timlayton

December 9, 2010

Steve, that is good to know. I have been shooting Ilford Delta 100 with my 4x5 and scanning with the Epson V750 pro as well. My current printer only supports up to 13x19, hence the reason for pursuing a new printer that will do 16x20. I just sent off some b/w negatives for tango drum scanning to compare with my scans. Stay in touch... always love to hear from LF shooters.

Tim

December 9, 2010

Thanks everyone... I wasn't aware of Eric Chan's web site so I will go check that out. I do agree that sample packs will be key. I was hoping to narrow it down to two or three types because there are so many options and of course the variables are endless....

If you have any more suggestions please send them my way as I start this long road of matching paper to my style of work.

Thanks,

Tim

December 9, 2010

Sorry about the confusion. I had the 3880 in my cart at B&H when I sent my first question about which fine art paper is the best for the Epson printer. Then I stumbled onto the Canon iPF5100 and hence the reason for the second question. I should have just went back and deleted that first message to avoid the confusion--my bad!

I was making the assumption about the Epson fine art papers because I read reviews that people were complaining about being forced to use only Epson paper. They weren't unhappy with the prints, just didn't like that restriction. Therefore, I made that conclusion.

Now that it appears that good results are capable with non Epson paper on the 3880 does anyone have some specific suggestions for fine art paper that is best suited for b/w fine art prints?

The same question would hold true for the Canon 5100 too?

I am trying to avoid buying a bunch of different $100 packs of paper only to realize that a different paper is better suited for my purpose. If I could narrow it down to two or three and then I can make some prints on each and then settle in on one that works best for me.

I am open to any brand of paper as long as the ICC profile is available and known to work with the printer/paper combo.

I have some experience with a Canon 9500 Mark II and found that as long as I stuck with the Canon fine art papers I got really good results but limited to the max size of 13"x19". That was just my personal experience for this specific printer but I am open to any suggestions and papers.

With me being a large format photographer the 16x20 size is the perfect aspect ratio and that is the size of my portfolio prints. This is the main reason for getting a new printer. The price jump to get bigger prints is more than I am will to invest at this time.

When comparing the 3880 vs the 5100 the one of the obvious differences is the roll paper option for the 5100 although that is not a big deal to me personally because I plan to print 4x5, 8x10 and 16x20 exclusively and anything beyond the 16x20 I will send to the pro lab. I am most interested in people's experience and opinion about the quality of the b/w fine art prints and which paper was used.

Thanks for your help and input.

Tim

December 9, 2010

I am a large format photographer looking at the Epson 3880 and Canon IPF 5100 printers.

My goal is to print my own 16x20 b/w fine art prints with the highest amount of detail and tonal range possible.

Does anyone here have experience with either or both printers for b/w fine art prints?

If so, any input on papers used and specific comments would be very helpful.

It looks like with the Epson I could use their 17x22 fine art paper for my 16x20 prints, but with the Canon I would need to get roll paper because their biggest fine art sheets are 13x19. Do I have that right?

Thanks,

Tim

December 8, 2010

I just ordered an Epson 3880 with the intent of printing my large format black and white prints.

I was wondering if others here have any tips or suggestions on which of Epson's Fine Art paper is best suited for Black and White Fine Art prints? I've look at the cold press, hot press, canvas, premium canvas, velvet, etc and my eyes gloss over.

With the paper being so expensive I am hoping to leverage the knowledge and experience by others here. Any tips or feedback would be appreciated by those that have an Epson 3880 and that have done B/W fine art printing.

Thanks,

Tim

December 3, 2010

Mike, thanks for your response. I am in the process of just getting my fineartamerica.com site up. I figured I would give it a year to see how it goes. My experience is much like yours I think. About 95% of all my non-custom work is sold through my local relationships as opposed to the Internet. I am not sure this model even works very well, but this is an area of my business that clearly could grow. I thought I would find a few good sites that other pro photographers recommend and then give it all next year to see how things go.

If anyone else has any suggestions, do a reply so we can all learn about it.

Thanks,

Tim

December 2, 2010

I am hoping to tap the brain of the forum. I am looking for new ideas for web sites to market and sell my work.

