Does the scanner matter for Fine Art printing?

ColSebastianMoran said:
Fernando, thanks again for posting the scan tests.
Click to expand...

You're welcome, Colonel.

Back to the topic, while (consumer/prosumer-level) flatbeds usually resolve much less than dedicated filmscanners, they do have an interesting quality: no aliasing, thus no "grain amplification".

Example (click for full-size):

2ec2jbo.jpg


So, for certain kind of works, where maybe microcontrast and resolving power are not that important (certain portraits, for example) and grain may be annoying, a flatbed is not bad at all, with its smooth rendition.
 
Last edited:
If you're looking for something less than a drumscanner, why not go for a Plustek 120? I find it odd that people would recommend a Nikon 8000 or 9000, which does not have warranty, when the Plustek actually is capable of 5000 dpi, which is more than the Nikons. It seems that the Plustek is been judged by the first batch of scanners which supposedly had focus problems. I had the opputinty to test my P120 next to a Nikon and my scanner did indeed resolve more than the Nikon. My only issue with the Plustek is that extremly curly negatives tend to be harder to deal with without AF, but the negatives have to be really curly before it's a problem.
 
What I've found is scanning at 4800 dpi can show grain relatively well if it's big (say Tri-X in Rodinal), although sharpenning is required and grain won't be as crisp and clean as on a wet print... Now, if we talk about fine grain, scanning can't easily get there to show the grain structure. But I guess when we scan we aren't showing the original photograph (I mean its smallest structure) but a new photograph we make with the scanner and indeed we re-expose twice, once with the scanner and a second time with software. Anyway, the bigger the print must be, the best scanning is really necessary, because film structure will be present...
Cheers,
Juan
 
The OP wanted to know about the Imacon 848 versus the X1, X5.

AFAIK, the 848 basically equals the X1 and the 949 basically equals the X5. The main difference was the name change between Imacon and Hasselblad. As far as the 848 versus the 949, the main difference is speed and I understand that the X versions speeded things up a bit more, but only a bit.

So, if the lab is charging more for the higher end scanner, it is not for resolution -- it is simply for their time, which is less. Of course, they have a higher investment in the newer model, but if it actually scans faster, then it should be a wash...
 
The X1 is a faster 848, the X5 is a faster 949.
949/X5 has active sensor cooling (should improve shadow noise after prolonged scanning sessions) and light diffuser (smoother grain rendition), plus when scanning 35mm it goes up to 8000 ppi (the 848/X1 is firmware-locked to 6900).

Fernando
 
Fernando2 said:
The X1 is a faster 848, the X5 is a faster 949.
949/X5 has active sensor cooling (should improve shadow noise after prolonged scanning sessions) and light diffuser (smoother grain rendition), plus when scanning 35mm it goes up to 8000 ppi (the 848/X1 is firmware-locked to 6900).

Fernando
Click to expand...

I think this is excactly right. But in 35mm, it only goes up to 8000ppi if you are willing to clip a frame out and scan it individually. In a negative strip, the max resolution on a 35mm frame is 6300, and I assume it might be the same on an X5 (I own a 949). That is normally more than enough, unless unusual circumstances apply.
 
rolfe said:
I think this is excactly right. But in 35mm, it only goes up to 8000ppi if you are willing to clip a frame out and scan it individually.
Click to expand...


For the medium formats, there are 3200ppi available, is that correct? Does that mean I can only print x10.66 times the MF negative size at 300 DPI ?

Is a true PMT scanner the only way to scan for x16 prints from medium format?

I am talking about a 12900x10500px file (no interpolating or upscaling) from a 6x7 negative to print 43x35" at 300 DPI.

Thanks
 
(Imacon 949/X5)

rolfe said:
in 35mm, it only goes up to 8000ppi if you are willing to clip a frame out and scan it individually. In a negative strip, the max resolution on a 35mm frame is 6300, and I assume it might be the same on an X5 (I own a 949)
Click to expand...

On the X5, I had a strip scanned at 8000 (the resolution chart I posted is a "3x1 24x36 strip", sort of), without having it cut.
I wasn't aware the 949 had this limit of 6300 for a 135 strip. :(
But yes, more than enough in most cases (anyway I prefer over-sampling to under-sampling the lens, because of grain aliasing).

Fernando
 
marameo said:
For the medium formats, there are 3200ppi available, is that correct? Does that mean I can only print x10.66 times the MF negative size at 300 DPI ?
Click to expand...

Without interpolation, yes.
9.9x if you print on Epson plotters (native printhead resolution = 360 ppi, or multiple of).

Actually, if one cuts a single 645 frame out of a strip, the best Imacons (848/949/X1/X5) can be set to 4000 ppi.

Is a true PMT scanner the only way to scan for x16 prints from medium format?
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking, it's not really a matter of PMT, it's more about how a drum scanner works as a whole.
The best drum scanners can do that:

12900x10500px file (no interpolating or upscaling) from a 6x7 negative to print 43x35" at 300 DPI.
Click to expand...

But so can the Creo IQSmart3.

Fernando
 
Fernando,
I've just left my CS 9000 at LTR Service (Nital) for a CLA, as it started showing signs of aging. The guy there told me, they are running out or replacement parts, so it is not clear if they can make it "as new" again.
What would be according to you the best practical alternative today, for an up to 6x9 scanner, without the hassle of wet mounting? ( I shoot silver B&W film only )?
Thanks
Marek
 
I'm afraid the only viable option is the Plustek OpticFilm 120.
I sincerely hope they've sorted out the focus issues (focus plane variability) once and for all...!

Fernando
 
I think Plustek is ridiculous for lack of focusing and unbelievable slowness. At this point I am expecting some kickstarter guy to come up with a way to use one of these digital cameras of late in a quick and reliable way, to get photos of negatives. Hasselblad has just come up with a 50MP back for EUR 11.000, in two or three years we will have a 100MP for the same price or less. If you stitch, you can get there already. Perhaps I've sold my S Planar 135/5.6 too early.
 
This is what I got with DSLR + stitching.
Resolution in line pairs/mm

2aj52s9.jpg


I used a X-Y micrometric carrier for the film.

Issues:

Parallelism between sensor and film carrier
Frame uniformity (light, sharpness, distorsion)
References for X-Y stitching (think of originals with large sky portion, sea, etc.)

Fernando
 
mfogiel said:
I think Plustek is ridiculous for lack of focusing and unbelievable slowness. At this point I am expecting some kickstarter guy to come up with a way to use one of these digital cameras of late in a quick and reliable way, to get photos of negatives. Hasselblad has just come up with a 50MP back for EUR 11.000, in two or three years we will have a 100MP for the same price or less. If you stitch, you can get there already. Perhaps I've sold my S Planar 135/5.6 too early.
Click to expand...

You should get a Pakon for 35mm and resort to an Epson 700 for MF, unless you are willing to spring for an Imacon/Hasselblad or a used drum scanner. I have all of the above, and I have to admit the drum scanner doesn't get used much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom