bruce watson

I know I'm considered a heretic in some circles. I don't blindly submit to the "wisdom" of commercial houses like West Coast Imaging. I respect them for what they can do, which is run a profitable business doing print-for-pay which is, from what I can tell, quite a difficult proposition. But I think they twist facts to make life easier for themselves at the expense of some image quality, and this I don't approve of.

 

It shouldn't be a surprise then that I disagree with WCI on some things. They posit that the Tango scanner is the be-all and end-all of drum scanning. They also posit that chromes are the best source for digital printing. Both of these ideas are questionable, I think.

 

First, the major factor in determining the sharpness of a drum scanner is its minimum aperture. The Tango's minimum aperture, IIRC, is 11 microns. This, IMHO, is inadequate to get the most detail from most films. Many other drum scanners, from the Howteks and Optronics to the ICGs, are capable of 6 micron apertures. The Aztek Premier and ICG 380 are good for 3 microns, IIRC. Since film grain sizes range down into the 4, 5, and 6 micron range, you need an aperture of at least 6 microns to get close to film grain size, which you need to do if you want to capture all you can from the film (think enlargements of 8x and higher).

 

Of course, getting the most from a film was never the Tango's mission. The Tango was aimed squarely at the advertising and pre-press markets. They have two basic sizes of output - magazine size, and billboards. Neither of these put much of a premium on sharpness. For input, the Tango and Linocolor software are heavily optimized for chromes, since that's all an art director would use (why do the color reversal and mask removal in your head when chromes offer WYSIWYG on the light table?). There's nothing wrong with this, BTW. I'm just pointing out that the Tango wasn't aimed at the fine art market.

 

Speaking of WYSIWYG, this seems to be important to WCI also (and most other scan-for-pay houses as well). They talk about matching the scan to the chrome. There's two problems with this. First, when they are trying to do the match during scan setup, the chrome is unavailable to them to reference because it is spinning on the drum. Second, unless you shot the chrome in the studio with carefully controlled lighting, you probably exposed the chrome outside its optimum parameters (specifically, color temperature). Most daylight isn't 6500K, for example, especially at dawn and dusk. Some color correction is inevitable and desirable, even for chromes. The same for negatives.

 

I really don't understand their stance that a negative's wider exposure lattitude is a problem. There are a couple of reasons to get flat scans from a negative. First and foremost, is operator error. If you don't set your black and white points properly, it's not the negative's fault.

 

I suspect the real reason is that they are running a profiled scanner. The only tools I know of on the market today to profile a scanner work for chromes, not negatives. If you scan a negative on a profiled scanner it will almost certainly result in a "flat" scan, because the white point will be set for a chrome which will be much more dense than a negative. This isn't the fault of the negative - it's a management decision about scanner and post-processing productivity.

 

What I'm saying is, I take issue with companies like WCI who assert that because they personally work better with chromes, that chromes are better for everybody. The fact that chromes are better for WCI doesn't mean that chromes are better for you. The fact that WCI has problems with negatives doesn't mean that other commercial houses offering scanning services have these same problems with negatives.

 

I own my own drum scanner and do my own drum scanning. I've scanned a fair number of 4x5 160PortraVC negatives. IMHO, negatives are not the problem. If you shoot scenes with a subject brightness range (SBR) of greater than about 6 stops, negatives are the solution.

 

Of course, you should use the tools that work for you, so clearly YMMV.

Brian,

 

I don't have a recommendation for a high ISO negative film. I don't really do that much color work. When I do, I use 160PortaVC. I do this because I can get it in readyloads, which keeps me from dedicating film holders to color films. That, and the 160Portra is more than adequate for my needs.

For context, I own a drum scanner and do my own drum scanning.

 

You can get excellent results from either chromes or negatives. Most drum scanner software will have the presets setup for chromes, but no decent operator pays any attention to the presets. Most drum scanner software automatically detects and subtracts the orange mask, and inverts negatives so that they are positives on the monitor. From my perspective as a drum scanner operator, there is not that much difference between working on a chrome and working on a negative.

 

The gamut question is a bit of a nonsequitur. Both negatives and chromes are capable of having considerably higher gamut than most print making systems are capable of reproducing. Depending on how you post-process (scan, image editor, and print) the film, you can get stunning prints from either source.

