3 Gb drum scan samples from 8x10" Portra 160 neg

[mikestr]

I think, Marco, that it should be pointed out that it doesn't require anything close to the the 8060's maximum claimed resolution of 12,000 dpi to produce the results you post here, and that this was approximately a 2600 ppi scan. That is of course plenty for an 8x10 film. There are a number of drum scanner models that can achieve this, including the Aztek Premier you mention, and it's wrong to suggest otherwise as you do in your promotional blurb (not to mention the claim, made second-hand, that this particular practitioner makes scans of quality unique in the world).

As to the larger point of the capability of large format film, this is amply demonstrated here, and the Tim Parkin site mentioned gives parallel results. Those of us who shoot in various digital and film formats don't find these results in the least surprising. I would only add that these discussions are incomplete, centering exclusively on spatial resolution and dynamic range. However, equally important to apparent image quality is tonal resolution--the ability to separate tiny differences in tone--as this is responsible for the sense of richness in an image, which large format film so excels in. While high spatial resolution is required for high tonal resolution, it is not by itself sufficient. This is often confused with dynamic range, which only defines the extremes of useful exposure scale, but not how many steps of tone are recorded within that range. I have no technical data to confirm this, but digital camera images always look a bit deficient in this area, and I wonder if the large amounts of sharpening applied, both in the camera and later in Photoshop, to achieve adequate spatial resolution, does not force close tones together enough to obliterate fine gradations. The effect is certainly visible in high magnification, and it seems reasonable that this accounts for a certain brittle look to many digital camera images, even at normal print sizes, that I find a bit unnatural. Of course this may be a cultural effect, as I did not grow up with digital imagery...

[FMueller]

I looked at the price list. But at 123 Euros for the first 500mb, and 2.5gb to go... That Phase IQ260 starts looking like a screaming deal.

I wish to share this link that shows some crops of a 3 Gb drum scan from a very good Kodak Portra 160 8x10" negative.

It shows how much quality and resolution are achievable from a large format color negative. As you can see, it's possible to extract up to 3 Gb of true and crisp detail from a 8x10" shot (crops published at 100% of magnification).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/9696267924/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/9693023737/sizes/l/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/9693037335/sizes/l/in/photostream/

[design_freak]

http://www.idea-digital.com/index.php/scanning

It's nothing new if we talk about price. Equipment cost a lot of money, years of practice cost as well.
It is for people who really love photography...

[Misirlou]

I agree that film and digital both have their merits. It would be nearly impossible for me to handle film developing in my current circumstances, so I shoot 100% digital now. But if film were still easy to buy and process, I'd still be shooting 6X6 and 4X5 as well.

A lot of the commentary about the differences ends up concentrating on considerations of grain/noise and ultimate resolution. But I think a lot of what I like about the film "look" results from way older lenses rendered. There's no way any modern digital camera/lens combination is going to produce an image that has the same character as a classic film lens. That doesn't make one choice necessarily "better" or "worse." They're just very different, regardless of grain or resolution.

That's why I really enjoy this kind of project:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/07/25/lomography-resurrects-the-petzval-lens-over-kickstarter

[jerome_m]

It would be nearly impossible for me to handle film developing in my current circumstances

Unless you shoot B&W film. It only needs a small tank, 2 clean bottles and can be done in a standard bathroom.

[mikestr]

Unless you shoot B&W film. It only needs a small tank, 2 clean bottles and can be done in a standard bathroom.

Where are you located that you cannot access a film processing lab? Nearly all labs process film that is mailed to them. And the quality:cost calculation usually works out very favorably for medium- or large-format film when compared with a MF digital back. It is true that drum scans can quickly shift that calculation in the other direction, but some fairly good scans can be made with inexpensive scanners, especially if one is scanning only negatives and the enlargement is not enormous. The quality of a decent scan of a Hasselblad, Rollei, or Mamiya MF negative, even when scanned on a modestly priced flatbed scanner is simply astonishing and cannot be equaled by even the best 35mm DSLR. And 4x5 and 8x10 are much, much better still.

[Misirlou]

Unless you shoot B&W film. It only needs a small tank, 2 clean bottles and can be done in a standard bathroom.

Sorry to get back to this thread months later...

Yes, what you say is true, but 4X5 is a whole lot messier. And then you have to deal with chemical disposal and storage. I live in a part of the country that gets very, very hot in the summer, and water is scarce. One of the issues with that is that things delivered by mail have a habit of suffering thermal damage. I still have my 4X5 enlarger and all of my other film gear, but I never seem to find the time to get back into it.

[Misirlou]

Where are you located that you cannot access a film processing lab? Nearly all labs process film that is mailed to them. And the quality:cost calculation usually works out very favorably for medium- or large-format film when compared with a MF digital back. It is true that drum scans can quickly shift that calculation in the other direction, but some fairly good scans can be made with inexpensive scanners, especially if one is scanning only negatives and the enlargement is not enormous. The quality of a decent scan of a Hasselblad, Rollei, or Mamiya MF negative, even when scanned on a modestly priced flatbed scanner is simply astonishing and cannot be equaled by even the best 35mm DSLR. And 4x5 and 8x10 are much, much better still.

