Hi folks,

Okay, I see that many Leica users are able to post their images or have their own web sites. I've now begun work on getting a web site up but I'm stillin the planning and equipment stages.

Should I get a flatbed scanner or film scanner? Which models do you recommend?

I notice that flatbed scanners have greater color bit depth (48 bits) versus the 12 or 24 bits in film scanners. Also, flatbeds give image resolution in terms of two-dimensional measurements (ie 2400 x 1200 dpi) but film scanners give one-dimensional measurements (ie 2480 dpt). So how do I compare them?

I'm leaning toward flatbeds because of high versatility and low cost. I'll the scanners to make 16x20 prints at the largest, but mostly for 8x10s.

But I don't want quality to suffer.

Thanks for any advice.

-- victor (danzfotog@yahoo.com), March 05, 2002

Answers

For posting images on the internet, a flatbed will serve you well. For producing inkjet prints you have a real issue with how large a print you want to produce, and how good you want it to look. I have a Minolta Dimage scanner that scans at 2800 dpi, and that's good enough to produce an acceptable 8X10. It cost about $450. I recently saw a great exhibit by Nubar Alexanian with 16X20 and larger prints, but they were drum scanned on scanners that probably cost $10,000. I bought my Epson 1250 for $85 as an "open box" special at Circuit City. Of course you will need very capable computer, and some software. Get ready to start climbing that greasy pole known as the learning curve!

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.net), March 05, 2002.

I'd like to scan images for a web site, but I also want to scan for archiving purposes.

When I'm hired to do photos, I just turn over all my negatives to the client but I get the images I want for myself scanned at a local photo finisher.

I don't have to dough for the $1,000 scanners but $450 sounds pretty good, especially since flatbed scanners are $200.

-- victor (danzfotog@yahoo.com), March 05, 2002.

Victor, Pro Drum Scanners cost about $30,000+ not 10. The Minolta mentioned was my previous scanner and quite good for the money ( I also have an Epson 1640SU flat bed with the film scanner attachment, which produced lousy scans of 35mm film, but acceptable medium format ones ) You may find that to do justice to your work (especially at 16 X 20) you may have to sell something and get a 4000dpi dedicated film scanner with a good D-max. (ability to see into the shadow areas without blocking up the blacks ) And don't worry about the "dust removing" gizmo option. Most of them tend to soften the image. No use having a Leica and enlarging through a chunk of broken glass from a Coke bottle. Same holds true for scanners. And then there's the printer, the CD-ROM burner, PhotoShop... You sure you want to do this? My wife wishes I didn't. --Marc

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), March 05, 2002.

There's a long laundry list of features to consider with scanners, including optical resolution, D-Max, and software. Flatbed scanners are made for scanning prints, while film scanners (obviously) are made for scanning original chromes or negs. You can get transparency adapters for some flatbed scanners that will enable you to scan film on them. The quality variations are extreme.

The trick is to start with an excellent original, and then squeaze as much detail out of the original as you can. Resolution and D-Max play a big role here. The higher the resolution, the more image detail you'll get. The higher the D-Max, the more tonal range of the original you'll get in the scan. Low D-Max specs of the cheaper scanners result in blocked shadows, blown out highlights, or both. The ability to focus the scanner is also something that is absent on less-expensive models.

Overall, it sounds like you need to do a bit more research on what the processes are, so you can understand where the trade-offs are. There are a number of sites that discuss the technical aspects of scanning, and will give you a basic handle on the processes. Although a number of folks here could give you specific recommendations, that would be for their way of doing things. Thus, I think you need to do enough basic research to be able to ask more specific questions here.

Nothing cheap will give you the quality that your Leica is producing, however.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), March 05, 2002.

I've got a lap top that runs 1 Ghz with 256 MB ram, photoshop 6 and I already have a CD burner -- all from the brief period I owned a coolpix 990.

