Which scanner should I buy for 4 x 5 black & white negatives to make exhibition quality prints?

-- George K. Nichols (gkn@gte.net), April 13, 2000

Answers

I have used the Epson Expression 800 with color and B/W negs, and I am quite happy with it. You would also need the transparency unit which replaces the flatbed top and remains on the scanner. The unit came with SilverFast software which is superb for fine-tuning the image before scanning. It takes up quite a bit of space 22"x13" and with the trasparency unit it is 8" high. Truly fast scanner for prints, large negs and large slides.

-- Harry Hughes (harryd@olg.com), April 13, 2000.

I'd go along with that. The Epson flatbeds; either the Expression 800 or the Perfection 1200 photo, are about the only economical option for large format scanning. You need a bottomless wallet to consider the Nikon, Minolta or Polaroid dedicated film scanners.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), April 14, 2000.

You cannot afford an exhibition quality scanner for 4x5 black and white negatives. Well, not unless you are rich. While the people responding previously are trying to be helpful, they obviously have never tried making an exhibition quality print from one of these scanners.

There are many problems scanning negatives with a flatbed scanner. Among them are:

1. Shadow detail - flatbed scanners do not have the d-max to reach into shadows and pull out detail.
2. Noise - no matter how good you are at setting values in the prescan stage, you'll get a lot of noise in the shadows
3. Signal to noise ratio - this is the most overlooked aspect of high quality scanning because the industry does not publish signal to noise rations specifications, probably because affordable scanners are have terrible S/N ratios
4. Newton's Rings - you'll get them sometimes, and curse them every time because it means cleaning the glass and rescanning the negative

There are currently two ways to get exhibition quality black and white prints: the old fashioned analog darkroom and getting a proper drum scan made by someone who knows how to scan black and white on a Tango drum scanner. I scanned some B&W last weekend on a Tango, and they look excellent on screen. The next problem is printing them.

You're going to need a powerful computer to handle 300 MB scans in PhotoShop, and you'll need an archival printer. This takes time to set up and to learn. If you don't have extensive darkroom and PhotoShop experience you're better off letting someone with the expertise prepare the photos for you. If you are determined to do this yourself be prepared for a long learning curve.

I'm not trying to discourage you, just trying to warn you of the pitfalls and tribulations. I'm going this direction myself. For more information on the printing process go to Inkjet Mall and check the information on their site. For more information on Tango drum scans go to dspohn@photobitstream.com), April 14, 2000.

Darnit. I mucked up the West Coast Imaging URL. This is the correct URL. Sorry.

-- Darron Spohn (dspohn@photobitstream.com), April 14, 2000.

I just received an offline e-mail informing me that I was a bit mistaken in my first post. When scanning negatives, the highlights are dense, not the shadows. Thus, you get noise in the highlights. Please give credit to Jonathan Ratzlaff for pointing out this error. I normally scan slides and was not thinking backwards like I should have for the negatives.

Also, at the end of the first post I meant to recommend you go to West Coast Imaging's web site and look around, then give them a call for arranging a proper Tango drum scan. This will give you an idea of what is involved in getting exhibition quality digital prints from black and white negatives. Not even the Nikon and Polaroid 4x5 scanners mention in previous posts are good enough for exhibition quality prints, which I define as the best prints possible from a traditional darkroom using a cold light head and fiber paper.

-- Darron Spohn (dspohn@photobitstream.com), April 15, 2000.

Ignore Darron Spohn. He never says anything positive. He always pretends to know something.

-- Jamie Felin (jamison@juno.com), April 18, 2000.

I agree. Darron Spohn is always putting people down. People who are eager to use the new digital technology to work seriously with images and photography should be encouraged, and told how to best to do it within their budgets. If there are limits to their desires, they should be told of them. But all Darron Spohn ever does is tell people all the bad things first, then he beats them down by telling them they don't have enough money, or don't know the latest models, then he invites them to send him emails which he never replies to, from what I've heard. He clearly doesn't know anything about technology or what the new digital photography is capable of. Some of the best digital photography being made today and some of what was made in the past 5 years was made on equipment and computers a hell of a lot weaker then the ones sold in stores today. Some were made only with 2 colors ! Darron Spohn woulden't take a walk unless he had a pair of BMW sneakers because of their proven, year 2000 technology to insulate the feet. Its very obvious Darron Spohn has no talent with photography and has to hide it behind the biggest equipment. I'm really sick of his posts because their whole purpose is to discourage and belittle people, who are sincere and honest in what they're trying to accomplish.

-- Jennifer Sikai (jenniferbea6@hotmail.com), April 18, 2000.

I've been watching this thread with more than a little interest. It's gone from an interesting question with two considerate answers to a public forum for a probably self avowed photo snob to a place to bash said snob... Not very pretty. Although, I find myself more on the side of the bashers, at least in some small part. I would say this forum is definitely not the place for photosnobbery... ;-) If you're making statements concerning subjective terms you should make some mention of the numbers involved in your definitions or be prepared to get called on the carpet for it.

It seems to "poor l'il left-handed stepchile" me[OK, I confess, I'm a "righty", and not a step child... ;-)] that the crux of the issue is the definition of an "exhibition quality print". PERIOD, END OF SENTENCE. Without that, I don't see how anyone can make a fair suggestion. In the "snob's"(I'm kidding here, folks...) favor, he did at least mention HIS definition of an exhibition quality print. I also have to wonder with just what he's outputting his approximately 2400x2400 PPI file?(300+MB for a 20Sq." 24 bit scan?) And at what size?

The actual PIXEL resolution of the output device and the size of the desired output are the defining factors here. If you're outputting data to a linotype it's just a touch or two more capable than a 1440 DPI Epson. If your "exhibition quality" print only needs to be printed at 720 PPI on a 1440 DPI printer(probably looking better at 360PPI) then you really only need to consider scanning at 600x600 or 1200x600 PPI and manipulating and storing a much smaller file in the process... If you're printing billboards, 10-20 PPI probably looks great!

Just how large an "exhibition quality" print do you need, and at what PPI? By the way, if anyone has realized that the desired result of a process often defines the process needed to arrive at the result, good for you! You have to start with an idea of what you want in order to get it.

-- Gerald M. Payne (gmp@francomm.com), April 19, 2000.

I was going to let this pass, as I thought any interest had died, but what the heck! Can I have a small kick at Darron too?

It's true that my personal use of the Epson 1200photo is a bit limited, but I've spoken at length to several users of this model and they seem more than happy with its performance scanning medium and large-format negatives. The Epson software is also much better than that supplied with most scanners, and that's the basis for my recommendation of Epson.

However, I have a Mustek scanner with tranny adapter myself, which was bought before the Epson came out. I use it for scanning B&W rollfilm and 5x4 negatives extensively, and I have to refute Darron's assertion that the scanner is the weak link in the chain.

Shadow or highlight detail? Not really a problem with a properly exposed and developed negative, where Dmax is only 2.5 or thereabouts. CCD noise? Again not much of a problem with B&W negatives. Newton's rings? The film goes emulsion side down on the glass, and a thin mask stops the transparency lid contacting the back of the film, so no problems there either.

The real problem, as Gerald suggests, is getting a good print-out from the computer, and in matching the tone curve of the image on screen to the printer. In my opinion the output you can get on any affordable printer falls a bit short of my definition of "exhibition quality".... but that's only my opinion. Other people seem to be quite happy with exhibiting the output from 1440 dpi printers.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), April 19, 2000.