 |
 | 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 / Medium format / December 2006OK, now how do I get them to the printing stage???
I posted a while back, everyone here was very helpful so I wanted to get a little more input. I've been using my new/old Koni-Omega Rapid/90mm with decent results, I'm going to a local pro lab to get the film developed and printed - costing me plenty of bucks, a roll of 120 (color negative) is running about $12 ($4 for developing, $8 for proofs) and B&W about $16 ($7 and $9). Nice quality, overall not at all a bad deal from what I see elsewhere; I'm starting to feel the pinch, though. Digital scans at the same place run $10/roll for low resolution (1600X1200); drum scans (~50MB tiff) about $15 per image. I tried with my old scanner, but the lack of a lighted lid and film carrier made it hopeless. I'd like to try photographing my negatives with my 8MP dSLR, but I have no idea how to get it to work - I tried with a good quality 5MP prosumer camera, and the results were lousy. If anyone could give me some howto links, I'd appreciate it.... So, I'm looking at the Epson 4490. The reviews are good but the user experiences are mixed. I don't want it to replace a good high-resolution scan or wet print, I want something for run-of-the-mill stuff. I'll take the E6 and color negs for professional developing and develop my own B&W, then scan the ones that pass a quick light-table-and-loup review into my album software. I'll get the worthy few images optically printed or drum scanned if I want a large print; what I need is an easy and cheap way to catalog my film and then print (reasonably well) at smaller sizes, ie. wallet to 8X10". So, any problems with this plan? Is there an easier way? Thanks! Recently, grruffbowwow <grruffbowwow@yahoo.com> posted: > I posted a while back, everyone here was very helpful so I wanted to > get a little more input. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > So, any problems with this plan? Is there an easier way? Thanks! This sounds like a reasonable approach, mainly because your expectations are in line with what you are likely to achieve. A couple of suggestions: * Do your own B&W development, as the prices you've been given sound a bit high. The tools and chemistry are reasonably priced, and it isn't terribly hard to learn (if you don't already know). Even if you don't want to wet print your B&W, you can still scan and catalog the negatives. * Don't bother wasting your time shooting your negatives with a digital camera. The scanner will give superior results and take less time. * You will be able to do your own "low res" scans, so you can save money there, too. $15 per drum scan sounds cheap to me; what kind of drum scanner is the shop using? Regards, Neil > Recently, grruffbowwow <grruffbowwow@yahoo.com> posted: > > > I posted a while back, everyone here was very helpful so I wanted to > > get a little more input. SNIP > > So, I'm looking at the Epson 4490. The reviews are good but the user > > experiences are mixed. I don't want it to replace a good [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > hard to learn (if you don't already know). Even if you don't want to wet > print your B&W, you can still scan and catalog the negatives. Yeah, that's what I thought, too - $7 per roll likely reflects the fact that B&W is done in smaller batches by hand at this place, whereas color goes in to the machine. I sold my enlarger many years ago (dang it), but I recently dusted off my old daylight tank and I'll get a dark bag and some chemicals after the holidays. > * Don't bother wasting your time shooting your negatives with a digital > camera. The scanner will give superior results and take less time. That's in line with what I've experienced. Too easy to work, I guess. > * You will be able to do your own "low res" scans, so you can save money > there, too. $15 per drum scan sounds cheap to me; what kind of drum > scanner is the shop using? Don't know, but they're 4000X5000 (so about 1800DPI); retouching, ICE and so forth costs extra. Haven't had anything "worthy" to scan yet. Most of what I'll print are "one of's" anyways, I'll just print them directly (wet process) to the size I want. The lab I use is a complete professional's service, they've rescued some pretty grisly negatives with quite acceptable results, so I don't feel like I'll need to be messing around with post-processing much. Thanks for the reply! >> A couple of suggestions: >> * Do your own B&W development, as the prices you've been given sound a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it), but I recently dusted off my old daylight tank and I'll get a dark > bag and some chemicals after the holidays. Agreed. Who knows what the lab uses to soup your B&W in, and there's lots of fun choices nowadays; d76, microdol, rodinal, xtol, tmax dev, acufine, microphen... >> * Don't bother wasting your time shooting your negatives with a digital >> camera. The scanner will give superior results and take less time. > > That's in line with what I've experienced. Too easy to work, I guess. If you have a 1:1 or greater macro lens, though, you can shoot small snippets of your negatives and get an idea of what they'd look like in a high-res scan. