dmr
Registered Abuser
So far so good with two reservations:
1. It's a bit picky about paper, and there really is not that much information available about setting up for non-HP paper, such as Inkpress and Canon.
2. Ink is hard to find. I have to order it out of town. Even Staples, which guarantees they will have your ink in stock does not stock it.
hansformat
Member
I thought of a few other things to add since my original response near the top of this thread:
I scan using Nikon Scan. It works really well, but I haven't compared it with VueScan. Some web sites prefer one or the other...I have no idea which is better but I haven't had any problem with Nikon Scan and as I said above I basically let it do its thing without fooling around with the settings too much.
Although my prints are 8x10 I print my test strips on 4x6. This saves cost on ink and paper.
My printer is the HP 8450. This is the same as the 8750 used by others on this stream. It uses Vivera dye based inks, but can only go to a maximum of 8.5 x 11, instead of the 8750 which can go to 13x19 I believe. The results I get are great and if you use the HP Premium Plus paper they are very longlasting (over 100 years under UV glass).
In the long run I will probably get a pigment based HP (maybe the 9180) or Epson which would allow more flexibility on the papers I use, but I am getting great results with the 8450 and I'm in no rush whatsoever to spend money and change things. I hope it lasts for years to come.
I scan using Nikon Scan. It works really well, but I haven't compared it with VueScan. Some web sites prefer one or the other...I have no idea which is better but I haven't had any problem with Nikon Scan and as I said above I basically let it do its thing without fooling around with the settings too much.
Although my prints are 8x10 I print my test strips on 4x6. This saves cost on ink and paper.
My printer is the HP 8450. This is the same as the 8750 used by others on this stream. It uses Vivera dye based inks, but can only go to a maximum of 8.5 x 11, instead of the 8750 which can go to 13x19 I believe. The results I get are great and if you use the HP Premium Plus paper they are very longlasting (over 100 years under UV glass).
In the long run I will probably get a pigment based HP (maybe the 9180) or Epson which would allow more flexibility on the papers I use, but I am getting great results with the 8450 and I'm in no rush whatsoever to spend money and change things. I hope it lasts for years to come.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
We've only mentioned scanning, producing a digital file from film, as a means of making a print. The ability to make "slide shows" either on your computer desktop or for projection with a digital projector is important. ...even more important, the ability to make books with programs like Blurb and Iphoto. I am incredibly impressed with the quality of books that I have seen. Additionally I know of several photographers who have used these "home made" books to lobby publishers for conventional, large circulation books. Anybody here tried either slide shows or books.
Bill
Bill
Dogman
Veteran
I've come back to this thread because I'm looking at scanners these days. I love the look of traditional B&W prints but I woke up one day recently and found that life is short--and getting shorter--and I don't have the time it takes to print all those negatives in pages stacked up in the darkroom. I'm fairly impressed with the prints I'm getting from my HP inkjet and digital camera, so I may have to give scanning another try.
I've been reading about the Epson V700--very much like the one Bill mentioned but a little more in my budget. It would be great to have one unit that covers all the formats I have.
I've been reading about the Epson V700--very much like the one Bill mentioned but a little more in my budget. It would be great to have one unit that covers all the formats I have.
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
Take a look at the Microtek M1. I have the i900- basically the previous generation of this scanner- and I'm very happy with the results from it. I use it with everything from 35mm to 8x10, and it gives very nice files which do everything I want them to do. I like the fact that these scanners use a film tray below the glass- so (at least with 35mm to 4x5) there's nothing between my film and the sensor. (Although all film larger than 4x5 uses a glass carrier, but it is anit-newton ring glass, and it still looks good. Plus, with the glass carrier, you can also do wet-mounting with all formats, for ultimate film flatness.)
Don't forget software, too, when considering scanners. You will find people who love and will recommend each program, and they can all work, but I happen to like Silverfast AI (the full version). It does have a long learning curve, but the comprehensiveness of this software allows for incredible control and flexibility. Silverfast is available for many scanners. Unfortunately you have to buy a dedicated version for each scanner you use (unless it comes with the machine), and this can be a drawback- but I think this speaks to the careful interface between the software and hardware, which I suspect helps it do the things it can do. I have used Silverfast for years. I have also used lots of other scanning software- and even abandoned Silverfast for a while, looking for something simpler- but eventually I bit the bullet and sat down and learned how to use it. Now I'd think twice about any scanner I couldn't use with Silverfast.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I agree.
