Hi guys...

Just wanna know which injek printer and film scanner combo I should use to get photolab(fuji) quality without breaking my wallet?

thanks guys..

-- Travis koh (polar@cyberdude.com), January 21, 2002

Answers

i use a nikon coolscan IV(just bought recently) with canon s800. excellent combination for b&w, pretty good for colour.

the s900 is about to come out. this one should be even better.

the epson 2000 is the de-facto standart, but more than twice as expensive as the canon.

whatever you choose, don't save on paper. it is annoyingly expensive to use proper inkjet art paper, but it is definitely worth it. i can recommend the permajet classic serie, especially "museum" and "portrait". if you use such a paper quality, it's a shame to hide it behind glass or acetate. you want to touch it!

i think lyson is doing now their highly stable ink range for canon.

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), January 21, 2002.

That's the million dollar question. For a start, do you need long-lasting output? For a bit more of a start what do you call not "breaking your wallet"? About the best combination for output results is supposed to be nikon coolscan 4000 and epson 1290 (up to A3 and 35mm only) assuming your interested in colour - those two are about £1500 all in here in UK but a lot of people would feel you need to add software such as Silverfast or Vue Scan to get best results. Remember that the ink-based printers such as this epson give the best gamut (range) but don't enjoy the longevity of the pigment-based printers (which unfortunately have a restricted range and suffer metamerism). Now why on earth did I start answering this question - it needs a one hundred page answer. Why not buy a Fuji Frontier lab - they're only £100, 000 and you can use crystal archive paper...

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), January 21, 2002.

I agree with Steve that this isn't something that can be answered easily on a message board. For one thing, it goes beyond the printer and scanner. Are you skilled in Photoshop? You need to have your monitor profiled, and every ink and paper should be profiled. Stock profiles rarely work as well. If you are printing black and white images, there are some other issues as well.

There are some good web sites to read to start getting information about the processes involved, which will help point to the equipment. I would recommend:

Ian Lyon's Computer Darkroom

Andrew Rodney's Digital Dog

Inkjet Art (sells products but some good info there)

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), January 21, 2002.

That first link was wrong, having something pasted in from another reference. Here is the link:

Ian Lyons' Computer Darkroom

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), January 21, 2002.

Steve, I was thnking the Canon 4000 scanner and either the epson 1290 or canon s800.

my budget is around $1500 USD.

-- Travis koh (polar@cyberdude.com), January 21, 2002.

You need to have your monitor profiled, and every ink and paper should be profiled.

Some people just have to make everything more complicated than it has to be, which has the effect of mystifying the process and deterring the beginner for even getting started.

Another myth that is constantly repeated on these forums is that one has to have the most expensive equipment to get good results. The above photo was scanned with a $500 CanoScan FS2710 (and printed on a $150 Epson C80); my computer is a two-year-old 566MHz PC that I paid about $900 for, including a couple of hundred bucks for extra RAM. Nothing has ever been profiled (though I did tweak the printer settings a bit to match the screen image). I use the standard inks and Epson paper. The results, as you can see, are stunning.

We used to have a photo 101 professor here in Monterey--a fairly well- known name--who would tell his students that they had to learn the Zone System in order to get good results. (His photos BTW were as dull as dust--and barely technically adequate.) I hate to think how many people he turned off to photography during his tenure.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), January 21, 2002.

What do you mean by "profiling" especially the ink and paper?

-- Bob Haight (rhaigh5748@aol.com), January 21, 2002.

Peter- Thanks for reminding us of this. There is no great mystery to this stuff- just try it. I have a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000- which you can now get for about $550, and print on an Epson 820 Photo, which I got used for $30, and the results are great- though the prints are limited to 8x10 max.

I have not had my monitor calibrated, nor the printer or papers. I just tweak it in Photoshop until it looks good- not hard, and not expensive.

John Chan has sent me instructions on how to post photos- (thanks John!) and I will try to post something to show when I can figure out the HTML nonsense.

-- drew (swordfisher@hotmail.com), January 21, 2002.

Peter, I have to admit that I'm not a big fan of straight headshots generally, but this is a very nice picture. Slight levels slider tweak? The whites of the eyes seem slightly muddy to me, and there could be more black, but that's the way I like them.

Travis, a good place for you to ask this question would be on the topica.com digitalsilver discussion list. You'll get all sorts of responses from very pro-oriented (in the sense of people who are proofing fashion shots) to Peter's more down to earth approach.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 21, 2002.

Travis:

I just got back from a friend of mine's new digital lab. He scanned one of my Delta 400 negs from Cuba on his Imacon Flextite -- at just 800 DPI. He then printed it out on an Epson 3000 with the quad-tone pizo ink set. I thought he was nuts to only scan at 800 DPI, but WOW! The results were incredible. After a bit of minor PS clean-up, he printed an 11x14 that knocked my socks off. The detail was incredible and the final print looked like a traditional platinum-toned print!

