Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Mike Dale on June 22, 2018, 02:56:19 pm
-
Having just bought a Hasselblad 500 C/M and shot a few rolls of Velvia transparency film I would like to have certain images scanned for printing up to 13"x19" and displaying on screen.
I've had 2048x2048 px scans included in the processing but I cant say I'm impressed by the results. Looking at the actual slides on a Lightbox they look fantastic, the scans not so much.
What are my options? What sort of quality can I expect? I'm not going to be scanning much but would I do better doing it myself with something like an Epson V850?
Advice will be most welcome.
Thanks.
-
What are my options? What sort of quality can I expect?
Depends on how much you want to spend on what scanner. A drum scan off a PMT can't be beat (and not all are created equally). There's more to this than just resolution too. Dynamic range, the difference between a PMT and CCD scanner, if the film is oil/gel mounted etc. And no, you're not better doing yourself if you're not a good scan operator, the software isn't robust and you don't have a scanner of the qualities mentioned.
Only got a few frames to scan, farm it out to someone like NancyScans (http://www.nancyscans.com)in NY as one example.
-
Too bad Hasselblad is asking crazy prices for their Flextights.
If they could update it with ICE technology, add a USB 3.0 interface, limit it to 6x7 size and sell it for 5000~6000 US$ they would own the market and sell many of these.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If they could update it with ICE technology, add a USB 3.0 interface, limit it to 6x7 size and sell it for 5000~6000 US$ they would own the market and sell many of these.
They don't do this as the market for scanners in this range is pretty piss-poor. There's hardly a market to own.
-
They don't do this as the market for scanners in this range is pretty piss-poor. There's hardly a market to own.
I feel that this is changing dramatically these days. More people are probably shooting MF film now than 10 years ago and the main reason why not even more people do it is IMHO scanning.
We've were told for many years that there was no way to sell an MF camera for less than 30,000 US$ by P1 and Hassy because there was no more market for MF... only to find out that tens of thousands fly through the doors of Pentax, Fuji and Hasselblad themselves if you lower the price to 7,000 US$.
It would be the same thing for high end scanning. There is no market for high scanning because Hasselblad has priced itself out of the market.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I feel that this is changing dramatically these days. More people are shooting MF film now....
News to me, by how much more specificity?
-
There’s going to be different shades of acceptable results, just like pixel peeping a digital file. I have a ICG365 drum scanner which I use for 4x5. I rarely use it for medium format and have never used it for 35mm. Why? Because I’m really happy with the results from my Minolta multiscan pro for medium format.
Great scanners are expensive, good scanners are reasonably priced and you just may find the results acceptable.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
News to me, by how much more specificity?
I don't have numbers, I just listen to people around me and in forums. It is pretty dramatic.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't have numbers, I just listen to people around me and in forums. It is pretty dramatic.
Verify, then trust. ;D
What you report could be true, I can't find any data yet to back it up. If I were to listen and believe what people around me (especially those posting on the web) say as fact, I'd be a rather confused person and might post misinformation so common these days. So if and when you have numbers, please provide them. Otherwise, I'll stick to my concept that, one major reason Imacon (Hasselblad) doesn't make scanners any more and hasn't for awhile is largely due to the lack of a market to scan film, my original point.
More people are probably buying horseshoes now than 100 years ago. As our President states so often: Trust me. ;)
-
Verify, then trust. ;D
What you report could be true, I can't find any data yet to back it up. If I were to listen and believe what people around me (especially those posting on the web) say as fact, I'd be a rather confused person and might post misinformation so common these days. So if and when you have numbers, please provide them. Otherwise, I'll stick to my concept that, one major reason Imacon (Hasselblad) doesn't make scanners any more and hasn't for awhile is largely due to the lack of a market to scan film, my original point.
More people are probably buying horseshoes now than 100 years ago. As our President states so often: Trust me. ;)
Well, DJI doesn't have a strong scanning culture, do they? ;)
A few thousands US$ spent in a market research should easily confirm the revival of MF film based photography.
If hassy doesn't catch the opportunity somebody else will.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A few thousands US$ spent in a market research should easily confirm the revival of MF film based photography.
Yes it could, but does such research exist, that's my question to you. I could tell you I spend millions to provide you the metric of horseshoe sales, believe me? ;)
If hassy doesn't catch the opportunity somebody else will.
Someone told me they are working on buggies.