Sites like fineartamerica.com or allposters.com, etc.

Ideas, suggestions, recommendations based on experience would all be good.

Thanks in advance.

Tim

November 14, 2010

Joesph, thank you for your detailed reply. You absolutely have an excellent point and I do agree with your suggestion about stacking. I wasn't thinking about it for some reason. I think my mind was set on the possibilities of the T/S. The info on the Mamiya site didn't help... But thanks to all of you I am clear now. I do use stacking with my RAW images from my Nikdon D3S and D3X at times. I've used Photoshop CS5 for stacking my DSLR images with excellent results. If I only need two images I have even stacked by hand, but otherwise I just let CS5 do the work for me. I will do some test shots in the studio tomorrow with the RZ and give it a whirl.

Thanks,

Tim

November 14, 2010

Dan, the short answer to your question is yes, however I am not sure how practical that application would be for more than a few images from time to time. To give you a little insight, I use that technique with my Nikon DSLR's and my T/S lens when I need a cosistent DOF across my subject. Typically this is something like three flowers or a similar subject. I setup in manual mode dialing in my exposure and aperture and for the first of three images and don't touch anything again. I shift left to cover the left 1/3rd of the image. Then shift to center overlapping about 1/3rd of the left image and then shift to the right overlapping about 1/3rd again. I do a photo merge in Photoshop CS5 and it works flawlessly. I've never tried this technique with a regular or macro lens probably because the T/S does such a fantastic job.

Tim

November 14, 2010

Kevin, thanks for your information. Based on the product info on the Mamiya web site I assumed I would get better DOF in my macro work. Here is what the production info says:

The Tilt/Shift adapter is designed for use with all Mamiya RZ lenses. Using a bellows mechanism and electronic connection, the adapter interfaces between the camera and lens, maintaining all electronic functions, and allowing control of perspective and depth of field using tilt and shift movements similar to a view camera.

Creative applications include increasing depth of field or decreasing depth of field, as seen in many fashion and product advertisements, where unusual focus effects are desired. Ideal for architectural photography for controlling perspective and depth of field. A perfect solution for product table top photography including digital.

Minimum and maximum focus distances will vary with focal length and degree of movement used, similar to distance restrictions when using the #1 extension tube. Accepts RZ Short Barrel lenses for infinity focus: 75mm f/4.5 Short Barrel and 180mm f/4.5 Short Barrel. Focusing at a maximum distance of 10 feet is possible with lenses from 180mm or longer. Adding 27.2mm of extension, plus the capability to adjust perspective and depth of field, the Adapter is ideal for product photography and close-up applications. If using non-short barrel lenses, we recommended using with lenses from 110mm to 350mm.

I lost the bid on e-bay for the T/S I was hoping to get but I am still on the hunt. Here are a couple of my macro shots from the RZ on my flickr stream. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/timlaytonsr/sets/72157625105798786/with/5085981616/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/timlaytonsr/sets/72157625105798786/with/5085981616/</a> As soon as I get the T/S I will post and let you know.

Thanks,

Tim

November 13, 2010

Joesph, thank you for your detailed reply. I am bidding on a T/S adapt. right now so I will have to see if I win the bid. If not, I will keep trying until I do... I think this will be very interesting and hopefully add a new option for my macro work.

Thanks

November 13, 2010

Based on Daniel Taylor's feedback I just went and did a simple test.

The first image was photographed with the RZ67 Pro II and 140mm Macro lens. It was scanned with the Epson V750 at 24bit, 2400dpi.

This second image I placed the transparency on my light table and used my Nikon D3S with the Nikkor 105mm Macro lens at f/32.

Tim

November 13, 2010

Stuart, you asked for more examples from the D3X and film. If you go to my Flickr stream I have a lot out there. The link is: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/timlaytonsr">http://www.flickr.com/photos/timlaytonsr</a>

I have separated the film from the rest, but if you look at the file names in the description it is easy to tell the difference between my D3S, D3X and 5D Mark II and 1D Mark IV files. I am getting ready to post a bunch more to the film set very soon because I finally got my scanning workflow where it needs to be. This is the whole reason I started this thread. I have been going through this journey of figuring out the limitations, benefits, etc with scanning my MF film and I think I am finally at a place where I have a good handle on it and can actually leverage it wtihin my digital workflow.

