 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Large Format / November 2006Resolution or Tonal scale.
This question relates to choosing between two scanners. One has better optical resolution, the other is able to capture more detail between shadows and highlights. 4,000 dpi versus 6400. 4 versus 4.9 for scale. Given the use of same LF original 4x5 which is a better choice.  Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:55:15 -0500, "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: > >This question relates to choosing between two scanners. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Given the use of same LF original 4x5 which is a better choice. Both measurements can be misleading. Which specific scanners are you thinking of? Anyway, here's a good LF scanner comparison site: <http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/> rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > Both measurements can be misleading. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com In an ideal world we could all afford drum scanners. The V750 versus the LS9000 < as you guessed. Keep in mind I am not hugely interested in making super large prints from any scans. Merely making fair quality scans for prepress from MF. Maximum page size 11 x17 -300 dpi. A main consideration beyond LF scanning is wether the Epson could do small size scans from 35mm. Good enough for an occasion 6x9 reproduction. The V750 has Digital ICE, fluid mounting and Silverfast features that sound good for my purposes. Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:17:32 -0500, "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: >In an ideal world we could all afford drum scanners. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >any scans. Merely making fair quality scans for prepress from MF. >Maximum page size 11 x17 -300 dpi. How about a compromise: a used LS-8000 -- in good condition -- plus a new V750 or 4990 for LF. I suspect the V750 will give enough detail for a decent 6x9" print from 35mm, or 11x17" from MF. It's probably good for an "honest" 2500 dpi, or in that ballpark. Both scanners have digital ICE, and you'll find that useful -- but not on BW film. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:17:32 -0500, "Greg \"_\"" > <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com That's more or less my direction, I have a budget for the V750 but probably not the LS9000 at this point, though I do like the idea. The Epson can do fluid mounting so it may do well with B&W. I am a pretty much committed to wet darkroom for that anyway. Still it would be nice to have the ability at least to do better scans from my very large amount of 4x5 B&W stuff. Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >4,000 dpi versus 6400. > >4 versus 4.9 for scale. > >Given the use of same LF original 4x5 which is a better choice. Do you really need 6400 dpi for a 4x5? > Do you really need 6400 dpi for a 4x5? Probably not. And probably not (even) for MF. Others have made the point that an "honest" 3000 dpi will capture nearly all the detail that can be captured, in practice, on film. Trouble is, even in the best scanners, the claimed resolution needs to be de-rated. Some brands more than others... As image areas increase, lens resolutions generally go down, and problems with film flatness become significant. This is true in the camera as it is in the film scanner. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > >4,000 dpi versus 6400. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Do you really need 6400 dpi for a 4x5? Not so much that I need the 6400, just that its there. I've spoken with a reviewer of the V750 Epson and he states its a true 6400 dpi optical scanner. I was more interested in hearing wether the 4.9 scale the Nikon LS9000 is stated in having is a big enough reason to for go the LF capabilities the Epson has. I rather like the ability to scan my large pile of 4x5 and 8x10 stuff. Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:10:32 -0500, "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: >I rather like the ability to scan my large pile of 4x5 and 8x10 stuff. November 21, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, Me too, except it's a pile of MF stuff starting two decades ago. I've even been chipping away at it, too. It's slow going, but possible. The Epson 4990 is a nice tool for the purpose, although I find the transparency scan area too restrictive. I wish they had at least provided the area of the old HP 4C transparency adapter I used to have (came out mid-nineties for Win95). So I have to position my negs in PrintFile sleeves very carefully. But that's a minor problem, and on the whole it's a great catalog tool for me. I suppose one could say it's an expensive way to avoid contact sheets, but, well, it is a great way to avoid contact sheets. Anyway, at fifty cents per contact sheet, and several thousand rolls of film in the can, it's cost effective, too. Plus the scanner is a great entertainment tool, too ... magazines, newspapers, comic books, old letters, the family photos, small objects, good thing I'm catless at the moment ... regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- > Plus the scanner is a great entertainment tool, too > ... magazines, newspapers, comic books, old > letters, the family photos, small objects, > good thing I'm catless at the moment ... http://www.jonco48.com/blog/cat_20scan.jpg SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:10:32 -0500, "Greg > \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > sheet, and several thousand rolls of film in > the can, it's cost effective, too. And you get better quality contacts because you can adjust for one more dense exposure. > Plus the > scanner is a great entertainment tool, too > ... magazines, newspapers, comic books, old > letters, the family photos, small objects, > good thing I'm catless at the moment ... Detest the smell of the little flea biters, Some cats are fine but after months of eradication of my homes previous feline dwellers I shall never own one. > regards, > --le [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > email: portrait@heylloyd.com > ________________________________ Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >Detest the smell of the little flea biters, Some cats are fine >but after months of eradication of my homes previous feline dwellers >I shall never own one. One good dose of nylar and fleas are gone. Why are you working so hard? > >Detest the smell of the little flea biters, Some cats are fine > >but after months of eradication of my homes previous feline dwellers > >I shall never own one. > > One good dose of nylar and fleas are gone. Why are you working > so hard? No fleas, the basement where I now have a darkroom had indoor carpet saturated with a combination of cat urine, cat feces and water from seepage. The previous owner used "air freshers" to correct the overpowering stench. I stripped the carpet up first day, only to find the backing stuck to the concrete floor. I spent close to 3 months last year irradicating the odors and stains. The owner also had wood paneling that was seriously warped,...so I ripped that out too- along with very moldy insulation-which was in the wall. Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 08:02:47 -0500, "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: >No fleas, the basement where I now have a darkroom had indoor carpet >saturated with a combination of cat urine, cat feces and water from [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >was seriously warped,...so I ripped that out too- along with very moldy >insulation-which was in the wall. November 22, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, I had to put a darkroom in a basement that had a carpet one time long ago (my parents' basement...). Basically, I would say a carpet on a basement floor will always end up with fungus of some sort. It's bound to have an ideal fungus environment between the floor and the carpet. Built-in carpet is just too hard to clean effectively. If one must have a carpet on a basement floor, it should be a free carpet that can be lifted and transported to the nice carpet cleaning machine. My problem included a wood built-up floor that had enclosed an inch-high air gap that supported a wood-eating fungus. I'm assuming Greg had the same gagging-good time I had ... My final solution was to clean and scrub and sterilize the cement floor as best I could, and seal it thoroughly with a waterproof-glue (brand-name WeldBond) that dilutes with water. I diluted it fairly thin (six water to one WeldBond) and soaked it into the cement several times. Once dry, the topcoat should be something that can be stripped easily, and repaired easily if it wears. I like floor wax applied heavily in several coats. Areas of wear can be re-waxed easily. The only places I found my treatment failed relatively rapidly (and only needed an easy re-wax...) were in front of my processing sink and under the area where I hung my prints to dry. If the floor needs some sort of decorative aspect, use small, decorative rugs that can roll up easily and be sent out for cleaning. I have tried two-part epoxy floor coating on a basement floor, too. The kind made for swimming pool interiors. It works for a while, but eventually starts peeling up, whereupon it becomes an unholy mess of plastic fragments all over the place, and unprotected areas and edges and places where liquid can be wicked into the space between the broken plastic coating and the cement floor. Putting in the epoxy, and attempting to repair it later, are miserable volatile solvent experiences in a basement. Any covering on a basement floor will require repair later. Therefore, the covering should be something that is easy to repair. Hence sealer and wax, and liftable carpet. (One time I helped a friend who owned a second floor unit he rented out. The departed tenants had cats that urinated all over the built-in carpet. We stripped out the carpet and put it in the dumpster. We tried to get the stink out of the wood sub-floor, but no amount of Dettol or chlorine bleach would do it. We pulled out the floor sheathing and replaced that, too. All with no consequences for the erstwhile tenant, either ...). Sorry for digression from tonal scale ... regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- >No fleas, the basement where I now have a darkroom had indoor carpet >saturated with a combination of cat urine, cat feces and water from >seepage. The previous owner used "air freshers" to correct the >overpowering stench. That's a problem with the owner not the cat. >>No fleas, the basement where I now have a darkroom had indoor carpet >>saturated with a combination of cat urine, cat feces and water from >>seepage. The previous owner used "air freshers" to correct the >>overpowering stench. > > That's a problem with the owner not the cat. In a manner of speaking, you are absolutely correct. If the owner had no cat, there would be no cat odor. Forgiveness for the species is not possible. <Long, off topic story snipped before posting.> On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:15:00 -0500, "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: >the little flea biters, Some cats are fine >but after months of eradication of my homes previous feline dwellers >I shall never own one. November 22, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, Technology has come to the rescue of those of us who cannot tolerate fleas. Bayer, the owner of Agfa as it turns out, has a system they call Advantage. It's based on Insect Growth Hormone or Regulator (IGR, IGH or similar), and it really works (I solved a flea problem with it...). Flea-haters might like the way it works. The insect's exoskeleton (the hard exterior body of the beast) no longer grows. So the little guy continues to grow but can't shed the shell. No new exoskeleton will grow to accommodate the grown insect. Tough. And eggs, if they are produced, cannot hatch. No reproduction, no infestation. Die miserably... I see IGR cat and dog collars at the supermarket now. Nothing stops the airborne hairs that get on negs and in eyes. Sometimes I wake up in the morning and Natalie's cat is snoozing right in between us, his head closer to her than mine! A similar substance has been developed for cockroaches. I've used it and it really works too. It is not an insecticide, and does not work by killing bugs outright. Next to no exposure to the substance screws up the insect's ability to grow properly. There are two IGR substances I know about - Methoprene and Hydroprene. I forget which is for fleas and which for roaches, but anyone with a problem could easily find out ... regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- Hydroprene for roaches. It's been used for a couple of decades now, often to rid a whole building of the wee critters. - ----------------------------------------------------------- les clark / edgewater, nj / usa ----------------------------------------------------------- > > This question relates to choosing between two scanners. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 4,000 dpi versus 6400. You have to keep in mind what the 'optical resolution' specifies. It tells you how many samples are collected per unit length. There are usually two numbers, one for the vertical and one for the horizontal direction with the latter being the smaller. It is the smaller of the two that is usually used. In any case, the number of samples collected determines in principle the upper limit of how well the scanner does at resolving fine detail present in the film. But no scanner actually achieves this theoretical upper limit. Higher quality scanners do better. Also, it is easier to do better with a dedicated film scanner, particularly if the maximum size scanned is kept limited as it would be for a 35 mm or medium format scanner. > 4 versus 4.9 for scale. Again, there is a theoretical upper limit to the dynamic range that the scanner can handle. It is based on the bit depth. For a 16 bit (per channel) scanner, it is a bit over 4.8. A value like 4.9 doesn't make sense, so maybe that was a misprint. Sometimes manufacturers simply give that theoretical number, but in actual practice, the scanner can't deliver it. Even a figure like 4.0 is suspect, but is more likely to be a measured value rather than a theoretical value based on the bit depth. Maximum density is important primarily for transparency film. If you use either b/w or color negative film, the dynamic range in the negative is likely to be less than what any reasonable modern scanner can deliver. I know most people are wedded to the use of transparencies, but I would argue for using color negative film. Transparency film requires much more careful control of exposure and can't handle scenes with a large range of values. It is harder to scan. Its only real advantage is that you can compare the transparency, viewed on a light table, to the scan in determining color balance in the latter. But the transparency, beautiful as it may look, doesn't necessarily accurately show the colors in the scene. It is better, whatever film you use, to use color references in the scene, such as a gray card or other neutral areas, to establish color balance. > Given the use of same LF original 4x5 which is a better choice. >> This question relates to choosing between two scanners. >> One has better optical resolution, the other is able to capture more [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > size scanned is kept limited as it would be for a 35 mm or medium format > scanner. I'll throw in my 2 cents. I agree with what you say above and add that in my experience, the consumer scanners effectively deliver about 2/3 the resolution of a top drum scanner. So I would rate the above 4000 and 6000 ppi scanners as about 2600, and the 6000 scanner as 4000 ppi, then adjust up or down a little more based on pro versus consumer market. >> 4 versus 4.9 for scale. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > deliver it. Even a figure like 4.0 is suspect, but is more likely to be > a measured value rather than a theoretical value based on the bit depth. I agree that the 4.9 is suspect and probably just the bits. 16 bits gives 4.81, so 4.9 requires more than 16 bits. But even more, real dynamic range requires photons: 10^4.9 = 79,433. While it is possible that many photons actually delivered per pixel, I find it unlikely. If we knew the pixel size of the scanner sensor, we could see if that many photons are reasonably based on industry trends. E.g., see: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary > Maximum density is important primarily for transparency film. If you > use either b/w or color negative film, the dynamic range in the negative [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> Given the use of same LF original 4x5 which is a better choice. In my experience, scanning negative film is difficult because it seems to be a dust magnet, but transparency film is easy to clean and scan. I can scan a 4x5 with only a few dust spots to fix, whereas negative film has thousands to tens of thousands. Kodak even changed their emulsion base on TMAX 100 to try and reduce the static cling of dust (there is an article on their web site somewhere about this). To the OP: I use the 4990 and find it adequate for 4x5 although I would like something a little better and will probably get the V750. The 4990 has plenty of dynamic range for my Velvia 4x5s, and I have made many 30x40 inch prints (and larger) from the scans. Roger In article <456312DD.8070605@qwest.net>, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote: > >> This question relates to choosing between two scanners. > >> One has better optical resolution, the other is able to capture more [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > Roger I appreciate the input. Thanks Roger. Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com <snip other important stuff> > I know most people are wedded to the use of transparencies, > but I would argue for using color negative film. Transparency film > requires much more careful control of exposure and can't handle scenes > with a large range of values. It is harder to scan. Its only real > advantage is that you can compare the transparency, viewed on a light > table, to the scan in determining color balance in the latter. What I started doing some time ago shooting one side negative one side positive on the holder. That gives a visual reference and scannable or optically printable original. Then if the image is selected for use you can send the trans with the scans and still have a film original in your hands....or you can dupe the trans if you desire. Thanks. Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > you > can send the trans with the scans and still have a film original in your > hands Yikes- I should have been a song writer :) Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.