Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: simplify on January 22, 2010, 06:18:48 pm
-
removed
-
Hi Sam,
thanks for this little shoot-out. Personally I noticed the greatest difference in the cloud detail(zones 8 and 9), and the tonal gradation that the drum scan had versus the Imacon.
now, since I'm a poor photo student, most of my scanning has been taken care of by a local photo center's Imacon. that scanner is SWWEEEEET!!!
just out of curiosity, you mention "The Imacon and the Epson cannot scan higher than 200MB without interpolation, thus making it impossible to make a sharp large print over 30"X40" as compared to a print made from our Heidelberg scan."
please explain further if you could....
I can see the real advantage of a drum scan is for people who print large; like mural LARGE(Peter Lik, other landscapers, etc...) people who also have the budget to afford it.
getting a used Imacon for 4-5k can pay for itself after a year or two, depending on your workflow, and how much you profit off your work.
-Dan
-
While I agree with the results. I have done similar tests myself. I have to take issue with your advertising hype. Show me anywhere that Epson or anybody else refers to the 750 as "Epson V750 flatbed "drum equivalent" scanner". Stick to the facts and drop the hyperbole.
-
Kirk, I see your point. That is what a lot of our customers say the V750 is, not Epson. We will take your consideration and edit the site.
Thanks,
-
I have a Howtek 4500 that I used extensively for my personal work. Before that I had a Nikon 9000. I have compared the drum scans to those fom the Nikon as well an Imacon we had at work. The CCD scanners couldn't touch the Howtek, especially with neg film. Call me weird, but I kind of enjoy the skills required to drum mount film. There's somethng ritualistic about it.
-C
-
you can find linotype heidelberg scanners on ebay (one for 1500 right now) from time to time for real cheap. the trick is moving them.
-
I have a Howtek 4500 that I used extensively for my personal work. Before that I had a Nikon 9000. I have compared the drum scans to those fom the Nikon as well an Imacon we had at work. The CCD scanners couldn't touch the Howtek, especially with neg film. Call me weird, but I kind of enjoy the skills required to drum mount film. There's somethng ritualistic about it.
-C
chris, are you running a legacy comp to that thing? I just picked up 10 boxes of the RL EPN from Hedrich Blessing btw, thank for your tip in the other thread alerting me to it.
should be on its way in the next day or so. I do agree with you on the 'ritualistic' thing though: drum scanning is an art!
-Dan
p.s. is it ok if I scavenge some data off of you, since you mentioned in another thread that you shot EPN when you were shooting 4x5 for work. ok to send some questions, so I don't have to fumble around testing over and over? thanks
-
There are drum scans and there are drum scans.
I've had scans supplied to me that should never have seen the light of day and others that are second to none.
As with all scanning and scanners much depends on the experience of the operator.
I could not agree more...
-
I could not agree more...
+1
Ironically I go back to the DSLR / MFDB equation. The Imacon is faster, easier and will get you good results. The Drum scanner will give you more quality if you're willing to put in more time and effort. The similarities stop there, I got a really nice refurbished Howtek 4500 for $4500 with a warranty and mounting station... Imacons are damn pricey.
-
I have a Howtek 4500 that I used extensively for my personal work. Before that I had a Nikon 9000. I have compared the drum scans to those fom the Nikon as well an Imacon we had at work. The CCD scanners couldn't touch the Howtek, especially with neg film. Call me weird, but I kind of enjoy the skills required to drum mount film. There's somethng ritualistic about it.
-C
err... neg film is far more forgiving than trans. so dont know what your mean by this. doesn't even need a profile.
did you Oil Mount the film in both cases? becasue if you oil mount just the drum scans and dry mount the CCD ones, then your are not comparing like with like.
personally, for color neg work, I've had Tango scans compared to Coolscan work and found no difference that I can see, if its been done well, i.e. wet mounted.
and I've been taking 6x7cm scans up to 80" Lightjet prints, and its been amazing, so I stand by the Nikon Coolscan at that level.
but... ymmv