My set-up is going to be the Nikon coolscan 2000 or 4000 -- after all if 800 DPI made such a detailed print, why spend the bucks for he extra 2000 DPI -- and the above Epson set-up for B&W. His Imacon has a real density range of 4.2 and is hige bucks. I understand that although Nikon specs their scanners at the same, they do not really produce that result.

This gent also has the high-end Epson pigment ink printer (5500 I think?), but I was not nearly as impressed with that printers color output as I was with the quad-tone B&W setup.

:) Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 21, 2002.

Believe me, Jack, the LS2000 with Vuescan will give you results that you won't have to apologise to anyone for. Provare per credere.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), January 21, 2002.

I had the polaroid sprintscan 4000, with epson 1270 (older version of 1289/90, same colour quality). I upgraded for Nikon's coolscan 4000. the difference is unbelivable. in fact, the Nikon is not far from drum scanners, the colours of polaroid are pale and poor. I rescanned all my portfolio negs, just to get the Nikon quality. it worth the x2/x3 price. the 1270/80/90 is grate, and with epson's new "colorlife photo paper" the fading is supposed to be much less of a problem. the results are grate, and on most pictures it is impossible to tell that they are not from a lab. However, I don't know what your need are, but if you are selling pictures don't even think about selling a non-archival photo. I found myself running to a pro-digital lab and spending so far much more than what I would have payed for epson 2000P (archival). the difference between the non- archival and the archival ink is that the former has a more glossy look. in fact after realizing that, epson came out with the semi- glossy paper, and the luster paper. they are not as glossy as the premium glossy paper, so they work better with the 2000P, but the picture are great.

-- rami (rg272@columbia.edu), January 21, 2002.

If you don't take the time to try and calibrate your moniter, scanner, printer, eyc, sure you can still end up with good results. You'll also end up with a significant number of expensive, off color, too light or dark, prints in the garbage can.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), January 21, 2002.

I think I'd go with Rami on this, at least to an extent. The colours from the nikon are very much better than on the polaroid if you stick to straight scans. It may be possible to improve and enhance the colours of the Polaroid scanner images so that you end up with better colours post-operatively, but this does require a certain amount of skill to do without achieving obviously-manipulated results(quite hard won, it seems to me) and certainly, from what I've seen you have a better start point with the Nikon (always assuming colour is your thing). The actual resolution/dmax gains are pretty tiny between the 2 units. (The nikon offers a 16-pass feature to get increased shadow detail but you have to wait a long time - one review claimed a one hour processing time on a Pentium 3 based machine if 16 times was used.) A local pro lab who offer an 18mb per frame service on 35mm told me it takes over 3 hours on the ls4000 (with the bulk film loader etc) on their G4's. I don't know if I'm being any help but the points need airing, I think. The Imacon's are really super - producing stunning results with Fuji's pictrography - but they are very dear: the latest are also very fast. To be honest, the weak link is more the printer than the scanner in my view, anyway. If you're not going to spring for Pictrography, it's hard to see how you're not going to be let down by those pesky inkjets (am I the only one to mourn the loss of consumer dye-subs?). The canon s900 and s9000 may be better - I was impressed by the s800 output - and it's certainly a quick printer - but the gloss paper had an irritating stickiness to it and, anyway, the epsons so dominate the market here in the UK that the cartridges, paper etc can be bought very cheaply mail order - it kind of put me off the competitors (also, Piezography is currently only available on epson printers but that's yet another story). Actually, FWIW, Amateur Photography are to review the new canon printers in tomorrow's edition, so then we'll know whether it's just a speed improvement or a quality one too. I'll keep you posted. I think I'm more confused than I was before I started writing this...Sorry everybody

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), January 21, 2002.

Of course Stephen is correct about the printer being perhaps more important that the scanner. With enough work in Photoshop you can get good prints from almost any file. And as someone else pointed out without proper calibration, you will get better results with less waste. But you don't have to do all this to get good results. Extraordinary results, yes, but good results are easy to get. Don't be intimidated.

Also, about the difference between the Polaroid and the Nikon 35mm scanners, forgive me, but I think you pay a lot for the Nikon name. As several posts here have hinted, the Nikons tend to exagerate their claims on scan times and actual density. OTOH, I find Polariod seems to publish conservative numbers. Also, if you do critical testing and ask around, you will discover a few problems the Nikon scanners all suffer from- the most significant being that they can have focus problems and that the light source doesn't last as long before it changes colorbalance, so that color calibration needs to be monitored much more often.

This said, of course I have seen wonderful results from the Nikon scanners- I have used the past three generations of them in various studios I've worked at over the past three years.