 

From my perspective as a photographer shooting 4x5 film, chromes have a huge disadvantage compared to negatives. That is, as you described, the restricted dynamic range. Chromes can record in the neighborhood of 4.5-6 stops of subject brightness range (SBR) while negatives can record 10+ stops of SBR. When you push chromes for more, you loose either highlight or shadow detail depending on how you meter/expose. When you push negatives for more, you get just more density in the highlights.

 

The only disadvantage I see for negatives compared to chromes is that graininess increases with density. Chromes are grainiest in the shadow areas where it is less easy to see. Negatives have their greatest graininess in highlight areas like sky and clouds where it is easier to see. This, IMHO, is a very small price to pay for the vastly increased dynamic range of a negative.

 

Of course, YMMV.

I've got to say it. I think the "conventional wisdom" is wrong. I think you should consider negative films. Why?

 

1) Better fit for the landscapes you are going to see. In particular, high subject brightness range (SBR) images are hell on chromes, and high SBR is what the southwest excels at. Negative film can give you the exposure lattitude so you'll actually have shadow and highlight detail - 10+ stops as opposed to the 4.5-6 stops you can get from a chrome.

 

2) You are going to be scanning. Negative films scan easier, IMHO. The main reason is, chromes are very dense. This can be a serious challenge to a CCD scanner. Modern scanner software doesn't have a problem cancelling the orange mask in my experience. And, even though scanning chromes is more WYSIWYG, even chromes have to be color corrected because one seldom shoots in lighting conditions that are optimium for the film.

 

If you are going to color correct anyway, might as well get the extended exposure lattitude from the negatives too.

 

3) Negative films do better at higher ISOs IMHO, and I find faster films easier to work with in LF due to the small stops used. Unless you just happen to like really long exposures of course.

 

My recommendation therefore is a mid to high ISO negative film. Clearly, YMMV.

http://largeformatphotography.info/

 

The first section is titles "How to get started in large format photography" which should tell you much of what you want to know. For instance:

 

http://largeformatphotography.info/loading.html

What Jeffrey said.

 

I'm using Cone's Piezotones, the StudioPrint RIP, and an Epson 7600 to print my 4x5 Tri-X. This was the market leading setup about 15 months ago when I took the plunge.

 

Since that time, ImagePrint RIP has gotten better and can do a creditable job printing B&W with UltraChrome inks (IMHO, it still has a hard time with a dead neutral, but does quite well if you'll let it go to the warm side). Quad Tone RIP has made it to prime time and can also print with UltraChromes, and I'm told it does an excellent job with the MIS variable tone inksets. MIS has introduced another nice set of inks - the UT-7 variable tone inks (black with three cool and three warm "toners") is a viable alternative to the Cone inks now, again IMHO.

 

But pigment inks have the problems of pigment inks. First, you have pigments suspended in a carrier. The will clog the printer and they will settle if you dont' print on a regular basis. Second, the pigments sit on top of the paper - matte paper is still the best paper to use, and Dmax if not wonderful on matte papers. Yes, some inks will work on glossy surfaces (sort of) but you still end up with gloss differential and fragile surfaces that have to be sprayed with a lacquer or other "fixative" to "cure."

 

I'm one of the heretics on this forum that want's a return to sanity and dye inks. What you may loose is some level (not much, from some preliminary tests I've seen) of longevity. What you gain is everything else. That includes good performance on a wide range of surfaces (look at Lyson's darkroom range gloss for example), much improved surface characteristics (resistance to scratching and scuffing), much less clogging, much better Dmax,... I'm hoping that 2005 is the year for B&W dyes (I'm not much impressed with Lyson's B&W dye inks yet).

 

However, you've got to buy what's on the market when you need it. Today, I'd seriously look at QTR, and either the Cone or MIS inks, and the Epson 4000 (17"wide) or a refurb 7600 (24" wide).

 

Of course, YMMV.

Loyalty is a two way street. If after I've supported them, they decide to stop supporting me, surely you don't expect me to stick with them.

 

Even a dog learns to keep its distance from the guy who kicks it.

Consider developing in XTOL 1:3. I found better sharpness than HC110 (either dilution B or H), and also finer grain (well, at 10x enlargement it's not much finer, but it's a little more pleasing in shape). The tonality is really nice. I did the standard zone system test and came up with an EI of 400 for XTOL 1:3, and 250 for HC110-H.