I've been through a couple of flatbeds, and found them all wanting, esp. for 4X5. Too many problems with newton rings or uneven sagging problems. I may make another run at it again though. I still have thousands of excellent negatives and transparencies.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I've been through a couple of flatbeds, and found them all wanting, esp. for 4X5. Too many problems with newton rings or uneven sagging problems. I may make another run at it again though. I still have thousands of excellent negatives and transparencies.

Scan wet and get rid of Newton rings forever.
No need for complicated Mylar layers around your film.
Just fluid between the glass and the film is enough.
I do that with my Nikon scanner and MF film and get good results.

The really interesting thing about film is the old glass which gives images a different rendering and the color rendition of film, especially in the yellows and reds.
Sunrise/sunset with film is something completely different than digital.
And a lot of the problems with films (not all, of course) can be eliminated by working hybrid in an analog/digital workflow.
Large inkjet prints from good film scans are a really interesting option if you can live with the restrictions, which are obviously there - I don't want to argue that.

What I would really love to see is a quad color Bayer pattern sensor with Red+Green+Blue+Yellow instead of Red+2xGreen+Blue.
In the moment there is no digital equivalent to a multilayered film with different spectral sensitivities on each layer and super robust long time exposure capabilities.
Digital still has to learn some lessons from film.

I strongly believe shooting both, film an digital is THE way to give you all the options.
Giving up one simply is self castration.

Cheers
~Chris

[EricWHiss]

What I would really love to see is a quad color Bayer pattern sensor with Red+Green+Blue+Yellow instead of Red+2xGreen+Blue.

Chris,
I agree with you about film - and that's an interesting idea for sensors.   So much of the latest chip designs are about maximizing luminosity detail at the expense of color detail, so this is nice to see someone thinking about improving color response.  But maybe this works better when pixel density gets higher?
Eric

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Chris,
I agree with you about film - and that's an interesting idea for sensors.   So much of the latest chip designs are about maximizing luminosity detail at the expense of color detail, so this is nice to see someone thinking about improving color response.  But maybe this works better when pixel density gets higher?
Eric

I don't think replacing one green pixel with a yellow one would decrease luminosity resolution - yellow is a pretty common color in almost any image.
I (wildly) guess changing the Bayer pattern to a 3x3 pattern with 9 different colors, e.g. additional violet or deep reds near IR spectrum should work - but the details would be up to the engineers - I'm only a physician without too detailed engineering knowledge.
But it is clear - every pixel samples luminosity - so why not increase the number of colors to get a better sampling of the light spectrum too?

[narikin]

Scan wet and get rid of Newton rings forever.
No need for complicated Mylar layers around your film.
Just fluid between the glass and the film is enough.
I do that with my Nikon scanner and MF film and get good results.

+1 - you have to wet mount to get a decent scan.

And as this self-promoting thread has sprung zombie-like back to life (!) I have to point out that I saw the Thomas Struth exhibition at Marianne Goodman Gallery in midtown Manhattan right now, and was struck by how poor the quality was on those huge prints.  A stitched digital MF back would give much better results than the scanned LF film he was using. Sharpness and color. The image softened into mushy grain as you moved closer.

If OP made those scans, like he hints, its a slam dunk against his claims.

[Fine_Art]

+1 - you have to wet mount to get a decent scan.

And as this self-promoting thread has sprung zombie-like back to life (!) I have to point out that I saw the Thomas Struth exhibition at Marianne Goodman Gallery in midtown Manhattan right now, and was struck by how poor the quality was on those huge prints.  A stitched digital MF back would give much better results than the scanned LF film he was using. Sharpness and color. The image softened into mushy grain as you moved closer.

If OP made those scans, like he hints, its a slam dunk against his claims.

That is not the way it works. We have at the beginning of the thread "proof" of the quality you can get from 8x10 scanned. If somebody else gets a shitty result that does not throw out reality. They botched it, or they had an equipment problem. It takes far more skill to get the film right in 1 go than when you can check a digital capture. It's also basically hearsay. There is nothing presented to show a side by side of the 2 methods. The "slam dunk" is into the round file.

I am not saying film is better. These days it is near impossible to do with film what a person determined to get the best from high end digital can do. Multi-shot stitch, exposure bracketing, focus stacking, etc. Try to do it with film and the light has changed before you are done.

[narikin]

That is not the way it works. We have at the beginning of the thread "proof" of the quality you can get from 8x10 scanned. If somebody else gets a shitty result that does not throw out reality. They botched it, or they had an equipment problem. It takes far more skill to get the film right in 1 go than when you can check a digital capture. It's also basically hearsay. There is nothing presented to show a side by side of the 2 methods. The "slam dunk" is into the round file.

I am not saying film is better. These days it is near impossible to do with film what a person determined to get the best from high end digital can do. Multi-shot stitch, exposure bracketing, focus stacking, etc. Try to do it with film and the light has changed before you are done.

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree in the case of this thread's OP statements. His imputation that he makes all these amazing scans for the high end German art photographers, that knock digital out of the ring altogether, then we are entitled to look at the 'pudding' and see if it bears out the 'proof'.  It did not.