I also have the 5000ED and 9000ED and you're not going to find a better scanner this side of the cost of a small car.
The 5000ED is probably the best sub $1000 scanner around. Unfortunately the 5000ED does not have a glass carrier. The FH-3 neg holder makes a big difference, especially if you pre-flatten your negs. But soft corners can be a problem.
THe 9000ED is superb. The next best unit was the Imacon 343, that was almost 3 times the cost, but most people I have spoken to said that you may be able to see a difference in an extreme case, but 95% of the time the Nikon is just as good. Now with the 343 out of production, the cheapest Imacon is around $8,000.
The trick with the 9000ED is to get the glass film holder. This ensures perfect sharpness across the frame.
One great feature of the Nikon scanners is that they use LEDs as their light source. These are very stable and last for an extremely long time. The LED light also provides a very crisp light. The difference between a scanner that uses LED and florescent lamps, is like comparing a condenser and diffusion enlarger. The Nikon is very sharp.
The other unit that I recommend is the MICROTEK ArtixScan 120 tf.
A friend of mine has one of these and it's very impressive. It comes with glass holders for all formats from 35mm to 6x9. I've seen these for about $1200-1400 new
By all accounts the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro was a masterpiece, but obviously they are no longer in production. But there still are a lot of people using them The problem is that it uses a florescent bulb, which has a limited life span. You can get replacement bulbs, but it's not simple.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Harry -
I just thought I'd put in a good word for the high-end, high priced Imacon/Hasselblad scanners. My feeling is the smaller the negative and the larger the print, the more you see the difference in scanners. I have a relatively inexpensive flatbed that does a great job with 4x5 and 8x10 film. It does a good job with 120 as long as you don't compare the approx 16x20 prints with those from a better scanner. Used properly, it does a good job with 35 for the internet and 8x10's - once again, if you don't compare the results with those of a better scanner.
I have a friend who is making very large prints from black-and-white negs scanned on a top of the line Imacon/Hasselblad. The overall quality is as good as silver; the control is greater. A curator from one of the major NY museums has looked at the prints and said they would be interested. (That gets into the archival qualities of inkjet, which is another, but very worthwhile topic.)
The only thing I've ever seen that compared to scans like these are the scans that Eric Meola's book on Springsteen was produced from. Twenty some rolls of film were scanned on a special flatbed. Some of these scans appeared as full page contact sheets in the book. Full page images from cropped single frames were taken from the same scans. That's right, the only scans are the scans of a full roll of film. The catch - the scanner took a full day to scan each roll of film - and the scanner had to be brought into this country. (And the same scans produced the large prints in the show in England.)
I use a beat up old Imacon 646. I don't think I will ever need anything better for 20x24 and 30x40's from beat up old 35 Tri-X negs, even ones that are cropped a bit. And I hear Imacon gave a sigh of relief when the Minolta scanner disappeared from the market. But there is a place for CCD scanners that come close to a drum - especially since the drum scanners are disappearing and museums seem very impressed with very big prints.
Bill
I just thought I'd put in a good word for the high-end, high priced Imacon/Hasselblad scanners. My feeling is the smaller the negative and the larger the print, the more you see the difference in scanners. I have a relatively inexpensive flatbed that does a great job with 4x5 and 8x10 film. It does a good job with 120 as long as you don't compare the approx 16x20 prints with those from a better scanner. Used properly, it does a good job with 35 for the internet and 8x10's - once again, if you don't compare the results with those of a better scanner.
I have a friend who is making very large prints from black-and-white negs scanned on a top of the line Imacon/Hasselblad. The overall quality is as good as silver; the control is greater. A curator from one of the major NY museums has looked at the prints and said they would be interested. (That gets into the archival qualities of inkjet, which is another, but very worthwhile topic.)
