[filmscanners] Re: Modern photography...

["Arthur Entlich" <artistik@shaw.ca>]

Hi Ken,

A reasonable set of questions.  The somewhat disjointed set of thoughts
below might be of some help for you in making a decision for now.  Keep
in mind that digital imaging technologies are still in adolescence, at
best.  While film is mature and maybe even getting a bit senile, with
digital, the longer you wait, the better and cheaper the products will
be.  Keep in mind that unlike with your film camera where most new
technologies that really mean anything in image quality can be installed
on your camera by popping in a new roll of film, with digital, it mean
buying a new camera.

Really, the first question is your budget. Sensors, scanners and
printers are improving all the time, and if you are willing to pay
enough, you can find a sensor that will provide you with something at
least approaching the tonality and resolution of a medium format neg and
print.

"Basic truths":

Just as with film, larger sensors in digital cameras usually provide
less noise and better resolution.

With scanners, usually dedicated film scanners provide the best
translation of film to digital than faltbeds.

With printers, inkjet technology has move ahead tremendously, in terms
of resolution, in terms of permanence, now eclipsing some wet
photographic processes (especially in color dyes/pigments).Using a
dedicated black and white inkjet printer will give you considerably
better image outputthan trying to accomplish it with a color inkjet printer.

If you want to produce the same quality result as you have in the past
with a wet darkroom, you are going to have to pay some bucks somewhere.

===================

Taking us through the film/scanner printer approach... If you stick with
your camera and optics (which are both very good, and were a major
expense) then you need to capture that quality via a scanner so you can
put it to use digitally, if you wish to have the digital world open to you.

That means getting all you can from the negs.  You can have the
negatives scanned for you, at a cost per, and leave the driving to
someone lese, or yo can purchase your own scanner and learn the process
of translating a negative/sldie into a digital file.


Although flatbeds have come a great distance, the results are still a
compromise.  In most cases, you are "shooting" through a piece of glass,
which can introduce dust, distortion and newton rings.  Dust is a real
annoyance.  Infrared cleaning systems don't work with silver halide B&W
films, so that leaves chromagenic films if you want to use this
technology.  There are other software dust filters that work to greater
or lesser effect with real B&W films.

Dedicated film scanners without glass, will probably extract more
information from your film, but you'll pay a lot more for it.  They have
dropped in price due to lowered demand.  Look at scanners from Microtek,
Minolta and Nikon, or older models from Leaf, or Polaroid (the medium
format Sprintscan is actually Microtek's product). Or, get some tests
done on higher-end flatbeds from Epson, Canon or Microtek and see if
they meet your expectations.

Going with a digital source for image capture resolves the need for a
scanner (although there are still your older images to consider).  To
get the quality you current are able to via the 6x6cm neg and a scanner
will not come cheaply.  A 3000-4000 ppi medium format scanner will
provide you with an image 6750 ppi to 9000 ppi square image, which is
equivalent to a 45 to 80 megapixel image in theory (of course, that
depends if the film actually has that much information recorded on it)
which can easily be printed as a 20-30" square print.   You can't find a
80 MP sensor today, or if there is one, it will cost much of your home
to buy.

However, some will argue a lot of the "information" the scanner sensor
captures is not real but instead artifacts and noise from the film's
grain.  They will tell you a 10 to 20 MP sensor, complete with it's
grainless result, is a much more accurate and detailed image than the
film version. It still won't come to you cheaply.

Some problems with film are:

- grain, processing, scratches, dust
- one original which can be damaged or lost
- time required before seeing result
- can't be sent electronically (unless scanned)
- data out of the film's exposure range is lost forever

Good things about film:

- black and white images are nearly forever as a storage medium while no
current digital storage method can guarantee the same permanence
- great tonal range, difficult to emulate in digital, especially "color"
digital sensors (yes, I know most color digital sensors use black and
white sensors with a color separation matrix)
- "upgrade" your camera by buying a new roll of film
- your archive is tangible and visible with just a light source
- the space a neg takes up is less than most if not all of equivalent
storage digitally

Digital cameras continue to become cheaper, and to improve in quality
and resolution.  They are fun to work with, give immediate feedback,
allow for unlimited shooting at little to no cost.  The results are
digitally accessible immediately, can be manipulated by computer
programs, etc.