You asked for my personal conclusions so I will tell you what I think and keep in mind this is just my opinion based on my own circumstances and variables as well as my my own personal biases and possibly limitations.

I have been a photographer for about 25 years and from the mid 80's till about 2001 I shot MF exclusively. I own 6x45 and 6x7 systems, but almost always shoot 6x7 unless I want to just enjoy my 6x45 rig or know I won't need a big print. For my studio and macro work I use the RZ67 Pro II with a full line up of glass and for urban and some landscape I use the Mamiya 7 Rangefinder. On the digital side I switched over to Nikon a couple years ago and have the D3S and the D3X as well as some old 35mm bodies that still work great and definitely enjoy from time to time, but I just don't use them for professional work. I had owned a Canon 1D Mark IV and a 5D Mark II for a couple years and shot about 25,000 images with those systems.

Here are my personal observations in random order:

1.) Now that I know the technical limitations of the Epson V750 and have learned the Silverfast AI tool I can successfully produce extremely sharp and professional images for my customers from my MF transparencies (typically FujiChrome). I concur with others the limitation is about 2400dpi on the Epson V750 which produces a file that is about 6600 pixels by 5250. I've done several tests at 48-bit and 24-bit scans and I effectively can't see a difference in my prints. The largest print I've tested that with has been 24". So, I use the 24-bit and it almost cuts the file size in half to about 94Mb. Using the 300 dpi rule for prints you can easily get 22" prints and in many cases 240dpi is very acceptable and will easily produce 27"+ prints.

2.) If I need, or think I need, more detail, broader dynamic range and higher resolution I just take to my local pro lab for true 4000dpi scans which produce files well over 10,000 pixels on each side. That will produce 36" prints and larger with no problem. For me the end result is always the quality of the print and if my customer is happy. I've found that it really depends on the image if it really reveals or warrants a 4000dpi scan for the smaller prints or not. My pro lab is about 45 minutes away from me making this a 3 hour process each time I need high res scans so I really make sure I need these because it involved two trips and a lot of time. If I could find a new Nikon 9000ED that wasn't over list price I would probably just buy it and be done with it. My time is worth more to me than the time lost doing these trips. To be honest if I had realized the Nikon 9000 was compatible with Snow Leopard I would have just bought it out of the gate, but in an odd way by starting wit the V750 I have learned a lot of valuable lessons and workflow that will still apply to the Nikon. It turns out that the V750 is capable of producing very good quality in my opinion. By the way I did find out that by using the after market holders and ANR inserts the quality went up. I got them from betterscanning.com.

3.) I approach all of this from two perspectives: artistic and utilitarian. Many times a camera is simply a tool to me that helps me create what I have in my mind. Digital or film in some cases does not matter. When I do college sports or wildlife the optimum tool is the D3S with my 300 f/2.8 and set of the TC's. When I do my botanical fine art work in the studio it becomes a matter of preference at this point. For example, if you go look at my Flickr stream you will see a lot of my botanical work. The MF film just "looks" different than the digital images from the D3X and D3S. When I want that look that I can only get from film then I go with it. If I need a very clean and almost sterile look I go with digital. Since I have T/S lenses for my Nikon's I tend to use digital for architecture when needed and if I can use film I will. Almost all of my landscape work is film. I have even recently expanded into 4x5 for landscapes. In my studio and macro work I don't mind the slower pace of film and the added steps for the quality and product that I am able to produce. In fact, I find that it is setting me apart from others because of that different look and feel as opposed to digital.