-
FYI:
http://time.com/4649188/film-photography-industry-comeback/
-
FYI:
http://time.com/4649188/film-photography-industry-comeback/ (http://time.com/4649188/film-photography-industry-comeback/)
I missed the part there that stated: More people are probably shooting MF film now than 10 years ago. Please point out to me where that's the case.
-
I missed the part there that stated: More people are probably shooting MF film now than 10 years ago. Please point out to me where that's the case.
You or a close friend don’t have an X1 or X5 you are planning to sell, do you? :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You or a close friend don’t have an X1 or X5 you are planning to sell, do you? :)
Sorry no, wish you asked years ago when I had a number of Imacon scanners; I was an instructor for the Imacon University they setup in the US. I'll have to check but it might have been more than 10 years ago when far more people were shooting and scanning film.
EDIT, found my class notes, it was back in 2001. So more than 10 years ago.
-
Sorry no, wish you asked years ago when I had a number of Imacon scanners; I was an instructor for the Imacon University they setup in the US. I'll have to check but it might have been more than 10 years ago when far more people were shooting and scanning film.
EDIT, found my class notes, it was back in 2001. So more than 10 years ago.
Neat. I used to have an Imacon too.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Too bad Hasselblad is asking crazy prices for their Flextights.
If they could update it with ICE technology, add a USB 3.0 interface, limit it to 6x7 size and sell it for 5000~6000 US$ they would own the market and sell many of these.
Cheers,
Bernard
Do you mean something like an Imacon 343?
http://bigpicture.net/article/imacons-flextight-343-provides-under-5000-option
I guess it was not successful enough to keep in the product line. Maybe things have changed, but maybe not.
I think there are a lot of people shooting film, but the vast majority don't seem to be the type to pony up $5k for a scanner. I could be wrong. But if there was money to be made, why is some manufacturer then not doing this?
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
After seeing the enlargements Fuji showed of photos shot on their medium format film compared to the enlargements they showed from their X-Series APS system at PhotoPlus last year, the thought of shooting MF film in order to scan it seems remarkably counterproductive. The X-Series stuff was much cleaner, as expected, and had more detail, which was somewhat unexpected (though people have been talking about smaller format digital being comparable to medium format film for years). And this is not mentioning the GF-X enlargements they had there...
-
Drum scanners, pseudo drum scanners, and linear-array film scanners haven't seen any meaningful development in decades and are no longer the gold standard for film scanning. The DT Film Scanning Kit (https://dtdch.com/film/) provides better image quality and significantly faster and more flexible workflow, and doesn't require wet-mounting (though it does support it if you have a special desire to spend all afternoon wet mounting).
It's our system, and I was the lead developer, so I'm highly biased, but here are some institutions currently using it to scan their film archives:
- Disney
- Pixar
- National Geographic
- Google
- The Oscars
- The Gates Foundation
- The Getty
- The Smithsonian
- The Irving Penn Foundation
The Library of Congress selected our solution to scan the FSA Collection (the Migrant Mother among many other iconic images during the Great Depression).
The Center for Creative Photography, which houses the life's work of Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, and many other iconic US photographers selected our solution to scan their collection.
We do have a small group of individual/private photographers who purchased one of these systems to scan their personal archives. You have to have a decent amount of scanning to do to justify the investment. Alternatively, we do offer limited scanning services in-house at our NYC and LA offices starting at volumes of 20-scan batches.
-
I missed the part there that stated: More people are probably shooting MF film now than 10 years ago. Please point out to me where that's the case.
You are reading too much into my post. I said and implied nothing about MF film. I posted this since I thought reports of increased film usage is germane to the discussion.
-
You are reading too much into my post. I said and implied nothing about MF film. I posted this since I thought reports of increased film usage is germane to the discussion.
See post #6: who is quoted there and my question to HIM. Your link provided no such answer.
-
Anyone ever work on a 343? Have one that needs a new rubber belt, as it slips, and haven't yet coughed up the $500 to send it in for a full service. Any recommendations? Its not getting a lot of use, but it worked well enough....
-
Anyone ever work on a 343? Have one that needs a new rubber belt, as it slips, and haven't yet coughed up the $500 to send it in for a full service. Any recommendations? Its not getting a lot of use, but it worked well enough....
I didn't have that exact model but several others, it's not difficult to replace the belt IF you can get the part.