The only thing I've ever seen that compared to scans like these are the scans that Eric Meola's book on Springsteen was produced from. Twenty some rolls of film were scanned on a special flatbed. Some of these scans appeared as full page contact sheets in the book. Full page images from cropped single frames were taken from the same scans. That's right, the only scans are the scans of a full roll of film. The catch - the scanner took a full day to scan each roll of film - and the scanner had to be brought into this country. (And the same scans produced the large prints in the show in England.)
I use a beat up old Imacon 646. I don't think I will ever need anything better for 20x24 and 30x40's from beat up old 35 Tri-X negs, even ones that are cropped a bit. And I hear Imacon gave a sigh of relief when the Minolta scanner disappeared from the market. But there is a place for CCD scanners that come close to a drum - especially since the drum scanners are disappearing and museums seem very impressed with very big prints.
Bill
Dektol Dan
Well-known
I use a German slide show program called 'Fotomagico' (Mac only) and it interfaces with Final Cut very well.
I left the dark room behind since Photoshop 2 and never looked back. I have spent thousands on scanners (both flatbed and dedicated film) over the years as they have come down dramatically in price. However what made it all possible was the easily available cheap RAM and hard drive space. Without these I would still be in the dark room.
I still have a 1999 UMAX flatbead that handles transparencies that cost nearly $5000 when new that I bought for 4 X 5 transparencies. After many others along the way I now have an Epson 4990. Surprisingly it's only a tad better than the UMAX, but the UMAX has professional pre press software that still makes it useful, even though I have to have a dedicated old Mac to run it.
The Minolta Multi is one of the best, but I have replaced mine with a new Nikon 9000, just because parts are still there for it.
I have many scanning tricks that I've learned over the years, but I could write my own book as I have developed my own color model based on quarter wave harmonics. I can do away with all those color matching gizmos with just a set matched filter eye glasses.
Scanning is not perfect, by any means in order to get all the information on the film, but as you have written, how big is big enough for what application?
I still believe in analog capture first, then convert to digital.
I will be shooting film as long as it available. I can see the difference, and I prefer all the options it gives compared with digital capture.
Gray Fox
Well-known
Bill:
I have used the Photoshop slide show for a couple of very different tasks; the first was to show a series of interior and exterior DSLR shots of high end (for the Atlanta area) real estate via laptop and projector. The second one took a while, with print, film and digital originals, but had temedous emotional effect. My inlaws died within a short period of each other after long illnesses. During the showing at the funeral home during the second funeral, I showed a looped slide show on my laptop of the family history, beginning with the couple's wedding print from 55 years ago. The table with the laptop was the center of conversation as family members and their many friends remembered the couple. It was quite a rush project, with family members contributing prints and negs to complement the film and digital shots I'd taken over 24 years. I used my Epson 4490 and Microtek 4000f 35mm scanner to process the prints and negs. Some of the latter were 6x9, 6x6 and 127, and the Epson did them all well. Once a few weeks had passed and emotions had settled a bit, I did up CDs of the slide show with the latest group Photo as a cover in the CD boxs for everyone. I couldn't have done this task in less than a week without my scanners.
I have used the Photoshop slide show for a couple of very different tasks; the first was to show a series of interior and exterior DSLR shots of high end (for the Atlanta area) real estate via laptop and projector. The second one took a while, with print, film and digital originals, but had temedous emotional effect. My inlaws died within a short period of each other after long illnesses. During the showing at the funeral home during the second funeral, I showed a looped slide show on my laptop of the family history, beginning with the couple's wedding print from 55 years ago. The table with the laptop was the center of conversation as family members and their many friends remembered the couple. It was quite a rush project, with family members contributing prints and negs to complement the film and digital shots I'd taken over 24 years. I used my Epson 4490 and Microtek 4000f 35mm scanner to process the prints and negs. Some of the latter were 6x9, 6x6 and 127, and the Epson did them all well. Once a few weeks had passed and emotions had settled a bit, I did up CDs of the slide show with the latest group Photo as a cover in the CD boxs for everyone. I couldn't have done this task in less than a week without my scanners.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Bill, I agree that the Imacon/Hasselblad units are extremely good, but they are also very expensive. With the 343 gone (around $5,000) the cheapest unit starts at around $8,000 and prices quickly exceed $10,000 (949). I would love a 646 or 949, but I just don't have that sort of cash hanging around. With the price of Tri-X going up, things are getting tough around here. ;-)
What makes the Nikon 9000ED so appealing is that for around $2,000 you can get a scanner that is basically as good as the low end Imacon 343 was. It can't compete with the higher end models, like the 949, that are a lot less noisy in the shadows etc.
