What are some of the successful methods for scanning Pentax 67 negatives or transparencies digitally. The options for medium format don't seem as extensive as for 35mm. Is it best to use a flatbed with transparency adapter (like an Agfa Duoscan) or a film scanner like the Minolta Dimage? And do the results really justify the larger format compared to 35mm? Or are they simply "good, not great"?

-- michael heath (mheath333@aol.com), July 04, 1999

Answers

The question is what level of quality are you expecting. If you are a pro, the only really good scan of any image is a drum scan that certain processing labs can make. But the cost is warranted only if the shot will be published. The most common use is to put on your web site as an advertisement or to show friends what you've been up to. Most scans on web sites can easily be made with a low-priced scanner and fixed up with software (scanning seems to reduce sharpness and muddle some colors). If you count pixels per print, the only sensible way appears to me to be to have your favorite lab make an 8x10 print which you can then scan on a low-priced flat bed. Presumably your lab can do a good job on the color and then scan will be large enough to show very good resolution. A little touch-up with good software should make a very good digital image. I don't have such a scanner yet but it's on my list. My 4x6 scanner has whetted my appetite.

-- Tom Goodrick (tgoodrick@earthlink.net), July 08, 1999.

What do you consider goo? The Agfa Duoscan is plenty capable of capturing enough resolution off a 6x7 original to make an 11x14 print at 300 dpi. I wouldn't want to send one of these files to a Lightjet 5000, but they are good enough for proofing your images and getting them on your web site.

I just bought a Umax PowerLook III specifically for scanning 6x6 and 6x7 negatives and slides. I plan to purchase an Epson 3000 printer soon so I can make my own 16x20 digital prints at home. The homemade scans will serve for posting on the web and for proofing the images before I spend the money on drums scans.

Do the results justify the larger format? You betcha. If you get your 35mm slides drum scanned, and know enough about PhotoShop, you can get killer 16x20 prints out of 35mm, but the 6x6 originals will look better at that size. For anything larger than 16x20 a 6x7 original looks much better than a 35mm original. For scanning at home, using a scanner I can afford (the Umax was pushing the budget), MF is much better than 35mm.

-- Darron Spohn (dspohn@clicknet.com), July 12, 1999.

The industry is finally getting there. Nikon recently announced a new line of film scanners, the top unit being the Super Coolscan 8000. It will scan medium format film up to 6x9 at 4000 dpi. Untill now the only quality medium format scanner was the Imacon Flex Tight Photo. It scanned at 32oo dpi, with a density range of 3.9 (this number indicates the extremes of lights and darks that detail can be recorded in before the darks block up and the lights burn out. A d- range of 3.9 is very good). These numbers rival drum scanns, but the Imacon costs $10,000. For $15,000 you can do 4x5 film.

The Nikon unit has a d-range of 4.2, a giant leap over anything previous in digital scanners. The suggested selling price is $2895. It also incorporates Digital Ice (automatically removes film surface imperfections from the scan, such as fingerprints, dust, and scratches), Digital ROC (restores faded colors), and Digital GEM (equalizes image grain, giving a smoother overall image. At 4000 dpi the film grain is being scanned and recorded.)

Nikon says this scanner will create a 700MB file (Huge!). It will take a lot of computer to handle a file that size in Photo Shop, and it still isn't exactly cheap, but it is an answer for getting high quality scans from P67 images. Bob

-- Bobby Mahaffey (mahajen@prodigy.net), February 13, 2001.