Digital Solution on a Budget

[s._d._baldwin]

I am looking more for strategic input rather than a specific,

detailed recommendation about equipment. So, all you pros and techno

gurus please try to think like a layperson for just a moment. You'll

lose me if you don't. Thanks. . .

 

I am working with a $3-4000 budget and am considering a slow, but

certain migration to digital for weddings and portraiture. You could

say I'm still in "start-up" mode and am growing my business fairly

well so far. I have embraced the digital revolution in all other

areas of my life (phone, television, at-home movies, music, etc.)and

want to start exploring the possibilities of digital photography.

Assmuming I have all the necessary equipment/software to supplement

the items mentioned below, which strategy would best suit my gradual

move to digital:

 

1. MF film scanner, or

2. Digital SLR e.g. Canon EOS D30 (I own several EF lenses)

 

I don't plan to rely on what I create with this new medium to feed my

family or anything, I just want to get started. So, if you were in

my position (given what you know which is probably more than me)

would you invest in a machine to scan negs to produce digital files

or would you invenst in a camera that produced digital files,

bypassing the scanner altogether?

 

I know I have over-simplified this, but my expereience is limited.

Thanks in advance for your help.

[graham_middleton]

Photograph traditionally onto slide film (not negative which doesn't scan so well).

Get the best quality you can from the original photograph.

Get some of your best work scanned professionally and/or ask a friend with a cheap scanner and see what you can do on the computer. If you intend to manipulate, you may not be very good at it, not everyone has the patience.

Will you print the results out? Inkjet is cheap but not really photographic quality. Anything better is rather expensive.

Digital cameras are still only cameras, a bad picture is a bad picture, bad exposure is bad exposure. It will not help you take a better picture and will cost you much more for a reasonable one. It will be out of date much sooner than a traditional camera and the quality will not be as good (unless you spend a large amount of money).

With digital you only get one chance, with traditional you can bracket and scan to improve the overall balance. Dip your toe in. Test the water. Do not buy computer hardware that may limit you. Experiment first.

Sermon over. Good luck.

NB I know it is nice to get all the latest kit but don't forget all the out of date stuff that cost the earth and now adds to landfill sites.

[colm boran]

Shoot slide film because negative film doesn't scan well? I've had just the opposite experience. I have a pretty cheap scanner and the shadow areas on slide film are littered with digital noise. I've had very good results scanning negative film.

[graham_middleton]

I have a desktop drum scanner (dts 1015ai) which scans transparencies beautifully. With negatives however, I don't have any software specifically for negatives and have to scan as per trannies and use photoshop to reverse. Not good. Maybe cheaper scanners have better software that improve the situation. I still like to be able to compare the scan to an transparency on a little light box, so I can tweak the colours.

[struan_gray]

By the print quality standards of conventional MF photography your

budget will only get you a scanner good enough for proofing. I would

follow neither of your suggestions. Instead I would put most of the

money into a computer and software that can handle up to 100 Mb image

files and spend the rest at a lab which offers the right sort of

hybrid film/digital service.

 

As an example: one of the labs in Stockholm now has a service where

they scan all the frames of your film at processing time and place

them on your private filespace on their server. The scanning is high

quality and printing is by direct to photopaper printers like the

Durst Lambda. You can order reprint packages online which are mailed

direct to the customers, or you can make up a digital proof book and

allow the customers to place online orders themselves, with the lab

passing the fee onto your account.

 

Their service is geared to commercial work like exhibition stands and

press-release imagery (hence the Lambda), but a similar service set up

for weddings would let you handle your current reprint orders more

efficiently and simply, and allow you to do new things like make up

digital proof albums on CD for those that want them. Best of all,

it's financed on a job-by-job basis so you don't get stuck with

hardware investments which are obsolete long before they're written

off in your accounts.

[scott_eaton]

I worked in a dedicated portrait labs for years handling all formats of film as well as being a very fussy MF photographer myself. I also have exprience getting out-put on all the devices listed above.

 

Sure, let's all go out and buy Howtek or Tango drum scanners, put an additional mortgage on the house, then cut and oil mount a 150 frame wedding. While I agree that drum scanners are "the bomb" when it comes to handling chromes, negs still rule when it comes to closed look systems like the Fuji Frontier and many home scanners.

 

I just recently switched to a digital Fuji Frontier for all my proofing and enlargements up to 8x10, and the improvements over conventional analog printing are drastic. Cleaner, brighter midtones, better sharpness and better saturation from portrait films are obvious with the new digital systems.

 

{{I still like to be able to compare the scan to an transparency on a little light box, so I can tweak the colours. }}

 

If you have to tweak each scan, what's wrong with your scanner? And do you plan on doing this with an entire wedding???

 

{{The scanning is high quality and printing is by direct to photopaper printers like the Durst Lambda.}}

 

I've done quite a bit of work off the Durst Lambda, and this device is incapable of making an 8x10 than can keep up with an analog print from 120 film. The Lambda is a *large* format printer not designed to compete with proofing systems like the Frontier or simple analog machine printing. It's also expensive. I doubt if you could touch a Lambda (or slightly better LightJet) 8x10 for less than $25 while I can get a just as good 8x10 machine print for $5.00 or Frontier print for $10.00.

 

A minolta dimage dual scanner can handle MF films quite well, and an Epsaon 1270 inkjet can make exceptional images, but for other than occasional 8x10's it wouldn't seem worth the effort to me.

[john_hicks___]

I just came across a note in the British mag _Practical Photograpy_ about a new Agfa Multi scanner that's said to give reasonably high resolution and D-Max for probably around $2000US.

 

The article mentioned that it'll handle 35mm, MF to 6x9 and 4x5 (!?) negs or transparencies, plus prints.

 

Since I'm a Luddite, I don't recall any other details.

[struan_gray]

>>I've done quite a bit of work off the Durst Lambda, and this device

is incapable of making an 8x10 than can keep up with an analog print

from 120 film.<<

 

Like I said, they're concentrating on markets where the Lambda has an

edge. They know what they're doing, and it's not weddings. My point

was that a similar service aimed at wedding and portrait photographers

would offer far more immediate and tangible benefits than owning a

$3000 scanner. Benefiting from digital photography doesn't

necessarily mean buying equipment.

 

I don't know about the USA, but such services are cropping up all over

Europe. I mentioned that particular one, first because it actually

exists and is up and running, and second because it offers more than a

standard process, scan and print service.

[russ_arcuri]

A slight correction to something Scott Eaton said: <i>A minolta dimage dual scanner can handle MF films quite well...</i><p>

 

The Dual does not handle MF film at all. You're thinking of the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi. The Dual handles 35mm and APS only.<p>

 

Oh, and both of them handle negatives quite well. Just be sure you get the Multi if you want to handle MF films...