Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 14 Dec 2017 (Thursday) 09:13
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Medium format scanning

 
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,378 posts
Likes: 328
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Dec 17, 2017 20:38 |  #16

Seems like everyone just cares about resolution. The thing I find that really separates dedicated MF scanners like the Nikon Coolscan 8000/9000 from the $100 flatbeds is not strictly resolution, but how much details you can get from the shadows and highlights. I find the Coolscan 8000 pulls much more details from the shadows than what I achieve from my Epson 700.

It’s not only resolution that is important...muddy shadows will ruin a nice 6x7 negative a lot faster than resolution.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,111 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 1992
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited 4 months ago by Wilt. (2 edits in all)
     
Dec 18, 2017 10:17 |  #17

Hokie Jim wrote in post #18517696 (external link)
Most likely, no larger than 11"x14".

Assuming you started with a 645 format image, that is 43mm x 56mm (depending upon brand of 645 camera)... 1.7" x 2.2"
At 4800 dpi scan setting, you end up with about 8160 x 10560 pixels in a scan
Printed at 11", that leaves 742 dpi in the print

Even my Canon 8800F flatbed does 4800 dpi scanning, while the current flatbed Canon 9000F does 9600 dpi scanning with film.
The biggest 'problem' I have found with film scanning is simply the arduous task of cleaning meticulously the film of dust spots (even though the scanner does have built in spot removal software, it is better not to have to correct detail-blocking dust!), and the scan time of each image at the high dpi setting.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
williaty
Member
98 posts
Likes: 74
Joined Feb 2017
     
Dec 18, 2017 17:49 |  #18

Hogloff wrote in post #18520505 (external link)
Seems like everyone just cares about resolution. The thing I find that really separates dedicated MF scanners like the Nikon Coolscan 8000/9000 from the $100 flatbeds is not strictly resolution, but how much details you can get from the shadows and highlights. I find the Coolscan 8000 pulls much more details from the shadows than what I achieve from my Epson 700.

It’s not only resolution that is important...muddy shadows will ruin a nice 6x7 negative a lot faster than resolution.

This is something a lot of people don't get. I have a Coolscan 5000 sitting next to an Epson V850. At posting-to-the-web size or even 8x12 print size, the critical difference is NOT the optical resolution of the scanner (though the 5000 is a hell of a lot better than the 850 in that respect!). The thing you will notice without an problem in any size of output is that the Coolscan has a more linear tonal scale and sees into the dense areas a HECK of a lot better. It's the difference between a first-week student making a print on cheap RC paper vs an experienced printer taking a full day to make a art print on glossy fiber paper.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AZGeorge
Goldmember
Avatar
2,092 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 393
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Southen Arizona
     
Dec 18, 2017 18:10 |  #19

Hogloff wrote in post #18520505 (external link)
. . . I find the Coolscan 8000 pulls much more details from the shadows than what I achieve from my Epson 700.

It’s not only resolution that is important...muddy shadows will ruin a nice 6x7 negative a lot faster than resolution.


williaty wrote in post #18521219 (external link)
the Coolscan has a more linear tonal scale and sees into the dense areas a HECK of a lot better. It's the difference between a first-week student making a print on cheap RC paper vs an experienced printer taking a full day to make a art print on glossy fiber paper.


Wilt wrote in post #18520842 (external link)
The biggest 'problem' I have found with film scanning is simply the arduous task of cleaning meticulously the film of dust spots (even though the scanner does have built in spot removal software, it is better not to have to correct detail-blocking dust!), and the scan time of each image at the high dpi setting.

Oh yes on Wilt's dust.

I wonder how much the tonal differences depend on hardware as opposed to the scanner software. I did some large batches with a CoolScan with no or minimal adjustments. Since then, using flatbeds, I've found the need, real or imaginary, to make many adjustments.


George
Democracy Dies in Darkness

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
williaty
Member
98 posts
Likes: 74
Joined Feb 2017
     
Dec 19, 2017 17:49 |  #20

AZGeorge wrote in post #18521241 (external link)
Oh yes on Wilt's dust.

I wonder how much the tonal differences depend on hardware as opposed to the scanner software. I did some large batches with a CoolScan with no or minimal adjustments. Since then, using flatbeds, I've found the need, real or imaginary, to make many adjustments.

It's hardware. You can stuff a Stoufer step wedge into the different scanners and see that the Coolscan really does have a higher Dmax than the V850 and that the Coolscan is substantially more linear as it approaches Dmax.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,177 views & 4 likes for this thread
Medium format scanning
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.0forum software
version 2.0 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Jeepmbr
761 guests, 449 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.