Printers:

For color prints, nothing beats a well done digitally created print.
The control is amazing and no amount of darkroom talent can cover the
full ground of digital manipulation.  From the almost unlimited
"filters" to the ability to control contrast selectively, curves, and so
on, the use of unsharp masking at a moments notice, level, layering,
selective color change, etc, the tools and toys in the digital lab are
like a unlimited candy store.  Black and white images still get offered
a good edge from digital manipulation that would be difficult, if not
impossible, to accomplish in the wet darkroom.  Further, you can do it
all sitting down, in the light and not have to mix and breathe in a
bunch of toxic chemicals.

As far as the final printed product, an inkjet printer set up for black
and white images, using several ink densities can produce an image
better than most wet chemistry can.

In fact, Epson and even HP recently seem to have understood this.  Some
of their printers now have a black and a middle gray ink (2200, R800,
R1800) and some of the wider carriage models, but just down the line
Epson is introducing several new printers which will incorporate the K3
inks, in other words 3 densities of black, as well as a full color
component.  These ink sets will be CcMmYKk-k.

However, even if you don't want o go that way, a simple 4 color printer
can be converted to a 4 density level black and white printer by
changing inks and drivers.

Some of the newer black and white ink sets have expected lifespan of
over 300 years under accelerated aging tests.

Cost per print (in terms of consumables) is probably about the same as
your wet chemistry to produce, but you will need to buy the printer, and
drivers.

What would I do now?

If you are in love with the richness of black and white from 6x6cm negs,
and since you already own the camera and lenses, for the time being, I
would stick with film for that part of the process.  It has some
limitations and some advantages, but until they make a CCD back for your
camera that can match it's resolution and tonal range for under the cost
of a new car, you might want to "put up" with film.

Scan your results to files, via a quality flatbed, or dedicated scanner
(maybe buying a quality used one) and then you have opened yourself to
digital image manipulation.  Buy a good program like Photoshop, or one
of it's less costly "clones" that has the features you need, and
finally, buy either a 4 color printer (I suggest Epson since it's heads
are best designed for pigment or dye inks, and you have a great choice
of 3rd party inks and papers) which you make into a quad tone OR, wait a
few months for the Epson 2400 (up to 17" wide) or the 7800 (24" wide)
with K3 inks to hit the market.

For color, it's a different matter, as resolution and tonality take a
back seat to color rendition.  If you have no digital camera experience,
and if color is secondary to your image production, you can either stick
to your Rollei and scanner approach, or if you want to start getting on
the digital learning curve, knowing full well your camera will become
nearly worthless in the next 3-4 years, buy yourself a mid-range 4-5 MP
camera with a built in optical zoom for a few hundred bucks.  It won't
give you the satisfaction of interchangeable lenses or great low light
ability, etc, but it can be small and lightweight and fun to have with
you and provide you with a quite reasonable 8 x10 or even 11 x 14 image
that you can then play with and printout yourself on a color inkjet. It
will almost certainly make you experiment more with your photography.
You'll learn what digital is like, what you do and don't like about it,
and what you may be wanting  in features when in the near future the
better products come out at more reasonable prices.

Art


Ken McKaba wrote:

> I have been out of touch with photography for a few years
> and recently dusted off my old Rolleiflex 6x6 to find
> myself in the digital age.  I am trying to make sense of
> how serious photography is done in the 21st century.
> I've brought the issue up to various people and everyone
> has a different opinion- I bet folks on this list will a
> few new ones.
>
> I always loved shooting B&W in my old Rolleiflex- I like
> the large square format.  I do portraits, studio figure
> stuff, landscapes, etc.  I used to spend hours in the
> darkroom and followed the Zone system to some extent.
>
> My questions:
>
> -Is hours in the darkroom this still the best way to get
> fantastic B&W pics?
>
> -Should I shoot film then use a film scanner to
> manipulate and print?
>
> -Which film?
>
> -Should I shoot digital then use PhotoShop to make it
> monochrome?
>
> -Should I use the same approach for color pics?
>
> -Which is the best process to print a B&W digital pic?
> Is there an online service to do so?
>
> -I just got the CanoScan 8400f flatbed scanner- will I be
> happy with the results?  Should I cough-up another $200
> and get the CanoScan 9950f or Epson 4870?
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Ken
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body