Peter Figen wrote:
Maybe so, but if you want to see what the system is capable of, you don't want the scanner to be the weak link. All I'm doing is showing just how great that one lens is, and it really is that good. If that inspires someone to want to buy a 7, then this will help show what can be achieved. And even though most people don't have their own drum scanners, most even casual photographers could find a way to afford a hundred bucks or so to spend on a really special image.
Hopefully in the next month or so, I'm going to buy some of this ultra fine grained film from Freestyle - and I can't right now think of the name of it, but it's very similar to the old discontinued Tech Pan from Kodak - shoot a few rolls with the Mamiya and see what an 8000 ppi scan looks like and maybe crank out a 40 x 50 inch print from my Epson to see a real world result. When I do, I'll be sure to post those results....Show more →
Yeah, I understand all that. It's just a shame that what you are showing us is virtually unobtainable to the vast majority of photographers here.
Yes drum scanning isn't for many. For a lot of what I do, the Epson 4990 is just fine.
BUT if you have an image that matters & you want the best, it's nice to know what can be extracted from a neg or transparency.
I had Peter do a drum scan on a underexposed Velvia 4x5 that I could not get satisfactory results from.
It's not just the detail but also the dynamic range. I
This was from a Grand Canyon trip & it's not like I could just go back and reshoot.
The resultant canvas is now hanging in the living room at the wife's request!
"Yeah, I understand all that. It's just a shame that what you are showing us is virtually unobtainable to the vast majority of photographers here."
Well, there were comments inquiring as to the sharpness of the Mamiya 43mm lens and you even commented yourself about being tempted. I'm just tempting you more. And as far as great scans being "virtually unobtainable", well, I just disagree with that. I don't know about high end scanning in China, but in Europe and the US, it's just not that expensive to have a couple or a few scans made. And if you have an images that merits it, it doesn't make any sense to do it any other way.
I saw my first demonstration of drum scanning back in about 1983 and pretty much had the same reaction you have. Well, that's pretty freaking cool, but I'll never be able to afford a scan let alone do my own. Fast forward about fifteen years from that demo and, after getting sick and tired of paying good money for shitty scans in one of the world's largest markets, I ended up buying a used Howtek 4500 for about $13K USD. Taught myself how to use it, became the chief beta tester for the software and made enough scans for Memorex to pay for it in under four months. Every scan since then is just a bonus, and while I do make occasional scans for other people today, it's mostly just for me to scan my archive at the highest quality level possible. But the real point is never say never, and ain't it great to know that a medium format film camera with phenomenal lenses and sharp film can do way more than you ever imagined.
Peter Figen wrote:
"Yeah, I understand all that. It's just a shame that what you are showing us is virtually unobtainable to the vast majority of photographers here."
Well, there were comments inquiring as to the sharpness of the Mamiya 43mm lens and you even commented yourself about being tempted. I'm just tempting you more. And as far as great scans being "virtually unobtainable", well, I just disagree with that. I don't know about high end scanning in China, but in Europe and the US, it's just not that expensive to have a couple or a few scans made. And if you have an images that merits it, it doesn't make any sense to do it any other way.
I saw my first demonstration of drum scanning back in about 1983 and pretty much had the same reaction you have. Well, that's pretty freaking cool, but I'll never be able to afford a scan let alone do my own. Fast forward about fifteen years from that demo and, after getting sick and tired of paying good money for shitty scans in one of the world's largest markets, I ended up buying a used Howtek 4500 for about $13K USD. Taught myself how to use it, became the chief beta tester for the software and made enough scans for Memorex to pay for it in under four months. Every scan since then is just a bonus, and while I do make occasional scans for other people today, it's mostly just for me to scan my archive at the highest quality level possible. But the real point is never say never, and ain't it great to know that a medium format film camera with phenomenal lenses and sharp film can do way more than you ever imagined. ...Show more →
I follow this discussion with interest - simple question I have is if the same could be achieved resolution and quality-wise by photographing the medium format negative with a digital high res FF sensor (and macro lens for example) in 2-4 photos, and stiching them together digitally? Did you by chance ever try this?
Peter Figen wrote:
"Yeah, I understand all that. It's just a shame that what you are showing us is virtually unobtainable to the vast majority of photographers here."