As far as one being "better" than the other is not really how I think about it. I have a long history with film and absolutely love the slower pace, more thoughtful approach to photography, and is now becoming a different look from the norm (digital). I couldn't do my job without my DSLR equipment because I couldn't do my college sports or wildlife with my MF gear. When I am riffling off 9 fps with my D3S and have a wild animal squared up in my viewfinder my heart is pounding 100mph. When I produce a piece of custom fine art for my client via my MF systems I feel a sense of pride and happiness that is unparalleled. But the bottom line and what I think you might be looking for, is when I produce a 24" or 30" print or piece of fine art, the quality I get from my D3X or from my MF film systems are both stunning, but in different ways. I recently spent a day shooting a new Hasselblad H4D-40 and the new H4D-31. For my studio and Macro work it definitely produces "cleaner" files than my scanning methods via film, but for a $15k price of admission I find myself very happy with scanning my MF film. Also, because it is digital it has that different look that I talked about, which is not a bad thing at all, just not my personal preference if I have an option. I suspect my next purchase will be a Nikon 9000 so I can eliminate the trips to my pro lab. In the end there are no right or wrong answers, to me if you or your customer is happy then the camera or the workflow is just a process to create your product. I will say that I fully acknowledge the world and workplace is clearly gone digital and that is one reason why I continue to evolve my digital gear, but there is also an independent part of me from the creative side that continues to produce fine art using MF film because I don't have to play by those rules in this scenario.

Tim

November 13, 2010

Hi, I use my RZ67 Pro II all the time for macro and closeup work with the 140mm macro and extension tubes. I was wondering if anyone here has experience with this t/s adapter for macro work? I mainly photograph botanical subjects in and out of the studio and in "theory" I think the t/s adapter could give me more depth of field and allow me to change my film plane in interesting ways.

Thanks in advance for your help and if you have any photos to post, please do.

Tim

November 12, 2010

I have attached two files.

The red/orange flower is a lilly and was shot with my RZ67 Pro II using a 140mm macro lens at f/32 in natural light at 14 seconds. I scanned with the Epson V750 and used the following settings: 24bit, auto sharpen, image-type standard, mult-pass 4 times. The pixels are 6533 x 5260. The scan took 4 minutes and 21 seconds and the file size was 98 Mb. I did scan it at 48-bit and the file size was 196 Mb with almost no noticeable difference to my eye. The film was FujiChrome Provia 100. If this were real-world condition I would edit this image, but I wanted to upload as is.

The second flower is a gold calla lilly. It was taken with a Nikon D3X at ISO 100. The pixels are 6048 x 4032 which is the default for a full frame on the D3X. I used the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 macro lens at f/22 and 1/60. I used two studio soft boxes for lighting.

RZ67 Pro II Scanned with Epson V750

Nikon D3X

November 12, 2010

Stuart and Rob, very good info, thank you. I am learning a lot here.

I do have a question about pixels in regards to scanning from film vs. DSLR pixels. I've read more than once that the pixels from the scanned film is not equal to the DSLR pixels. Can someone provide some detail here to the differences?

Here is what I think I know:

I shoot 6x7 MF mostly. On a 6x7 film scan at 2400 dpi on the Epson V750 I get a file that is about 6600 pixels by 5250 and about 180Mb based on my scan parameters (multi-pass, etc). The exact number varies a little based on the capture size, but this is good enough for discussion purposes.

I personally use the 300 dpi rule, meaning that I divide the pixel count by 300 and that tells me the maximum size of the print I can get at that resolution. Using these numbers I could get a print that is about 22" x 17". I could lower the dpi to 250 and effectively get a larger print (26" x 21") and in many cases that is more than "good enough". I personally never try to go below 250, but I have read that some printers will interpolate the 8-bit sRGG file to either make the print bigger or lower the dpi value to achieve a larger print. I want to avoid both of those scenarios if I can at all costs.

If I multiply the 6600 x 5250 I get 34Mb approximately. Does this mean that by shooting film and scanning it it at 2400 dpi that I effectively have an image that is comparable to a 34 MP digital camera? I've been told that film pixels that are scanned are equal to about 1/3rd of DSLR pixels. I have no idea if that is true or the details behind this. Does anyone know?