Digital ICE- for color, but you can't scan trad. silver B+W with it, which is a problem for me. Since ICE is hardware and software, you pay a lot for it with the Nikon scanners, and I can't use it on the 60% of my work which is B+W.

Points about the Polaroid- it works a whole lot better with the Silverfast software which they only started shipping with this scanner in September of 2001. So if you used this scanner before that with the Polaroid software, it was a bummer. Also, it is ONLY SCSI compatible, which has posed some problems for my MAC system which gets annoyed at the intolerant SCSI system.

I recently spoke with a Polaroid rep (yes, they still have them!) who told me that in February they are releasing a new version of the Sprintscan 4000 which will be firewire equipped and will come bundled with the new SilveFast 5.5 software, amoung other improvements. But the hardware will be basically the same. Price should be almost exactly the same as the latest Nikon and Cannon 4000DPI scanners. Should be good competition.

-- drew (swordfisher@homtail.com), January 21, 2002.

I am interested in your recommendations about scanners. I have spent years doing such reproductions at work; but I don't use film there. At work, I am presently using a dual processor Mac with [I think; I am not a hardware freak] an Epson 7000. My technican has calibrated the stuff [with MacBeth [sp]I think]. I am now setting up a system at home. I have a Mac dual processor; it will soon have 1.5 gigs like the one at work. I intend to add an Epson 3000 when I get time. Scanners for film are another matter. I will need one that will go from 35 mm to 6 x 7 and I don't know much about the ones available. Any suggestions would be welcome.

Thanks, in advance,

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), January 21, 2002.

Art,

Needing to scan both 35mm and medium format puts you in a different set of scanners, and a different price range - typically $2K to $3K for film scanners. I've seen good comments on the Minolta Dual Scan II, and the Nikon LS8000 looks interesting. When I bought my scanner a couple of years ago, I was in an even more daunting situation - I need to scan 4x5 as well. I ended up going the flatbed with transparency attachment route as a means of keeping the cost down (4x5 scanners are in the $5K-$10K range). I've been using an Epson Expression 800 Pro, which has since been superceded by the Epson Expression 1680 Pro. They don't have the same optical resolution specs as the new 35mm scanners such as the Nikon LS4000, nor the D-Max. But, the Epson retails for around $1,200. Even using the older 800 model, I've gotten sufficient image quality to do full-bleed magazine covers off a 4x5 transparency.

A lot depends on what sort of budget you have for the scanner, and how that balances with your requirements.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), January 21, 2002.

Ralph, have you ever looked at the Agfa line of photo-scanners?

I think they are multiformat with very decent Dmax ranges.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 22, 2002.

Agfa has discontinued their scanner products.

Their support in the US for the scanners was so bad that I would recommend against them even if they hadn't discontinued them.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), January 22, 2002.

Ralph:

Good thought. I have a flatbed with transparency attachment at work [HP I think]. I never use it since it came with USB which is too slow for my work [jams up and dumps data]. I might bring it home and try it on large format. USB may work there.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), January 22, 2002.

Just to update re: pritnters, the upshot of the AP review that I mentioned above is that the new canons are considerably better than anything that has come before (without modification such as Piezography). The reviewer claims that these are the only printers to offer true photo quality: we shall see. Anyway, it's got to be good news, I guess.

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), January 22, 2002.

"The reviewer claims that these are the only printers to offer true photo quality"

This claim is constantly being made, but always a new "improved" model appears later. Surely once thing has true photo quality then that is it...?

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 22, 2002.

Robin Like always with these things, I'll believe it when I see it...

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), January 22, 2002.

Until a home scanner can cope adequately with film like neopan 1600 I don' think there is any equal to a photolab. Not for b&w anyway which constitutes 95% of my work. I have two printers, an 1160 and a 1290 and I prefer the 1160. It is very reliable and also much cheaper to run and copes very well with generic non-epson inks. I use a Nikon Coolscan IV ED and it is SO SLOW! However, it does a fantastic job on C41 b&w emulsions such as portra 400, using ICE, GEM and ROC. I have to say, better than the traditional darkroom when combined with the wonders of photoshop. At the moment I generally only use home printers for proofing due to color casts when using all the inks. The odd thing for me is that some files can be easily printed with very little, and very pleasing colour tones that actually add to the photos, usually with the 1160 though. I tried lysons quad blacks, but could not get to grips with them - the quality of the print -out was too dependant on a perfect scan which cut out my creative on-purpose different interpretations of a neg/photo. Maybe they are easier to use now for I dumped them December 2000. For the same reason I will not try piezo - too expensive a try-out, AND VERY expensive too run by all accounts.

I am very interested in hands on experience of the new canon S9000 which is supposed to produce cast free b&w prints. Also I woud like to change my scanner for somehting marginally better and significantly faster. Any ideas?

-- stephanie de leng (deleng@blueyonder.co.uk), February 24, 2002.