The only thing I lack is something to digitize my negatives without having to go to a shop. While money certainly is an issue, I already have most of the basic gear to make the jump to scanning.

-- victor (danzfotog@yahoo.com), March 05, 2002.

Victor, I highly recommend the CanonScan FS2720U film scanner. I purchased mine from B&H for $449. It is USB compatible and I use it on an iMac. They also make a SCSI model, an older one, called the FS2710 and B&H has been selling it for $349! I have used Nikons and Polaroid film scanners that cost much, much more and I think the Canon is the best. -----------------------------------------------------------------

-- Dayton P. Strickland (daytonst@bellsouth.net), March 05, 2002.

Victor, I have a similar laptop to yours, but my desktop is a Pentium I 233MHz with 256meg RAM and it is plenty fast enough for desktop darkroom work. Processor speed isn't as crucial as RAM...the more the better. If your laptop can accept an external monitor and mouse that will be a big help also. Try as I might I can't make my touchpad do what I can with the simplest mouse, and the laptop monitors are too critical to viewing angle to properly judge color and contrast.

For scanning, if you want to print larger than 8x10 you are better off with a 4000dpi film scanner. The Canoscan 4000US is around $850 which is about half the cost of the Nikon 4000dpi unit. It's also small and lightweight, has dual USB/SCSI connectivity (SCSI scans much faster). If you want a 2800dpi scanner, the discontinued Polaroid 35 Plus was a great unit (I had one)and can probably be found quite cheaply second-hand. It has only a SCSI connector, so hooking up to your laptop might be a problem. With digital cameras gaining in popularity, I expect the next generation of scanners to be higher resolution and less expensive, and the window of opportunity to pick up a 400odpi scanner for a song should open up at least initially.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 06, 2002.

I scan 35mm film in a film scanner. Scanning prints on a flatbed adds a generation between camera and final digital image - and each generation MULTIPLIES losses in resolution and tonal range. The nice thing about a film scanner is I can get everything from web images to 12" x 18" prints from one device that uses no desk space - it fits on top of my CPU tower.

Most good new film scanners record 36-48-bit color nowadays - and since Photoshop eventually compresses everything to 24-bit RGB anyway, the bit depth is not as critical as the density range that can be captured.

The reason film scanners only give one measurement for dpi is because it's usually the same in both dimensions (e.g my Nikon is 2700x2700).

For 6x6 (if ever) I will probably get a good $1000 flatbed scanner with backlit film adapter, since the enlargement will be less (and as victor notes, they DO have other uses) - but I'll still scan directly from film.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 06, 2002.

One thing you might want to look at is Virtual Fractals (I think) - a product which allows for scaling of images with very little loss of quality. This means a lowish res scan can be output at a much larger image size. Also, for display purposes (large prints), low dpi will do just as good a job as high dpi for 8x10's intended for close up inspection. A bit like DOF, the suitable output dpi depends on the magnification/viewing distance.

Even in a scan, very high dpi may not result in a more decipherable image - it may be softer due to the lack of variation in tones in small areas - while high dpi output risks blocking up the shadows and highlights and producing oversaturated (in colour) mid tones. So maximising scan and print resolution is not necessarily a good thing.

As you may have guessed by now, I'm bluffing... and I haven't answered your flatbed vs film scanner question. My feeling would be to go for the film scanner because it is designed to do this one job (scanning film) rather than being a jack of all trades like a flatbed. It also has a smaller footprint, which can be an advantage.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), March 06, 2002.

One more question or consideration. I find my Minolta scanner can't cut through a blocked up highlight that I can print through quite well in the wet darkroom. So for any negative which is slightly overexposed or overdeveloped, or both, I get much better results making a print in the darkroom and scanning on a flat bed. I noted Ralph Gibson in a recent interview suggested scans from prints often looked better than scans from negatives. So I would start with the flat bed. It's also much quicker to scan some 4X6s for quick posting than to scan the equivalent negatives.

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.net), March 06, 2002.