The reason I am trying to understand this and get to the bottom of it is so I can make some decisions about my workflow and simply just work within the limitations of my equipment (film or digital). For example, if the above scenario of scanning my 6x7 film is close to the quality I can get from a 34 MP digital camera then I can live with the slower workflow and hassle factor in some cases vs. the huge expense of buying a 30+ MP digital camera. If it turns out that the 34Mb effective pixels are equivalent to 1/3rd of that value at 11 or 12 MP, then that is okay as long as I know and understand the details. There are times where I need to leverage the capabilities of my DSLR system or maybe I need the fast-paced results of digital, then I will use my Nikon D3S.

Thanks for your help and I am interested in finally understanding the details between scanned film pixels and DSLR pixels.

Tim

November 11, 2010

Bob Tourdot, I am curious about your setup for the Nikon 9000ED and your iMac running OSX 10.6.4. I am looking into a Nikon 9000 ED scanner but Nikon support told me they don't support 10.6.5 and there a tons of people here saying it doesn't work. Can you elaborate on your setup? Also, are you using a FW400 to FW800 adapter to your mac?

Also, I can't find a Nikon 9000ED scanner anywhere, except for some overpriced units from Amazon where dealers are charging $300 to $400 over list price. All the usual places (B & H, Adorama, etc) don't have any in stock. This seems odd to me and indicates to me they are either not producing them any more or if they are in very short supply which is indicated by the crazy prices. Either way this is a worry.

Long story short, I have an Epson V750 with the MF after market holders from betterscanning and I get good results for small and medium sized prints. I use Silverfast AI for my software. I run on a Mac Pro with the latest release of OSX, which is 10.6.5 as of today. Zero technical issues, just the limitations of the equipment. The scans I get from my local pro shop are at true 4000 dpi and they are significantly better (i.e., detail, tonal range, shadows, etc) at any size on my Epson. In particular 4000 dpi scans allows me to print very large prints (i.e., 30".).

I am using my Epson V750 for all my web output with very acceptable results. The only reason I am pursuing a scanner of the Nikon 9000 ED specs is because my pro lab is 45 minutes away from my office and I am wasting a huge amount of time which is very valuable to me. If I were much closer I would just use my Epson until I had a need for the 4000 dpi scans and just pay the $10 per negative.

If there are any other suggestions for new MF scanners comparable or better than the Nikon 9000 ED scanner please reply with a make and model. I suspect the industry is just not producing this equipment any longer, but I hope I am wrong. I love my MF film cameras and while I will probably be able to go to my local pro lab for scanning and printing for many years to come, it is just so prohibitive from a time perspective that it will really limit what I can do with film. Spending $10k to $15k on one of the new MF digital cameras is not much of an option for most of us.

Thanks,

Tim

November 11, 2010

Thanks everyone for all of the information. I have learned a lot from everyone here on this topic both technical and just common sense points so I thought I would give you an update from my end.

1.) I develop my own b/w so nothing changes here for me.

2.) When I have my color negatives or positives developed at my local pro lab I have them develop only.

3.) I view the negatives and positives on my light table and then select which ones I want to pursue for output. The rest go in the archive separated from the "keepers" For me, some of my output is for the web and the other is for various size prints. Depending on my output requirements I will take a different path.

4.) For web output I feel my Epson V750 is "good enough" and plan to just stick with it. I just got a third party film holder from betterscanning.com and my scans look better than the scans I was getting with the original Epson holders so this is very helpful to me. I am using the AI Silverfast software with my Epson.

The comment from Michael about the V750 peaking at 2400 dpi is something I would like to know more about. If anyone has some technical knowledge about this I would appreciate the help in understand the details. On my V750 at 2400 dpi I get a 16-bit TIFF file that has a pixel ratio of approx. 6600 x 5250 for my 6x7 film and the file is about 190 Mb. Assuming this is a desirable image I calculate that I could get a 22" x 17" print at 300 dpi. I just got back some 30" prints from this scenario that looked good to me and my client was thrilled.

5.) For print output I put these into two categories: prints that I do myself and those I send out to a pro lab. For the prints I do myself I use a Canon Pro 9500 Mark II for matte and a Canon Pro 9000 Mark II for glossy. I can print up to 13x19 on these printers if needed. My film workflow is simple (develop -> scan in -> Lightroom for catalog and some basic edits -> Photoshop and plugins for detailed edits -> output file for printing).