 

I suggest this because I suspect that you'll like the results with XTOL better than you do with Diafine.

 

Else, consider FP4+ for a film. It's definitely got your smaller grain, is capable of great sharpness, and many here sing praises to its tonality.

Did you ask InkJetMall whether or not it would work? If not, call and ask. Other than the cost of the phone call, what have you got to loose?

 

If InkJetMall can't help you, you could always use something like Quad Tone Rip (QTR):

 

http://harrington.com/QuadToneRIP.html

 

It allows you to put inks in whatever channel you want, and can linearize, which is all you need with PiezoTones. You don't really need a profile.

 

I say that because I'm using the StudioPrint RIP, another viable alternative, but more expensive (I bought it before QTR was ready for prime time). With StudioPrint, all you do is linearize the printer. This consists of printing out a test pattern of blocks of various density (pattern is built in to StudioPrint), reading the densities with a densitometer or spectrophotometer, and building a table for the RIP to use to give you linear response from black to white.

 

You do this for every paper and inkset you use, creating a "print environment" for each paper/ink combination. When you print, you select the print environment from a pull down menu and off you go.

 

QTR isn't going to be exactly like that, but the principle is the same.

 

BTW, I also am using a non-standard set of ink positions. I started filling my own carts and was printing with an Epson 7600 several months before InkJetMall was selling filled carts. They wouldn't tell me what their ink positions would be in advance, and I guessed wrong. Oh well, with StudioPrint it's not an issue anyway.

What Bob said.

You downloaded the latest driver, yes. But did you download the latest "EasyPrint" software? If not, try that, because it sounds as if your Mac isn't talking to the printer properly.

What size files are you looking at? A lot depends on that. If you are using files in the 40MB range, you don't need a lot of CPU, and you can get by easily with 250MB of memory.

 

As file size goes up, you need to increase memory. But also, you need to increase CPU. This is much more true of CS than v7.0 because of all the crap Adobe put into photoshop to keep you from counterfeiting. As if.

 

My photoshop PC is a couple of years old now, but has a 1GHz P-III, 3GB memory, and a couple of spindles of ATA-something disk drives. My "normal" files are 550MB 16 bit grayscales, and 1.5GB 16 bit RGBs. Don't ask why, just accept it, otherwise it distracts from the discussion.

 

The grayscales were not so bad under photoshop v7, but killer slow under CS. The RGBs were slow under v7, but "go get some coffee and drink it before coming back" slow under CS. I'm talking about just the time it takes to write the file to disk (TIFF file).

 

When I've worked on some smaller files (128MB 16 bit RGB files) it's nice and zippy.

 

So... it all depends on how big a file you plan to work on.

 

My next machine will probably be a dual processor G5, but I'm tying to hold out for 64 bit OSs (15+ years since OpenVMS went 64 bits - but microsoft's virtual monopoly on desktop OSs isn't bad - the US government wouldn't lie to us, would it?) and 64 bit photoshop. Sigh....

What you are experiencing is perfectly normal. And it's true for just about any scene, with humans or not. LM and LC are the big work horses in a CcMmYK, or CcMmYKk printer. You'd likely be surprised how dark the LC and LM inks can print, especially with a term like "light" attached, but in fact they cover the majority of the lightness range.

InkJetMall offers a profiling service for you:

 

http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/bw2/iquads.html

You can do your own comparisons. You can probably find someone to scan your film for you. Try your local photo lab as many have film scanning capabilities. You can, of course, have your film drum scanned also. Drag the files up in an image editor side-by-side and have a look.

 

The Epson flat beds are actually rather good. Quite good for what they are, and what they cost. If you aren't planning on printing beyond about a 4x or 5x enlargement, you may well find that the improvements you get from other scanners aren't worth it to you. As enlargement goes up, you'll be able to see improvements from dedicated film scanners and drum scanners. How much it's worth is something you have to decide, because YMMV.

Troy,

 

I see you are running XP sp2. My condolences. That could well be your problem here. You should be able to uninstall sp2. You might want to give that a try and see if you get a return to stability.

Troy,

 

I also drum scan 4x5. I end up with 550MB files (16 bit grayscale) or 1.5GB files (16 bit RGB) normally. I'm using a 1GHZ P3, 3GB memory running win2k fully patched. The scans come off the scanner as TIFF files, and Photoshop 6, 7, and CS can all read them, work with them, and store them that way. PictureWindowPro also works with them.

 

I'm not saying that this is fast, because it's really quite slow, especially CS. Photoshop 7 is much faster, but I use CS mostly because of the 16 bit features.

 

I worry about JPEG files because of the lossy nature of the older JPEG algorithms. Rumor has it that JPEG2000 doesn't loose data, or can be setup to not loose any data. OTOH I don't have any doubt about TIFF format files, so that's what I continue to use. Of course, YMMV.

<i>Is the 8 bit per channel standard a legacy from days when computer resources were expensive, or was it an arbitrary ("that's good enough for us") decision?</i>

<p>

Neither. It has nothing at all to do with visual perception. It only has to do with digital electronics. It turns out that it's easy to package data, move it around, operate on it, in units of 8, which results in hexidecimal arithmetic, which is extrememly easy for computers to use (humans too, with some practice ;-). These choices were made long before anyone ever thought of digitizing images.

<p>

The 8 bit byte became the defacto standard "smallest" useful data size on computers. Often quantities smaller than 8 bits, such as simple 0 or 1 (on or off, etc.) have the entire byte dedicated to them.

<p>

Once you have 8 bit bytes, the natural progression is to put two or more together in 2, 4, 8 or more byte "words." The more you can transfer together, the faster your data transfer is.

<p>

When it came time to digitize images, this is the system that was available to do the work. It was natural to digitize into three channels (R, G, and B) of one byte each. Taken together, this gives us 24 bit color. This is often seen as "good enough" quality. The next step up is to use 2 bytes for each channel, giving 48 bit color, which is pretty "high fidelity" to "real life."

<p>

While 48 bit color might be overkill for what the eyes can see, it's not over kill for what computers can do. If you use a photo editor like Photoshop to do much manipulation of the image, such as color corrections for those images shot at dusk, the "extra" information in 48 bit color provides headroom for making those manipulations. This results in prints without posterization, which is a good thing.

<p>

As to JPEG, this standard come into being early on, when memory was scarce and disk storage expensive. It is, IMHO, no longer needed, but it <b>is</b> a standard, and is being kept alive solely by inertia. As long as it is "good enough" as you put it, it will probably continue on.

http://www.loc.gov/preserv/care/mat.html

 

http://www.superiorarchivalmats.com/sam/index.html

 

http://www.lightimpressionsdirect.com/servlet/OnlineShopping

<i>I want to scan medium format...cheap</i>

<p>

Everybody wants something...

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div895/carefordisc/CDandDVDCareandHandlingGuide.pdf

 

Handling is one of the big factors in the life of a CDROM. They are fragile beasties, make no mistake.

 

I've had a couple of failures of CDROMs too, even when following the NIST guidelines. I switched to DVD about a year ago, and have had no failures yet. I think DVDs are more robust due to the way they are built. Time will tell...

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div895/carefordisc/CDandDVDCareandHandlingGuide.pdf

Well, it's not point-'n-shoot simple. There are a handful of learning curves you'll have to climb:

 

1) Learning how to get a good scan from your scanner. Using the default settings is almost never a good idea.

 

2) Learning how to color balance, and use levels and curves in Photoshop. It's both more intuitive, and less intuitive than you'd think, depending on what you need to get done.

 

3) Color theory. Learning how to get and use printer profiles, how to soft proof, and how to profile your monoitor. If you want WYSIWYG editing, you have to do this. Else, you are stuck making lots of iterations, which quickly get's costly (paper and ink are not cheap).

 

Start searching the archives and reading. You'll find recommended websites and books. Getting good prints predictably requires you acquire the skills, but tens of thousands of people have already done it, all you have to do is follow their lead.

I've been printing 24" x 36" prints on an Epson 7600 for a guy who shoots 6x9 Tri-X. Prints are sharp, grainless, and have a beautiful range of tones even though his scanner isn't the best.

 

What I'm saying is, at the size you are considering, anything from Tri-X on down (400 speed films and slower) should be fine. A 24" print from a 6x6 negative isn't that much of an enlargement. Larger than that, and Tri-X will likely start showing grain however.

 

Like most things, YMMV.

When I think negatives, I think B&W, which do have a bit o' silver. Sorry 'bout that...