-
Anyone ever work on a 343? Have one that needs a new rubber belt, as it slips, and haven't yet coughed up the $500 to send it in for a full service. Any recommendations? Its not getting a lot of use, but it worked well enough....
I actually found it pretty easy to get the belt. Got two off eBay if I remember correctly, just need to put the size into a search and should find the exact same belts.
I've seen a similar solution to the one Doug sells, and it looks great, but you can actually do something similar with
A copy stand
Lightbox
Ruler
DSLR
Macro lens or extension tubes
Ive recently shot about 8000 frames for a friend, to document some archive rolls he had. (Photographer called Tom Wood, similar to Martin Parr)
Results turned out good enough to use to print at the same sort of size the op would like, in fact we could do 20x24 if we really wanted. Color neg is a bit of a pain to edit, but b&w much easier. Color trans should be really easy. I've been using a Sony A7riii with either a Pentax 645 120 macro or a p645 75mm with extension tubes. We have a little curling on some of the shots but, had thousands to do so was a quick process, you could always tape down using some tape for drum scanning if you can find it.
-
Verify, then trust. ;D
More people are probably buying horseshoes now than 100 years ago. As our President states so often: Trust me. ;)
If you lived where I live in South Gloucestershire you would certainly believe it. ;D
-
I actually found it pretty easy to get the belt. Got two off eBay if I remember correctly, just need to put the size into a search and should find the exact same belts.
I've seen a similar solution to the one Doug sells, and it looks great, but you can actually do something similar with
A copy stand
Lightbox
Ruler
DSLR
Macro lens or extension tubes
Ive recently shot about 8000 frames for a friend, to document some archive rolls he had. (Photographer called Tom Wood, similar to Martin Parr)
Results turned out good enough to use to print at the same sort of size the op would like, in fact we could do 20x24 if we really wanted. Color neg is a bit of a pain to edit, but b&w much easier. Color trans should be really easy. I've been using a Sony A7riii with either a Pentax 645 120 macro or a p645 75mm with extension tubes. We have a little curling on some of the shots but, had thousands to do so was a quick process, you could always tape down using some tape for drum scanning if you can find it.
cool, thanks for that craig.
tom wood's work is great!
adrian
-
Call Evan at AZTEK.. He is a walking encyclopaedia of scanning and printing 949-770-8787
-
Too bad Hasselblad is asking crazy prices for their Flextights.
If they could update it with ICE technology, add a USB 3.0 interface, limit it to 6x7 size and sell it for 5000~6000 US$ they would own the market and sell many of these.
Cheers,
Bernard
I agree. I think the DigitalDog has the blinkers on on this one.
But Hasselblad is Hasselblad - the Flextights are now selling for double the price they were at when they had "Imacon" written on the front. Hasselblad has done f-all except pretty up the case and add their badge (and even then only to the front... the back still says Imacon) and bump up the price every year. The scanners support only Firewire 400, and the software is an embarrassment.
Let's face it, when they introduced their last piece of bling they'd apparently forgotten they already had a product called "X1". They are just selling off old stock at cynical prices.
But try to find one second hand at any kind of sensible price ? No chance. They get snapped up immediately, even ancient Imacons with crazy SCSI interfaces. So the market is there - does it have the margins that will pay Hasselblad's executives their bonuses ? Nope. And unfortunately designing and building high end opto-mechanical devices is hard & expensive. Plustek made a decent stab at it with the OF120, but do not appear to have the will to take that any further.
-
I just had 3 films developed and scanned and I am not at all impressed with the scanning. I went for the 4096 pixel scans and compared to the actual transparencies viewed today on a Lightbox are rubbish, the colors are off, they are not anywhere near as sharp as the originals.
Before this thread went slightly off topic I asked about the Epson V850 Scanners. Does anybody actually own and use one of these?
If so is it any good? Can you share an image scanned with it please?
-
I have the Epson V700 and got good results with it on transparencies. Not so with negatives. The size you are saying is fairly small.
I hardly use it these days and so will probably sell it.
-
I have a V850, with large format, it's not bad, for smaller formats, it can't touch my drum scanner. In the past, anytime I've ordered scans with developing, the quality has only been good enough as a 'proof.' I think you need higher end scans to get the quality you're looking for.
-
I've used http://www.agximaging.com/price-list-3/ with great results.
Hasselblad scans for 12.50
-
Thanks Guys. AGX sounds very reasonable. I’ll give them a try.
Thanks again.