Scanner questions

[egpj]

T_om was steering you down the right path (IMHO). Bit depth is key to doing adjustments in say, Photoshop. I only scan my B&W at 16 bit. I can do adjustment without losing hardly anything. Then when things are bang on I can send it to the printer which dumbs it back down to 8 bit.

 

[MrBuhl]

i still don't get it.

i have a canon 2710 scanner and can scan to 2720 resolution yet my lab wants files saved at 300 dpi and says that a good 8x10 can be had at even less (250dpi).

why do i need a 'better' scanner?

joe

OK - at the risk of getting totally slagged here - printer DPI Dots Per Inch is actually a different measure than what should correctly be referrred to on scanners as PPI or Pixels Per Inch. That is where your difference lies BackAlley. Please see below for more details. The link is provided from http://www.oculartravel.com/Resolution.htm

Digital camera resolution

A pixel is not created with fixed size. Instead, its three RGB ingredients can recreate the same - coloured pixel be it an inch square or a metre square - you set the pixel size to match the intended output. Using photoshop's Image Size dialogue box, pixel size can be set to any size, usually 72 per inch for screen viewing or 300 per inch for printing. The number of pixels in the image remain the same, but those pixels can be made physically bigger or smaller. At an inch square, pixels will look like tiles from a giant mosaic and would be a poor photographic illusion. The smaller your pixels are, the more invisible they become and the more realistic a printout willbe. All digital cameras create images with pixels set at 72 per inch, but if you made them smaller, for example 300 dpi, the printout will be physically smaller, but of a much higher quality
Example of high / low resolution>>

Scanner resolution

The term resolution is just another way of describing potential image quality. Like the variously sized sensors found in digital cameras, flatbeds are also sold on their basis of their resolution. Scanner quality isn't described in megapixels or in pixel dimension, but by the ability to capture pixels across one linear inch. Thus a 600 pixel per inch ( or ppi ) scanner will create a 3600x2400 digital image from a 6x4 in print. Even budget 1200ppi scanners create more data than is really needed and anything over 2400ppi is overkill for desktop photo printing.

Printer resolution

Most printers can be operated in lower-quality mode for making rough prints to keep your cost down. A printer resolution of 360 dot per inch (dpi) will drop less dots of ink on the receiving paper no matter if your image is a high resolution file. Best photo quality is made using 1440 or 2880 dpi, but expect each print to take a lot longer to print and more ink to be used. Never select the High speed setting for photographic quality results- some printer resolutions may become unavailable, as they are deemed inappropriate for the paper.

 

[back alley]

thanks, that helps, and i'll check out the link tonite from home.

another question, can i expect a 'better' print from the same file from a pro lab than i could get if i had a printer of my own?

when printing wet i was pretty good and generally made better prints than i could expect from a lab.

all b&w btw.

joe

 

[MrBuhl]

thanks, that helps, and i'll check out the link tonite from home.

another question, can i expect a 'better' print from the same file from a pro lab than i could get if i had a printer of my own?

when printing wet i was pretty good and generally made better prints than i could expect from a lab.

all b&w btw.

joe

That, I would have to leave for someone else I am afraid... I am very happy with the print quality I get at home from my 2200, but the B&W is a problem because of the color casts. Using all B&W will help that because you can load custom all black/grey ink sets they make just for B&W inkjetting.

On the other hand, I have never printed in my own wet darkroom (but I really WANT to), and haven't really ever paid for a nice professional print so I feel like I am not the best guy to answer that!

Ed

 

[chope]

any suggestion on film scanners?

any suggestion on film scanners?

i am looking to buy a negative scanner for my computer but i dont know much about them. I was wondering had any suggestions or comments on brands and types to help me out. I want it so i can scan my 35mm B&W negatives if that helps at all. Thanks!!!

 

[T_om]

thanks, that helps, and i'll check out the link tonite from home.

another question, can i expect a 'better' print from the same file from a pro lab than i could get if i had a printer of my own?

when printing wet i was pretty good and generally made better prints than i could expect from a lab.

all b&w btw.

joe

Totally depends upon your lab or your printer.

I do not do any in-house printing any longer. My lab outputs JUST what I want and it is cheaper to boot.

Most people have the (erroneous) idea that it is 'cheaper' to print with an inkjet. I disagree. Let me add the qualifier "archival" prints. Regular old dye based inkjets can turn out cheap results with cheap paper and cheap dye based inks... but they fade. I have a Canon S9000 that turns out beautiful prints... but they are not something I can sell because they are not archival. The Epson printers claim long life for their prints but a) I am skeptical and b) they are not cheap to operate and c) an expensive RIP is needed to produce quality B&W output.

In my case at least, it doesn't make sense to print in-house.

Tom

 

[Nikon Bob]

I have to agree with Tom that it is cheaper to have a lab print your file than doing it at home and you have the added benefit of knowing it should be archival quality. A home printer that can do archival 16 X 24 is expensive to buy and operate especially if you are not doing a lot of printing that size. If you do your file up right at home sized for the print output you want even 4X6 prints are likely cheaper at a lab.

Bob

 

[back alley]

If you do your file up right at home sized for the print output you want even 4X6 prints are likely cheaper at a lab.


this is what i need to learn now.

 

[bigdog]

Buy the Dimage 5400 version I

Buy the Dimage 5400 version I

I recently purchased the Minolta Dimage 5400 scanner (version I) along with th Epson R2400 printer.