The highend Creo and Heidelberg flatbed scanners and drum scanners are in a whole different league, as they cost tens of thousands of dollars. Of course you get what you pay for.... ;-)
I was down at Metro Imaging here in London a few weeks ago and Steve Macleod showed me some of their digital bromides. Some of the work prints I saw were by two very famous photojournalists (whom you probably know) and were extraordinary. These were done on a digital enlarger and Ilford's HARMAN GALERIE FB DIGITAL. Basically this is a traditional silverprint, generated via a digital file. It's the holy grail of black and white printing. Steve showed me prints made from scans, but also from digital RAW files. Both looked great.
There finally appears to be a lab in the USA that does this sort of work:
http://www.digitalsilverimaging.com/
HL
What makes the Nikon 9000ED so appealing is that for around $2,000 you can get a scanner that is basically as good as the low end Imacon 343 was. It can't compete with the higher end models, like the 949, that are a lot less noisy in the shadows etc.
The highend Creo and Heidelberg flatbed scanners and drum scanners are in a whole different league, as they cost tens of thousands of dollars. Of course you get what you pay for.... ;-)
I was down at Metro Imaging here in London a few weeks ago and Steve Macleod showed me some of their digital bromides. Some of the work prints I saw were by two very famous photojournalists (whom you probably know) and were extraordinary. These were done on a digital enlarger and Ilford's HARMAN GALERIE FB DIGITAL. Basically this is a traditional silverprint, generated via a digital file. It's the holy grail of black and white printing. Steve showed me prints made from scans, but also from digital RAW files. Both looked great.
There finally appears to be a lab in the USA that does this sort of work:
http://www.digitalsilverimaging.com/
HL
Last edited:
jasperamsterdam
Established
I recently got back into shooting film. The main reason was to shoot with a leica (the experience...) The second reason was that i felt shooting film let me get back to basics for my personal work.
My plan was to learn developping my self so i got my self kitted-out and now can succesfully develop b/w in my home using Xtol.
My plan never included wetprinting, since it would require a darkroom, wich i do'nt have space for. And i feel so comfortable with my computer and PS.
So scanning it is, and i must say i'm the happy new owner of a Microtek 4000 scsi scanner wich i bought at a bargain price (120 euro) it is 4000 dpi and decent range too.
After buying a pretty expensive scsi - firewire converter, the scanner works now! (Using vuescan) total price is still lower than a new/used coolscan with 4000/5000 dpi. 2700, i felt would not give me enough to do decent prints, so i could just aswell buy a flatbed.
here are some examples and 100% crops of my first roll (also my first developed roll ever!) Its trix in 1:1 xtol, shot with m6 classic and 40 summi-c.
No adjustments whatso ever, just scanned as Slide film, and inverted in PS.
My plan was to learn developping my self so i got my self kitted-out and now can succesfully develop b/w in my home using Xtol.
My plan never included wetprinting, since it would require a darkroom, wich i do'nt have space for. And i feel so comfortable with my computer and PS.
So scanning it is, and i must say i'm the happy new owner of a Microtek 4000 scsi scanner wich i bought at a bargain price (120 euro) it is 4000 dpi and decent range too.
After buying a pretty expensive scsi - firewire converter, the scanner works now! (Using vuescan) total price is still lower than a new/used coolscan with 4000/5000 dpi. 2700, i felt would not give me enough to do decent prints, so i could just aswell buy a flatbed.
here are some examples and 100% crops of my first roll (also my first developed roll ever!) Its trix in 1:1 xtol, shot with m6 classic and 40 summi-c.
No adjustments whatso ever, just scanned as Slide film, and inverted in PS.