6.) For prints that I send out to my lab I could do anything from 5" x 7" to 30" x 45". I base my pixel calculations on a 300 dpi print scenario. When I run short of pixels for the really big prints I have used Genuine Fractals in a few select cases from onOne Software for my DSLR images as well as my scanned film images with very good success so far. I've only done this less than a dozen times over the last year.

7.) My local pro lab charges $10 for 120 MF 4000 dpi scans. A Nikon 9000 new runs about $2200 so it would only take a couple hundred scans to offset the cost. I am still on the fence about this option for purchase because of the state of scanners and the lack of OSX Snow Leopard support for the Nikon 9000.

Thanks again for everyone's help, input and comments. I look forward to any observations and suggestions that you might have.

Thanks,

Tim

November 7, 2010

Noah, thank you for your detailed reply. This is exactly the type of input I was hoping to get when I started this thread.

I am currently doing some 4000 dpi scans on the Epson V750 from my 6x7 slides and negatives from my RZ67 Pro II and Mamiya 7. The TIFF files are HUGE... around 700-800mb with the options I have selected. My plan is to soft proof a couple of these images and then send them to my printer/lab for printing. The printers max effective pixels on either side of the image is 10,000 so I have to keep that in mind when selecting scan resolutions. My plan is to make several different size prints starting a 8" and working my up to about 34" or so, so that I can see the differences with my own eyes. I am going to shoot the same subject with my Nikon D3S DSLR and see how the prints compare. For this type of work I am doing floral and botanical macro images in a controlled studio setting so it will be interesting to view the comparisons.

Thanks again for your input and feedback.

Tim

November 4, 2010

I am hoping some of you have some experience with scanning medium format slides on an Epson V750-M scanner as well as using a Lightbox and a macro lens on a DSLR.

I am trying to determine which method should produce the best quality results so I can make a final decision about how to proceed.

Equipment wise I have access to an Epson V750-M flatbed scanner as mentioned above and I have a new large lightbox and I can have access to a Nikon D3S DSLR with my pick of two different macro lenses (Nikkor 105mm f/2.8, Nikkor 60mm f/2.8).

Under ideal conditions which method will produce the best quality digital image to work with in Photoshop?

In theory I could argue it both ways, but I am hoping that someone has some real world experience and can share your thoughts.

If it turns out that the best results come from the lightbox and DSLR, if you could share any tips or techniques to ensure optimal results that would be good.

Your experience and help is appreciated.

Thanks,

Tim

November 3, 2010

Thanks everyone for commenting and sharing your thoughts and knowledge. I did want to mention that Gareth had a great point about needing to have the film or transparencies be flat when you scan them. His common sense solution is solid advice and I do use that method. One challenge that I have struggled with is the film holders that ship with the Epson V750-M scanner don't easily hold the film really flat in all cases. I suppose this is a design issue with the plastic holders. I found a third party after market MF and LF holders that are well made and absolutely makes the film lay flat. I will include the link below in case anyone is interested in researching for yourself. I will tell you up front the web site seems a little strange and not exactly modern, but I did not have any problems with the ordering process and the product is definitely a huge improvement over the Epson stock holders.

http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/vseries.html

Also, I would be interested in how you load your film on the flatbed scanner? The instructions with the Epson tell you to ensure the emulsion side of the film is up and for transparencies to lay them face down as if you were viewing them. I have read several other posts on various forums here and via google searches and since I don't have a lot of experience here, I would like to get some feedback from people that do it one way or the other and why? I've tried both ways and don't notice much of a difference, but I would like to use the method that yields the best results.