Check out these two threads on photo.net:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BIiO
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AKZC

They address the issue of using a flourescent light source as opposed to LED light source and how that affects scanning of black and white films. I purchased the older version of the scanner based on this information and I am pleased with the results. The older version also comes with firewire.

If you want to do enlargements of 16 x 24, there is an obvious advantage to the higher resolution scanner. I can only do 13 x 19 inch prints with my printer. Scanning Reala 100 I find the prints are beautiful. I am not sure however how they would hold up going much larger then that.

I agree that you need a fast computer with lots of RAM to handle the 16 bit 5400 dpi scans. The file sizes get huge. I am running a 3 gig Dell with 1 gig of RAM and a 250 gig hard drive and I am considering bumping it up to 2 gig of RAM

So I bought this $850 printer that creates beautiful black and white prints (no color cast) but I have to admit that in a few weeks time I have printed under a dozen prints. I am particular about my photos and don't think that many frames are worth scanning especially when you consider the time it takes to scan. So don't think your going to scan your film library. More then likely you end up scanning just a couple of frames every other roll or so.

If your going to sell prints then a printer makes more sense. If I just use up the 50 sheet pack of 13 x 19 matte paper I bought, I will run out of wall space to dispay the images. Yes, paper and ink costs can add up quickly (not even considering costs of matting and framing) but I feel it was well worth it.

I do think that having the scanner and printer is going to improve my overall skills. It is the part of the craft I had not taken part in until now. I would just hand over my film and hope I liked what I got back. Some times good...some times not so good. Now that I can see all that can be done in Photoshop with the control you have over the final print it has opened up a whole new world to me. It makes you more aware of what your laying down on film...at least I feel that way.

I have not done alot with color so far and I am a bit concerned about the learning curve for color management. I would make sure the scanner has Digital Ice, it can save you many frustrating hours of cleaning up dusty and scratched film. It is tough enough to have to spot black and white film after scanning, why put yourself through that for color as well. That's all folks!

 

[egpj]

Wish I lived where you guys live! The labs here are very expensive. When I was using the local lab they set me back 5 bucks for an 8x10. I can not imagine printing the tabloid size prints I make now at a lab! As for the archival quallity of the inkjet prints. Wilhelm gives the ink paper combination I use 98 years. That is being displayed under UV glass. Here is a link to the R2400 test document on Wilhelm.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/R2400.html

 

[ChrisN]

i still don't get it.

i have a canon 2710 scanner and can scan to 2720 resolution yet my lab wants files saved at 300 dpi and says that a good 8x10 can be had at even less (250dpi).

why do i need a 'better' scanner?

joe

Hi Joe

Try this. Someone explained it to me this way and it seems to fit. For a high quality print you need 300 dpi - that's 300 x 300 = 90,000 dots in a square inch. So for an 8 x 10 it's 8 x 10 x 300 x 300 = 7,200,000 dots. Now, can I get 7.2m dots worth of information into my file, if I'm starting with a 35mm negative, and a 2700dpi scanner? The negative is pretty close to 1.5 inches x 1 inch = 1.5 square inches, so 1.5 x 2700 x 2700 = 10,935,000 dots = more than we need!

I'd welcome other people's comments on whether this explanation holds up. Also can someone explain about the "dynamic range"? As with digi cameras and megapixels, I guess you have to start with some idea of what you want to do with the output - view only on PC, web pages, or print to small or large prints?

 

[MrBuhl]

Totally depends upon your lab or your printer.

Most people have the (erroneous) idea that it is 'cheaper' to print with an inkjet. I disagree. Let me add the qualifier "archival" prints.

In my case at least, it doesn't make sense to print in-house.

Tom

I think that there are options for archival prints from home inkjets that meet your criteria though Tom, my Epson 2200 is only marginally more expensive than your Canon and uses pigment based inks, which when used in conjunction with archival paper have a lightfastness of around 100 years supposedly. Certainly Platinum and Palladium prints crush that but it meets the archival standard easily and I print (not counting printer cost) on Super B for $3.50 per print. Roll paper would bring that cost down even more. In fact, John Shaw prints on an Epson with pigment based inks, and he sells quite a few images! Just my additional two cents! :angel:

 

[GeneW]

UK professional photographer Eddie Ephraums has been making a complete transition from chemical darkroom to digital darkroom -- but still mainly shooting B&W film. He is so serious about image quality he invested in an Imacon scanner, and he uses an Epson for his B&W printing, primarily 16x20" prints, for customers and galleries. He discusses his approach and workflow in his new book Darkroom to Digital

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7517

An Imacon would be the ultimate GAS attack 😀

One quote from the book I especially like: "seeing is no different with digital"

Gene

 

[MrBuhl]

Mmmmmm.... Imacon. Yummmy GAS! (Who am I kidding though - I don't have the RAM to handle those scans!) 🙄

 

[x-ray]

I've been using an imacon 343 for a little less than two years and it is top notch. There's avery good article on all levels of scanners from the consumer to drum scanners in the current view camera magazine. I really exposes the lies that manufacturers tell about the D max of their equipment.

By the way, I am selling my Imacon that's like new with all the goodies plus two custom film frames for 26x38 / 26x60 and one for 6x18 (6x17). One thing to know about the iamacon is the suoer sharpness and 4.3 D max. It makes fantastic scans and the software is excellent. The scanner is $3,900 (B&H is $4,999) and the two custom holders @ $175 ea. I also have an Epson 1680 pro with silverfast that I want to sell for $595.

If you are interested contact me through my website @ www.x-rayarts.com

I just purchased a new fuji finescan 2750 to scan 11x14 film and don't need two super scanners.