Well, there were comments inquiring as to the sharpness of the Mamiya 43mm lens and you even commented yourself about being tempted. I'm just tempting you more.
Thanks. Peter Figen wrote:
And as far as great scans being "virtually unobtainable", well, I just disagree with that. I don't know about high end scanning in China, but in Europe and the US, it's just not that expensive to have a couple or a few scans made. And if you have an images that merits it, it doesn't make any sense to do it any other way.
So what does it cost to have a drum scan done? I had heard it was quite expensive. I am very happy to hear that this is not true.
A lot of places still charge by the megabyte for scans of any sort, but I've always thought that was kinda silly. For instance, a 16 bit scan is double the megabytes but takes exactly the same amount of time. A lot of places have a tiered flat rate system making scans quite affordable. Personally, I generally charge between $50 and $250, depending on quantity and size with most scan being in the $75 range. But if someone wants a 4000 ppi 16 bpc scan from 4x5, well, you're talking longer scan times and huge files as well, or an 8000 ppi from 6x7, where you're up in the 2.7 gb file size range.
I think $75-$100 is quite affordable, particularly if you're only doing a few, but some might not think so. There are places you can get "drum" scans for as little as $25-$35 per scan, but I'd be wary of them. There are big differences in hardware and software and even some of the most famous brands of scanners don't necessarily make the best scans. And the person making the scans has a LOT to with what you're going to get.
Are there specific points in the developing process I should be focusing on to produce cleaner negatives? I always end up with dust or specs on the scans. Below is an outline of my current process.
1. Water Rinse
2. Develop
3. Rinse to stop
4. Kodafix
5. Rinse
6. Photoflo-200
7. Remove excess photoflo by running film through fingers (just bought a squeegee thinking it might help)
8. Hang to dry
9. Epson V550 scan with dust removal on
I will also add that I develop in the kitchen sink and use well water.
From about 3 weeks ago with the grandson and wife. First two are with the vivitar 28/2.5 canon ae-1. I really miss not being able to purchase new, Kodak proimage 100 xl (which I used here), unicolor kit, pakon scanned, lr5. Last 2 with the canon fd35/2 chrome nosed thorium lens. Double exposure was unintentional but I like so posted.
Peter,
Thanks for sharing that nice drum scanned MF image and all the info on drum scanning costs! Makes me want to get a 4x5 and get some shots drum scanned to print large!
Chris it looks like you are doing every thing right. I don't bother with photoflo, I just forcefully shake the water out of the reels and hang to dry. Also I am afraid that a squeegee will scratch the emulsion. Arista 100 tends to be soft.
If you are getting white specks that show up in your scans, like maybe a dozen or so. You are probably picking up scale from your pipes, or well caseing. I had this problem and use a Britta water filter. Or you could use distilled water in gallons from the supermarket.
On the other hand, I you have thousands to tiny white specks through out your scan, I would say that your film and developer are not compatible. Normally I use WD2D+ pyro developer with all my film. Arista 100 in WD2D+ produces thousands of tiny white spots. Arista 100 in Rodinal or D76, no problem. I don't use HC110, but, I vaguely remember reading of some problem with this combination. You'll have to check.
I hope this helps. You'll probably need a water filter anyway.
Chris_Churchil wrote:
Are there specific points in the developing process I should be focusing on to produce cleaner negatives? I always end up with dust or specs on the scans. Below is an outline of my current process.
1. Water Rinse
2. Develop
3. Rinse to stop
4. Kodafix
5. Rinse
6. Photoflo-200
7. Remove excess photoflo by running film through fingers (just bought a squeegee thinking it might help)
8. Hang to dry
9. Epson V550 scan with dust removal on
I will also add that I develop in the kitchen sink and use well water.
The two biggest vectors for dust to appear on your negatives are water quality and air quality. If your water has a lot of solid particulates then there is a chance that something will damage the negative and a spot show up.
Once your negatives are hanging to dry, dust in the air can settle on the negative causing permanent spots.
For your final rinse, you need to try using deionized water (pure water). There's nothing in that so you will have removed all chances of contamination. Next evaluate where you hang your film. Is it the best place where there is the least amount of dust?
I would skip set #7 above. You should not touch your negatives like that.