Thanks,

Tim

November 2, 2010

Barry, you had a great point about long term image preservation. I always make prints of my personal family images the moment I capture them as to not let them get lost in the digital shuffle. I like your point about the transparencies and the image data printed on the outer edge of the film and being able to view these 100 years from now via natural light. For film I shoot with the RZ67 Pro II in the studio mostly and the Pentax 645N in the field as well as a Mamiya 7 Rangefinder that I love and yes I still use my F100 Nikon since I have a full lineup of glass for my D3S and D3X digital cameras. For family and candid stuff I love my little F100. Putting the brand new 85mm f/1.4 lens on that camera produces fabulous portraits/candids of my family and while I don't use 35mm for anything professional, I suspect based on my results that I could get exceptional 8x10's with that camera and my top end glass. I recently shot some Adox CMS 50 b/w super fine grain film and loved the results.

I do have a question for you. I am not familiar with the Fuji GXxxx MF lineup. A quick search revealed several models ranging from 6x45 to 6x7, 6x8 and even 6x9. Since you own one any tips on models to consider or to stay away from? I am always inclined to go with the bigger negative so unless there is a reason, I would likely lean towards the 6x9 since I already have the RZ67 Pro II. I searched on KEH.com and they seem to have several to pick from. Anywhere else to look for a reliable used camera that you would suggest?

Thanks,

Tim

November 2, 2010

Edward and Marc thank you for your responses. I really was not trying to stir up a film vs digital debate. I am just going

through this journey and struggle at this point and time and I am sure many have come before me that I know nothing

about. Maybe I did not say it very well, but what I was trying to say was: I could invest $20k in a new H system (e.g.,

H4D-31 and a couple lenses) or I could potentially invest a similar amount if some scanning technology and continue to

use my film equipment to get similar results while leveraging this solution over a much longer period time lowering my total

cost of ownership over the same time horizon. What I didn't realize and learned from this thread was the abandonment of

the scanner technology by manufacturers. I also did not know that the film and digital pixels were not equal as Edward

pointed out. Marc had an excellent point about continuing to use the Epson as my "preview" and for my fine art large

prints send out for drum scans. I appreciate your willingness to share your knowledge and I come away from this with

some very good input and new knowledge. Thank you.

Tim

November 2, 2010

Thank you for all of your responses and suggestions so far. To give you a little more background in my thinking. I

pondered the differences between film and digital as it relates to the final product. I have found in my own tests that

unless I am shooting college sports and some wildlife I find myself going back to my medium and large format cameras for

a superior final product. My initial tests with the Epson V750M and the Silverfast AI software has given me good results. I

am looking for great results and it seems like the manufacturing world is pushing us another direction. For a lot of my

work I don't mind the much slower work pace and the added step of scanning to get the image into my digital workflow. I

am most concerned about the final product and controlling costs.

I could easily invest $20k or more on a number of medium format digital cameras that will be outdated in a year or two. I

was thinking that if I made the investment in the scanning technology instead of the next wiz bang digital camera I can

keep using my medium and large format film cameras year after year and by updating my digital workflow (i.e., scanner

software, Lightroom, Photoshop) . I think about the RZ67 Pro II that I bought new over a decade ago that still produces

stunning images within its intended target. I think about my Nikon D3S and how it will be outdated in the near future and

that is why I am going down this path of exploring these options.

Rodeo Joe mentioned using a light box and a macro lens on a DSLR. I've thought about that but wouldn't I be limited to

the capabilities of that DSLR and then I would lose effective pixels because of the aspect ratio differences that would force

me to crop? For example, If I used my Nikon D3S and one of my top end Zeiss Macro lenses I would end up with a

12MP image, where as if I scanned that same negative or slide I would end up with a 100MP or more image depending on

the scanning DPI. I just want to make sure I am not missing something before I don't pursue that option.

Thank you and I look forward to more thoughts and suggestions.

Tim

November 2, 2010

Hi, I need your help. With the ever-changing world of technology and gadgets, I wanted to check with everyone here about a new scanner or improved scanner software.

I currently scan my 6x45, 6x7 and 4x5 film and slides on an Epson V750-M scanner and I typically use Silverfast AI 6 as my software for scanning. I wanted to check with everyone here to see if there was anything newer on the market that supposedly produces higher quality results.

Is there a new scanner or new software that will produce better results for MF and LF films/transparencies than the Epson V750-M and Silverfast AI combo? I fully understand "better" is a highly subjective term.

Thanks for your time,

Tim

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by timlayton