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > Agreed. Who knows what the lab uses to soup your B&W in, and there's lots of > fun choices nowadays; d76, microdol, rodinal, xtol, tmax dev, acufine, > microphen... Coffee and TEA. ;) > >> * Don't bother wasting your time shooting your negatives with a digital > >> camera. The scanner will give superior results and take less time. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan Here's an interesting sidebar: I shot some of my 35mm slides with a cheapo duplicator, yes the D70 cropped a good portion of the image area. But the captures were better than scans I could do with my Epson 2450!  SignatureGeorge W. Bush is the President Quayle we never had. > Here's an interesting sidebar: I shot some of my 35mm slides with a > cheapo duplicator, yes the D70 cropped a good portion of the image area. > But the captures were better than scans I could do with my Epson 2450! Not a surprise. The 2450, like all Epson scanners, really has no usable resolution above 1/2 of its advertised resolution, so a 2450 scan from a 35mm frame is 1200 x 1800 "real" pixels _at best_, and that's 2MP. So your 6MP D70 (with its weak AA filter) will be about three times better, since it's putting 6MP onto the whole frame, even if you had a duplicator that could capture the whole slide. With a 1:1 macro lens (or a film-to-film duplicator), your D70 will put 2000 sharp pixels onto 0.63 inches of film, for a 3170 ppi scan. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> Here's an interesting sidebar: I shot some of my 35mm slides with a >> cheapo duplicator, yes the D70 cropped a good portion of the image area. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > whole frame, even if you had a duplicator that could capture the whole > slide. Not that fast... the camera detector uses the Bayer pattern. Its pixels are interpolated. -- Lassi >>> Here's an interesting sidebar: I shot some of my 35mm slides with a >>> cheapo duplicator, yes the D70 cropped a good portion of the image area. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Not that fast... the camera detector uses the Bayer pattern. Its pixels > are interpolated. If you actually look at the images, Bayer DSRL images are worlds better than any scan (other than extreme low-res scans). In particular, you lose almost no resolution switching from monochrome pixels to a Bayer pattern. Even better, the ratio of color resolution to luminance resolution in a Bayer sensor is way higher than it is in the human eye, so as long as your viewers aren't Foveon equipped robots, there's nothing wrong with Bayer cameras. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> Not that fast... the camera detector uses the Bayer pattern. Its pixels >> are interpolated. > > If you actually look at the images, Bayer DSRL images are worlds better than > any scan (other than extreme low-res scans). The images may be visually nice, but the reason is something else than raw resolving power. More likely noise reduction. I've seen the results of one test (not on-line, sorry), where a test target - a regular array of very small black dots on white background - was shot with several digicams. In postprocessing the dots were located accurately, stacked and averaged to get as noiseless a dot as possible. Essentially the test did a spatial impulse response measurement, almost like measuring MTF. In the best cameras the diameter of the impulse (dot) was only two pixels, i.e. one Bayer pattern. From information-theoretical point of view, the result wasn't surprising. -- Lassi > >> Not that fast... the camera detector uses the Bayer pattern. Its pixels > >> are interpolated. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > pixels, i.e. one Bayer pattern. From information-theoretical point of > view, the result wasn't surprising. I offer this test photo http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/71631722/original That is 100% crop from a photo taken with a 350D. Text that is 8 pixel high is easy to read and much of the text that is at 6 pixels high is posible to read. Note this camera has pixels sized such that they are almost exactly at 4000ppi, so you can compare them directly to a 4000 ppi film scan. The best I have seen color film do is just barely readable text that is 8 pixels high, about the same level of reablity as my 6 pixel text. If you take my image and try to resize it down to 50% the text that was easily reaable become unreadable. I have not seen a 4000 ppi film scan where this is true, where text that is readable in the 4000 ppi scan is not also readable when downsized to 2000 ppi. Now most of this may well be the fault of the film and not a limitation on the scanner, in fact I have seen scans that make this pretty clear. But a DSLR image of a negative that works out to 3000 ppi or better is not going to miss much detail that is in the film. Scott > and there's lots of > fun choices nowadays; d76, microdol, rodinal, xtol, tmax dev, acufine, > microphen... Does Agfa still make Rodinal? Mac >> and there's lots of fun choices nowadays; d76, microdol, rodinal, xtol, >> tmax dev, acufine, microphen... > > Does Agfa still make Rodinal? There are directions on the net for making your own if they don't. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan Hi ! Yes, Rodinal is in production : http://www.ao-imaging.com/ Regards, SignatureIgor http://www.arrakis.es/~igapop > > and there's lots of > > fun choices nowadays; d76, microdol, rodinal, xtol, tmax dev, acufine, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Mac > Does Agfa still make Rodinal? Agfa not but other companies in Germany... Stéphane. Signature"Living in the earth is expensive but it does include a free trip around the Sun every year!" http://www.sck-photo.de ( For E-Mail remove the _nospam to write me ) >* Do your own B&W development, as the prices you've been given sound a bit >high. The tools and chemistry are reasonably priced, and it isn't terribly >hard to learn (if you don't already know). Even if you don't want to wet >print your B&W, you can still scan and catalog the negatives. December 13, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, Yes, this is definitely the high-quality, low-cost way. regards, --le > I posted a while back, everyone here was very helpful so I wanted to > get a little more input. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > So, any problems with this plan? Is there an easier way? Thanks! Hi grruff, Regarding your original post, I'd take a look here (see link below) for the 4490. http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&in foType=Specs&oid=63060806&category=Products I'd also take a look at the Canon 8600F here (same as above). I'm assuming that the 8600 is the replacement for the 8400 which I used to own (have since upgraded to Epson V700) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16838111013 The only down side to the Canon is that it uses their FARE for dust removal rather than ICE which is superior in my opinion. In either case, I think they will fill the bill for what you are looking for. Hope this helps, Dave >I'll get the worthy >few images optically printed or drum scanned if I want a large print; >what I need is an easy and cheap way to catalog my film and then print >(reasonably well) at smaller sizes, ie. wallet to 8X10". December 13, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, This is pretty much what I've been doing. However, I believe the 4490 does not scan a negative larger than 4x5. This makes it extremely awkward, because 120 format film negatives are often stored in plastic sleeves that are about 8x10 or 8.5x11, and three-hole punched for binders. It is *much* quicker and easier to scan the negs in their sleeves. This eliminates a lot of handling of negatives. This is very important in regard to time spent and safety of the original work. A scanner that can scan negatives over an area of 8x10 or 8.5x11 (or 8.5x14, like my sadly departed HP 4C with the transparency lid) is much more useful. I held my breath and bought an Epson 4990, and it's fine. The neg scanning area is a little limited, only 8x10, but it's enough. I can do the job, and it performs well and reasonably quickly. My scanning is strictly for catalog and editing purposes, so I'm not concerned about degradation of the image by the filing sleeves, or by my beginner status. I can review my work easily, and I can completely eliminate contact sheets from my life. Always hated them. Also, this scanner is perfectly good for website use of images, and great for emailing pictures around. Maybe these uses would mean we could take it out of its protective sleeve for a fresh scan... Naturally, any negative that is a contender in some way can easily be taken to the nice service bureau for ... service. But that's rare for me, so the cost is not significant. I do close to no computer printing myself, but I gather for making small prints, the 4990 is fine for scanning black and white negatives. regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- > A scanner that can scan negatives over an > area of 8x10 or 8.5x11 (or 8.5x14, like my > sadly departed HP 4C with the transparency > lid) is much more useful. I'll sell ya my 2450 for 150.00 :) SignatureGeorge W. Bush is the President Quayle we never had. > I tried with my old scanner, but the lack of a lighted lid and film > carrier made it hopeless. I'd like to try photographing my negatives > with my 8MP dSLR, but I have no idea how to get it to work - I tried > with a good quality 5MP prosumer camera, and the results were lousy. If > anyone could give me some howto links, I'd appreciate it.... It won't work. Just save the time and stop trying. > So, I'm looking at the Epson 4490. The 4490 is an *outstanding* value, and, given your expectation of "average" results, you may be pleasantly surprised. The adjustable holder from Doug (see http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/vb_mfholder.html) is a worthy upgrade. Note that the effective resolution you get from the scanner at 4800 dpi is probably closer to half that, but it's still plenty for most work. Though I've upgraded to a Nikon LS-9000, I keep the 4490 as a back-up, and it was such a remarkable value, it's a no-brainer to keep it around. Dana SNIP > So, I'm looking at the Epson 4490. The reviews are good but the user > experiences are mixed. I don't want it to replace a good [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > what I need is an easy and cheap way to catalog my film and then print > (reasonably well) at smaller sizes, ie. wallet to 8X10". SNIP Thanks for the replies, everyone. After looking at it carefully, I've decided to hold out for a month or two, and get a refurbished Epson 4990. I've decided this way because of a few issues - the 4990 has 25% faster scanning, more negatives scanned at a time (1 vs. 3-6) and increased Dmax (3.4 vs 4.0) over the 4490; it may not be much but it can't hurt. And the larger scanning area will give me the option of scanning large format, if I eventually go that way; the 4490 doesn't scan anything larger than medium format width, according to the website. Next question for you all - has anyone gotten a refurbished 4990? If so, does it include all of the appropriate software? Thanks for the help! > Next question for you all - has anyone gotten a refurbished 4990? If > so, does it include all of the appropriate software? Most people find that Vuescan is the appropriate software. And since Vuescan is all you need (it supports Epson scanners), it doesn't matter what software comes with it. http://www.hamrick.com/ David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> Next question for you all - has anyone gotten a refurbished 4990? If >> so, does it include all of the appropriate software? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.hamrick.com/ I have it, and while powerful, the interface is cumbersome--Ed really needs to hire an interface designer. On the other hand, Epson's drivers work fine for me and the 4990, and I'd be highly surprised if you couldn't download those for free. What you're unlikely to receive with a refurbished scanner is photoshop elements or silverfast LE, both of which came with mine. > >> Next question for you all - has anyone gotten a refurbished 4990? If > >> so, does it include all of the appropriate software? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > those for free. What you're unlikely to receive with a refurbished scanner > is photoshop elements or silverfast LE, both of which came with mine. Thanks for the replies. According to the website the Silverfast LE 6 comes with the refurbed scanners, but the web pages are sort of generic - it looks like they just recycled the regular webpages. I've been fooled before by this type of thing, the webmasters are often not on top of every little detail on every page. I guess I'll have to try to email them and see what they say. PS Elements comes with new scanners, but it's version 2 so it can't be upgraded to PS CS2; I don't really mind it's absence. As for Vuescan, it appears to be a really nice program, but it's $50-90. That's money I'll need for other things - film and processing, for one. I was planning on using SilverFast or the generic Epson drivers with PS CS for now, at least until it p!&&es me off too much. Season's Best! Recently, Matt Clara <hey.wood.y@buzz.off> posted: >>> Next question for you all - has anyone gotten a refurbished 4990? If >>> so, does it include all of the appropriate software? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I have it, and while powerful, the interface is cumbersome--Ed really > needs to hire an interface designer. Interface preferences are such a personal matter that I would hesitate to support or trash one, but there are a couple of basic principles that I think are helpful. * Consistency - given the same task, the program should do the same thing in the same way. * Logical grouping of tools - while it's OK to have more than one way to go about a task (for example, clipping points vs. curves to tweak the contrast range), associated tools should be grouped *and linked* so that if you change a setting in one, it should be reflected in the other. * General preferences and settings should be able to be saved and recalled automatically. For example, if an interface is comprised of multiple floating palettes, once they are arranged as you want them, they should open that way the next time you use the program. * Adjustments should be in terms that mean something to the user / scanner, with no cryptic numbers or ambiguous icons. * For repetitive tasks such as loading a new set of images, film types, scanner settings, and other "standard" options should be based on the previous settings unless changed by the user. Considering the above items, I think Vuescan gets more things right than SilverFast Ai 6. It may not be cute, but it's functional and productive. Regards, Neil > Recently, Matt Clara <hey.wood.y@buzz.off> posted: > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Neil Yes, but it's also far from intuitive. Recently, Matt Clara <hey.wood.y@buzz.off> posted: (re: Vuescan) [...] >>> I have it, and while powerful, the interface is cumbersome--Ed >>> really needs to hire an interface designer. >>> >> Interface preferences are such a personal matter that I would >> hesitate to support or trash one, but there are a couple of basic >> principles that I think are helpful. [...] >> Considering the above items, I think Vuescan gets more things right >> than SilverFast Ai 6. It may not be cute, but it's functional and >> productive. > > Yes, but it's also far from intuitive. "Intuitive" is in the eye of the user, is it not? Any scanning software that offers pro-level controls over the scanner will be complex, so it's simply a matter of learning how the controls are organized and how to use them. In that regard, Vuescan isn't any less "intuitive" than any other scanning software. Neil > "Intuitive" is in the eye of the user, is it not? Any scanning software > that offers pro-level controls over the scanner will be complex, so it's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Neil Neil; I have PS CS, I recently got an Epson 750V but have not installed the Silver fast that came with it, would you say Silver Fast is better than PS for any functional processes? SignatureGeorge W. Bush is the President Quayle we never had. >Neil; I have PS CS, I recently got an Epson 750V but have not installed >the Silver fast that came with it, would you say Silver Fast is better >than PS for any functional processes? The Silverfast that came with your Epson is probably the "Lite" version. Scanner drivers should be minimal. The less done in the scanner driver, the better. There are a few of things that have to be done right in the scanner: focus, and exposure mainly, and dICE, if you have it and use it. All else is window dressing. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > >Neil; I have PS CS, I recently got an Epson 750V but have not installed > >the Silver fast that came with it, would you say Silver Fast is better > >than PS for any functional processes? > > The Silverfast that came with your Epson is probably the > "Lite" version. Its the AI version. > Scanner drivers should be minimal. The less done in the > scanner driver, the better. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com SignatureGeorge W. Bush is the President Quayle we never had. Recently, Gregory Blank <nogo@g-photo.com> posted: >> "Intuitive" is in the eye of the user, is it not? Any scanning >> software that offers pro-level controls over the scanner will be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > installed the Silver fast that came with it, would you say Silver > Fast is better than PS for any functional processes? These applications serve two different purposes, though there is a little overlap in the area of color correction. Scanner softwares (e.g. SilverFast, Vuescan, etc.) provide controls to capture the image from film and write the file that can be tweaked in PS. There are at least two main schools of thought about how one should go about this, both with goal during scanning is to get the most usable image file for the later tweaking. One group will say it is best to scan a "raw" file with little or no color correction, then do all of the remaining correction in PS, while another group will say to get the color in the ballpark during scanning so that there is less work to do after the fact. The color correction tools in scanning software are there for those using the second approach, and the functionality of those tools is what I think differentiates scanning software. Neil > Recently, Gregory Blank <nogo@g-photo.com> posted: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Neil Ok that said maybe it should rephrased as is the Silverfast Ai going to be a lot better than the Epson scan software. I probably know this answer :) SignatureGeorge W. Bush is the President Quayle we never had. Recently, Gregory Blank <nogo@g-photo.com> posted: > Ok that said maybe it should rephrased as is the Silverfast Ai going > to be a lot better than the Epson scan software. I probably know this > answer :) It probably depends on how you work and what you intend to do. If your preference is to work mostly in PS, then that puts you in the group that would want the least complex scanner software, and perhaps Epson scan is such an app. I can't compare Silverfast to Epson scan software, as I don't have an Epson scanner. However, Silverfast is powerful, and offers many "tweaks" that might help to get more out of your scanner than other software. In my case, it one of two programs that work sufficiently well with my Microtek scanner (Vuescan is the other), but it has some quirks that make little sense to me. Anyway, I suspect that you'll soon come to your own conclusions about which app to use. ;-) Neil > Recently, Matt Clara <hey.wood.y@buzz.off> posted: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > them. In that regard, Vuescan isn't any less "intuitive" than any other > scanning software. That's not intuition. That's learning. Recently, Matt Clara <hey.wood.y@buzz.off> posted: > "Neil Gould" <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message >> Recently, Matt Clara <hey.wood.y@buzz.off> posted: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > That's not intuition. That's learning. I'm eagerly awaiting your explanation of the difference as it regards software interfaces. Neil > Recently, Matt Clara <hey.wood.y@buzz.off> posted: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Neil Of course, some learning is required to become familiar with software in general--after that, it should be intuitive. To me, that's where Ed's software interface falls down. How about an example? When I use Photoshop/Nikon Scan 4/Epson Scan to adjust color, I have nearly identical interfaces that operate identically--unless Ed's changed something since the last time I tried his software, good luck adjusting color in VueScan with that basis of knowledge. Recently, Matt Clara <hey.wood.y@buzz.off> posted: >> Recently, Matt Clara <hey.wood.y@buzz.off> posted: >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > something since the last time I tried his software, good luck > adjusting color in VueScan with that basis of knowledge. I understand your comment; Vuescan didn't use the control method that you learned in your other programs. You do realize that there is no "intuition" involved there? Neil |
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.