well-exposed and well-composed 6x7 transparency of a landscape is very hard to beat (for me, at least). I like having equipment options to respond to the weather, hiking distance, and anticipated subjects.<br /> <br /> So my "workflow" (in response to your question) when shooting film is to select the film depending on what I think is best for that particular day, capture amazing and outstanding images using the camera of the day, send the exposed film to a lab for processing (formerly via USPS; may switch to UPS or drive to a small local lab), ruthlessly discard images that leave me asking "What was I thinking?" (I've actually discarded an entire roll of 220 shot at the beach with the Mamiya; that hurt, but in the long run it helps), scan the keepers on the 8000 using a glass holder with spacers to prevent Newton rings (Nikonscan works fine for me), save the files to a Raid 1 system, and edit the images I want to display (web or print) using CS4 on a profiled Mac Pro. My filing system is based on geography and works pretty well. I've tried Lightroom, but see no advantage (for me) over Bridge and PS.</p>

[sergio maretz]

<p>Hi,<br /> I shoot Velvia mostly with Hasselblad, scan on V700, PS without excess and print with a Canon 9500 on Hahnemulle Bamboo paper or Ilford Gold Fiber Silk, no bigger than 25/25 cm. You have to walk to the square frame and watch from closer.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Many of the questions you ask are issues of prefernce rather than absolute quality. </p>

<p>Personally</p>

<p>I use a mix of Velvia 50/Velvia 100 and Provia 100</p>

<p>All my colour prints are made from scans and have been for maybe seven or eight years now</p>

<p>I have had many slides expensively drum scanned and have owned a Nikon 9000 and have a Epson V700 with a good 3rd party holder and Anti-Newton Glass. My current scanning strategy is to use the V700 for viewing on screen and the web, and to get Imacon (Hasselblad) scans made externally for those images I want to print. In my view the Imacon scanners are better than the Nikon and notably better than the Epson and I'd expect that difference to be visible at 20" x 16". The difference between the Coolscan and the Imacon might be pretty hard to see at that size. I pay the equivalent of $10 for a 16 bit Imacon scan big enough for 20" x 16", manually cleaned in PS to avoid using "Ice" or similar, and then produce the print file myself.</p>

<p>For printing the arguments in favour of "real" photo prints from a LightJet or inkjets go either way and truth to tell you can get great prints either way. My own preference runs to LightJet/Chromira prints made on real photographic paper, particularly Fuji Supergloss. But I guess the real issue here is that pretty much everyone who makes prints like this gets them made by a lab, whereas inkjets can be made at home if you want. The issue often talked about here is "control". Personally I feel that I can get others to scan and print provided I control the original and the file, and I'm quite relieved by the lack of need to own and learn about expensive scanners and printers. </p>

[david_marshall2]

<p><b>Hi Jim. </b><br>

<b>I use Velvia 50 almost exclusively, in a Fuji GX617. I get the film processed by a lab here in the UK and scan the ones that are good enough (I'm not letting on what that percentage is!) using an Epson 4870 flatbed. It comes with frames to take 35mm, MF up to 6x12 and LF 4x5, but I got a frame for 6x17 from Doug Fisher in the US which works well with an ANR glass over the film. He recommends taping the film to the glass to prevent any curl, but I have to admit I don't bother, and even with such a long piece of film it isn't a problem.</b><br>

<b>I set the image to 48-bit colour and res to 300dpi and the target size to what I'm likely to print - typically 27cm x 82cm. Of the adjustable options I only use dust removal at medium setting. I've tried without but light areas such as skies attract dust like iron filings to a magnet.</b><br>

<b>Photoshop adjustments are usually restricted to a tweek of levels and smart sharpening.</b><br>

<b>My current printer is an Epson R1900 and it gives excellent results, although (of course!) it's heavy on ink. I'm considering whether to risk buying a CIS to save on ink costs. Prints for sale and display have been done on Epson 3290mm wide roll paper, although I'm currently using Crane Museo 13" x 40" flat sheets.</b><br>

<b>My monitor is calibrated with a Monaco x-rite system and, although I have used this to produce ICC printer profiles, I've found that using the printer to use its own settings gives remarkably good results.</b><br>

<b>My prints are fab at these sizes with loads of detail, even from such humble hardware.</b><br>

<b>Cheers!</b></p>

[mark liddell]

<p>I send out my scanning to be done on an imacon. The cost of nikon 8/9000 scanners is horrendous and the results are not as good while drum scans are silly money.</p>

<p>I then do all the work in photoshop. The key to getting the best results is proper sharpening workflow on the digital file, this is absolutely critical (3 stage process). Photokit sharpener is the best and most intuitive for me. Screen must be properly calibrated also or you are working blind.</p>

<p>I then print with my HP 9180 on Harman Gloss FB AL at 300dpi using a custom profile. For prints bigger than 19x13" I send out the printing to be done on a durst lambda (and change my output sharpening accordingly)</p>

<p>Velvia is far from the best film for scanning imo, it is extremely contrasty and scanners can have a hard time with it. I use provia which has more latitude, finer grain and easier for the scanner to get all the detail out of. If you want the vevia 'look' (I don't) you can then just saturate it in PS especially in the reds.</p>

[jimpete]

<p>Thanks a lot for all the great answers. I really appreciate it! Now I have some direction. Cheers. Jim</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Ji a lot of you decision depends on the relative pricing of scanning and buying a scanner. My Nikon 9000 cost US $2000 when I bought it (approx $ 2100 CDN at the time). In Calgary - the nearest place where I can get a scan I end up paying CDN $ 40 - 60 for a single image. With economics like this buying a scanner is an obvious move. If you can get $10 imacon scans or live in UK where I understand the Nikon 9000 costs (pounds) 2300 then the economics may be different.</p>

[bruce_danz]

<p>Can anyone here speak to the option of using a wet scan film holder such as available through Aztec for use with the Nikon 9000 scanner? Cost is $650 (!), so any appreciable advantage over the Nikon glass holder at 250 (!)? I generally enlarge 6x7 to 16x20. </p>

[peter_roberts4]

<p>Very simple. No scan, no computer, no printer. I sent Velvia slides to have it print on Ilforchrome paper. I have my 8x10 slides contact printed and 4x5 slides to bigger size by a lab in UK.</p>