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
Just a heads up- there are at least two places in NYC where you can rent time on Imacon scanners- PhotoVillage (owned by Rich Pinto, aka RFF member bressoniac) and PrintSpace, which also happens to be the premier (an now just about the only) rental color, b&W, and digital darkroom in NYC. I'm not affiliated at all with either of these businesses, but I've had good experiences with both. It's not cheap to rent time on these things, but it's sure not very expensive, either- certainly much cheaper than shelling out either to buy one of these scanners or pay a professional service to make scans for you. Both places will give you some degree of help getting started, and once you're up to speed, you can run through a lot of work- especially if you just make and save raw scans and move on to the next one. Before you go, spend some time at home selecting and organizing all the images you want to scan to save time in front of the machine.
I imagine there are other places outside NYC where you can also rent these things. Anyway, just thought I'd point this out as a possible option. I have a scanner that works for most of what I need day-to-day, but when I want the best possible files, I try to visit one of these places.
I imagine there are other places outside NYC where you can also rent these things. Anyway, just thought I'd point this out as a possible option. I have a scanner that works for most of what I need day-to-day, but when I want the best possible files, I try to visit one of these places.
Last edited:
hjfischer
Texas Rangerfinder
Bill: I'm a big fan of slide shows and recommend "Pro Show Gold" @www.photodex.com
Bill Pierce
Well-known
This is either an example of incredible skill or incredible good luck. Others who remember their first time developing film are drooling with envy. Sure beats my first results with Kodak Tri-Chem packets in flower pots.
streetshot
Newbie
Bill...
Here is another vote for the Microtek 120tf. After using the first and subsequent versions of the Nikon 35mm scanner I was frustrated at not being able to get a full frame scan, the digital equivalent of a filed-out negative carrier in a wet darkroom. This gets even more frustrating with Xpan negs. The Microtek will scan up to 617 and with the glass carrier I get full frame scans of anything I want - 35mm, Xpan, 6X7, etc. The scan quality is near identical to the Imacon Photo I compared it to. The software is cumbersome and sometimes downright weird...but...it gets the job done with reasonable aplomb.
About Blurb. I teach at NESoP in Boston. This year two students used Blurb books for their final portfolio pieces and the results were more than very impressive...it cut new ground for these presentations. In 2003 I was lobbying publishers for my book using dummies made from hacked wedding albums with custom pages. A nightmare to produce but there was no other way to present how you saw your pictures put together in a book. I have yet to meet a publisher who knows what to do with a box of pictures, they don't, its really the photographer's job to guide. For another thread.
The Blurb maquette is a fabulous tool - easy and shows well...if I get the book and don't like the edit I can go back into the Blurb site and make changes/additions, etc. and hit the button again. In 10 days the revised book appears in the mail. Its beyond great....and at $30 for a 30 page dummy it is a bargain.
Very cool to run into you here...hope you are fabulous in every way!
Michael
Here is another vote for the Microtek 120tf. After using the first and subsequent versions of the Nikon 35mm scanner I was frustrated at not being able to get a full frame scan, the digital equivalent of a filed-out negative carrier in a wet darkroom. This gets even more frustrating with Xpan negs. The Microtek will scan up to 617 and with the glass carrier I get full frame scans of anything I want - 35mm, Xpan, 6X7, etc. The scan quality is near identical to the Imacon Photo I compared it to. The software is cumbersome and sometimes downright weird...but...it gets the job done with reasonable aplomb.
About Blurb. I teach at NESoP in Boston. This year two students used Blurb books for their final portfolio pieces and the results were more than very impressive...it cut new ground for these presentations. In 2003 I was lobbying publishers for my book using dummies made from hacked wedding albums with custom pages. A nightmare to produce but there was no other way to present how you saw your pictures put together in a book. I have yet to meet a publisher who knows what to do with a box of pictures, they don't, its really the photographer's job to guide. For another thread.
The Blurb maquette is a fabulous tool - easy and shows well...if I get the book and don't like the edit I can go back into the Blurb site and make changes/additions, etc. and hit the button again. In 10 days the revised book appears in the mail. Its beyond great....and at $30 for a 30 page dummy it is a bargain.
Very cool to run into you here...hope you are fabulous in every way!
Michael