Yes of course, someone looking at a bad digital photograph cannot then conclude that all digital is rubbish, and likewise for film, but - at this level of craftsmanship, one  is right to expect the highest of standards by a mature renowned photographer, and his production process. There are many steps in that of course, but it wasn't that the print (by Grieger)  was bad, but the grainy XL image was clearly softer than it could be, and did not hold to closer inspection - it only worked viewed from a significant distance. I have seen large digital captures that greatly exceed this result, in less esteemed hands.  The conclusion I would draw from this is quite clear - but ymmv, of course!

[EricWHiss]

I've noticed in several shows recently of older famous film photographers that a lot of the work was soft, but the key thing is not all of them - and of course from shooting my own films, I also know that to be true.  My point?  Since the advent of digital cameras and 100% view, a whole lot more people became more obsessed with sharpness than in the past and get lots of sharp images (with hopefully not less attention on the other aspects of the images).   But to go from a number of soft film images and conclude that its not possible to get a sharp detailed file from scanning is wrong.  Tim Parkin showed us that even some MF film cameras can out resolve MFDB when properly handled for sharp images.   It may be pointless to go to the effort for the best scans unless you have a truly great negative though.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I feel the whole film vs digital debate gets pointless when discussing in terms of "better" or "worse".
"Strengths" and "Weaknesses" or "Usability" I think help better to discuss the differences if desired.
Seeing many of these discussions derailing into a war of zealots is plain boring - one of the greatest sins in art - to bore your viewers, IMO.

What we are discussing here in these last posts is a subset of problems connected to scanning and to color rendition, nothing more.
No one wants to say film is better or worse.
I love the rendering of sunrise and sunset how it is done by film and I love the features and new use cases my digital camera  gives me.
I'd also love to see a sensor design with better color rendering in certain situations.

There are many photographers out who know very well both media and from what I hear from the majority of the ones I'm in contact with is basically:
"Horses for courses".

Sharpness, color rendition, microcontrast - all these technical parameters are only tools, nothing more.
There's a reason why there are Softars and why some people like old glass.
There are reasons why some people still shoot film, even professionally.

Please lets not open this can of worms again.
Its pointless.

Cheers
~Chris

[jerome_m]

Sorry to get back to this thread months later...

Yes, what you say is true, but 4X5 is a whole lot messier. And then you have to deal with chemical disposal and storage. I live in a part of the country that gets very, very hot in the summer, and water is scarce. One of the issues with that is that things delivered by mail have a habit of suffering thermal damage. I still have my 4X5 enlarger and all of my other film gear, but I never seem to find the time to get back into it.

My advice was about film only and only about B&W. Developing B&W film, be it 120 film or 4x5 is relatively easy and does not need too much water or produce loads of chemical waste. It is actually competitive with sending out the film to a laboratory far away to have it processed.

Developing colour film is a lot more difficult and labs may be easier to find, so home processing is less an option. Enlarging is also a lot more involved, even in B&W, if only because of the space necessary.

My advice was thus to develop film at home and to scan it and print it. It is a good compromise between quality and convenience. It may not be the way to achieve the highest quality possible, but that was not the question.

As to quality, anyone who has seen exhibition prints enlarged optically from sheet film knows that it is spectacular. Hiroshi Sugimoto comes to mind. At this level of quality my feeling is that endless discussion as to which technology gives the best results is pointless: it hangs in museum and the visitors are baffled, so it is good enough.

[Jason Denning]

There is a guy in the uk that does great drum scanning for way less. Here is his link -
http://cheapdrumscanning.com/

I looked at the price list. But at 123 Euros for the first 500mb, and 2.5gb to go... That Phase IQ260 starts looking like a screaming deal.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

There is a guy in the uk that does great drum scanning for way less.

You don't always need drum scans.

A simple Epson V700 scan gives you 80+ MP from a 4x5" - thats much more than needed to get gorgeous prints at huge size.
Scanning different exposures and doing an HDR with them gives you additional dynamic range.
Sure - A drum scan still is the nonplusultra - no discussion about that.
But if you know your way around you can get great results with a lot less change.

Cheers
~Chris

[EricWHiss]

I'm doing most of my 'scanning' now with a 528cf multishot back and schneider macro symmar lens over a light table.  Black and white is really easy, and I made myself a blue filter to neutralize the orange carrier of the color negative film I shoot.   I then use color perfect plugin to get the colors right.    I side step the whole scanning issue sort of and this is much faster.

btw - the blue filter is pretty easy to make - a least how I did it - I took a shot of the film put it in photoshop, sampled the orange carrier, inverted it and filled a whole layer with that color and just printed it out to transparency film.  Ideally you'd do this with the light source you will use for your 'scanning'.     For 4x5 and smaller there is a neat older device called a Bowens illumitran.  This was made for copy work.  It's basically a flash box with a slide holder on top.   The flash has probably a better CRI than the fluorescent light tables - though I do use the eVision executive:HF copy stand with 40khz ballast fluorescent light box for negatives larger than 4x5.