ryanthompson

July 24, 2009

I've certainly been let down by many vendor experiences. Unfortunately they do happen when companies manufacture on such a large scale and I'm sorry it happened to Wolf with Hahnemuhle. Regardless, the conspiracy theory over a "quickly generated answer" isn't relevant.

I haven't printed on either German Etching or the regular Photo Rag, yet was impressed by an exhibition of large prints from George Hurrell's negatives on German Etching. I would have preferred seeing them on Harman Gloss FB Warmtone but they were still great. You just have to be into a heavily textured look to print that stock.

I'm a huge fan of Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl, but only for color prints. Of all the many quality papers I've tried; this stock is my favorite balance between dmax, tonal range, sharpness and texture. It's also the only non-matte stock I know of in it's class that has absolutely no OBA's, which may be a huge benefit in terms of permanence. Contrarily, the stock is not even in my top three for black and white.

After spending a ton of money evaluating papers, consider my following advice...

Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl is incredible for color prints. It's a challenging paper to print due to it's texture and thickness but you'll be well rewarded once you get the hang of it. If you're an archival purist who'll only work with non-oba stocks then this may be the only non-matte choice in it's class. The only drawback I've noticed about this paper is cyans will subtly reflect magenta at obtuse angles in strong light - typically of wavelengths close to sunlight.

Harman Gloss FB Warmtone is the quintessential stock for any admirer of gallery grade, black and white, silver gelatin prints. If this is the standard you judge by, don't waste money on other papers. This is also an easy stock to print however the surface scratches very easily.

Harman Gloss FB is my second favorite glossy stock for color. It's beautifully sharp, has great range, prints easy and faithfully reproduces color if your setup is proper. This stock reminds me of traditional C-Prints, although I'd imagine it has far better permanence than them. Again, Harman Gloss has a delicate surface so beware of scratches.

Ilford Gold Fiber Silk is my second favorite black and white stock. It's sharp, warm and has a nice, subtle texture. If you need quality stock for black and white that's not glossy, it's a champ. I've also noticed this paper has a very durable surface.

Harman Matte FB in either regular or warmtone is my favorite matte stock. I've never seen a sharper, cleaner, smoother, wider gamut matte paper. The only drawback is it might have a slightly lower dmax than other matte stocks however this paper exceeds what I've seen from competitive offers in other categories.

Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Bright White is an unusual exception for matte papers that excels in one niche; very high contrast, black and white compositions. You'll love it for this yet may be disappointed printing anything else to it. Wait until you see how deep the blacks go on this stock!

The bad news Chris, is one stock won't print everything you throw at it well - so printing a diverse portfolio to your most critical aesthetic standards will be anything but cheap. If the material you want to print primarily falls into any of the types I mention above, my advice may impress you at a savings.

Lastly, no paper will make you proud without a good printer, solid technical understanding of it and calibrated workflow.

December 2, 2008

I've been using the LS-9000 to scan 120 & 220 neg and chrome shot on a 'Blad 503cm and Mamiya RZ PROII for hi-rez image editing

and printing over the last two years; and use the optional, non-rotating glass holder to do so. My scans are always made at the highest

sampling level with no special grain / dust / etc. removal features turned on. My average print size is 17" x 22". I work in advertising as

a technical visual consultant and am very critical of image integrity.

I love the scan quality, have never had "Newtonian Rings" or other blemishes and am of the opinion this unit is the best deal in town for

those who wish to professionally print / archive medium format from a digital master. The Epson V750 isn't as high-end and the

cheapest Hasselblad medium-format scanner costs $11,000 more. The Hasselblad has about twice the optical dpi of the LS-9000

which is nice, but not at that price difference. If you're ok with print sizes of 17" x 22" or a tiny bit larger then you'll have no complaints

about the LS-9000's 4000 dpi. Using T-Max 100 & 400, I can't even see grain at this print size. I do begin to notice a slight decrease in

sharpness over this print size when working from a 6x7 neg / chrome though. If you need to go larger then you may just have to fork out

more cash for a higher dpi scanner.

I bought my LS-9000 brand new in the U.S. with factory warranty and glass holder for $1,800 two years ago. The cheapest units I see

with no glass holder today are going for $200 more. This either means the rumor of discontinuing the unit is true, Nikon realizes it's too

good a deal or both.

My photo.net portfolio is quite outdated. I'll have to upload some new stuff soon that was scanned on the LS-9000.

The Nikon scanning utility that ships with the scanner is utter crap. It's nearly impossible to get a clean, wide-latitude scan from it. Pay

the $75 for Ed Hamrick's Vuescan app. Works like a charm and is simple to operate. Many say it's better than Silverfast, which is the

alternative option for another $400 or so. Do not use Digital ICE or any of the in-scan dust removal / sharpening tools or other filters. It

may save you an hour or two of cleanup however it will be at the expense of image quality - no matter what anyone tells you otherwise.

Also, always use the highest sampling level. The scans will take long however you'll get incredible results. I don't think there's any

point in not getting the 120 / 220 glass holder since it's highly improbably you'll have a completely flat source to scan.

http://www.scancafe.com/ supposedly uses the LS-9000 for medium-format work. If they can guarantee you high-sample .tiff scans

using the glass holder, this would be a damn cheap test to see if the unit is what you're looking for.

Lastly, a great scan is worthless amidst poor image-editing or printing technique. Most of us can find resources to improve our image

editing skills but one of the less obvious imperatives is to print at your printers native output resolution. If your printer's native output

resolution is 360 dpi but your master print file is 1000 dpi - your print quality will suffer a low-grade resize operation that can significantly

cut down the quality available to you.

Good luck!!!

December 2, 2008