I want to have prints made from slides. In the past I've seldom been satisfied with prints made directly from slides. In this digital age, is drum scanning the best way to make prints from 35mm slides?
Posted by Dan Borzynski on July 25, 2007 at 10:48 PM
If you already have digital processes going (digital camera, CSn, home printers, etc) then it makes a lot of sense. Control is completely in your hands. and the current generation of printers really are amazing for color.
I'd make one qualification. I would look at the Nikon Coolscan scanners. The results are quite good. Not quite drum scan, but for most purposes, good enough. I am not sure the tradeoff of the slightly higher quality vs cost is worth it for what *I* do, which is the main reason for going that route. Your mileage may vary.
If you decide to go the drum scan route, I'd recommend Danny Burk's drum scan service. While I haven't used it, I've seen a lot of his prints in person and they are first rate. Here is the link:
http://www.dannyburk.com/drum_scanning.htm
Several people here have used his services and have been happy with his work.
Hi,
I'm not an expert, but I've had about 100 slides (35mm) scanned to CD in jpeg format at 400dpi by a company here in Denver, CO (Qube Visual). They are pretty good and only cost 2.50 compared to 30.00 for a drum scan. The Agfa machine they use doesn't require the transparency to be taken out of its cardboard sleeve. Some scanners require this, and if you don't your scan isn't as good. And, from what I understand, if you have photoshop you can take the scan and work it on your computer (I don't have PS) to take scratches off. I've made prints through the same company up to 12x18...full frame and they look good. Of course this could be because of the woman who does the printing and is really good. I've had hit or miss experiences over the years at other places and I won't take my photos anywhere else now to get printed. But they are not custom prints but machine prints...so that's less expensive too. I've heard that drum scans are so good that they sometimes show more than you want. I've also heard that TIFF format may be better than JPEG for a scan, it's a bigger file but has better quality to work with. The only thing I've noticed and have inquired about is that these scans (the cheap ones) crop about 2-3% on each edge...so if you have a really tight composition some of it will get chopped off...not a lot, but I have a couple I wish weren't. The only way to get full frame is with a drum scan.
That's my two cents...good luck in making your decision. The scans I've had done are on my website if you want an example...for the amount of money I spent trying to do it cheaply, I'm satisfied for now.
I'm aware of Danny Burke's drum scanning service and his reputation among NPN members.
I have been shooting digital for almost four years, but I have many 35mm slides. I'm not able to do the printing myself right now, digital or otherwise. I want high quality prints of 12" x 18", perhaps even larger. I'm not particularly satisfied with the quality of prints done by my local photo printer so I'm looking on line for a good printer. I'm particularly dissatisfied with the quality of prints from slides done by my local printer.
I have scanned slides for web use, but my low end slide scanner is not up to the task of making files for large high quality prints.
I'm just wondering if converting slides to digital files for printing is better than printing directly from the slides and if so, is drum scanning the best way to go for the best quality.
Since you asked about the best way, I would assume you want the best quality and that would be a drum scan. Once drum-scanned, the scan should be optimized in Photoshop.
I've had expensive drum scanning performed, and I prefer the results with Nikon's transparency scanners. I scan mostly with my 9000 ED, but I started out with a Coolscan V ED which is very good. You'll save a huge amount of money if you scan by yourself. Prints made from the Coolscan V ED also looked better than the drum scan prints at 16" x 24", at least from my personal experience.
Posted by Lon Overacker on July 26, 2007 at 11:41 PM
Buck,
You did mention you weren't satisfied with prints made directly from slides. I wouldn't necessarily blame the process, but most likely who did the prints. In the "olden" days before digital, you may or may not have had to had an interneg made, then to print. And as with scanning, drum, or otherwise, you're dealing with a 2nd generation image; not the original. You can spend lots of money on a drum scan, get poor service or a crummy operator and get poor results. You can also get crummy results from a dedicated film scanner. Having said that, you can get fine to excellent results by scanning yourself on a quality consumer-based dedicated film scanner like the Nikon. I happen to have the Konica/Minolta Diimage 5400II and can get excellent results. There are so many variables, it's hard to make sweeping statements. A professional, properly executed drum scan will win - and you will pay highly for it. A properly executed dedicated film scan in a calibrated environment, perhaps even wet-scanning, and good PS skills will also give you excellent results.
Of course if you start with a 35mm slide that is not tack sharp, focus nailed with lots of DOF, blowing that tiny thing up to a 16x20 can quickly show the flaws. So again, many, many variables.
Bottom line for me... if you have a client who's paying good money for a print - have it drum scanned. If you have tons of slides you would like scanned and printed for personal use or for the occasional friend or family member - purchase a slide scanner and you can scan to your hearts content.
My wife, a graphic designer for 25 years, agrees with Lon here. She has used a Howtek drum scanner for several years and says the drum scan is superior, and that has an impact on ultimate print size.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on July 27, 2007 at 10:32 AM
Buck, when I first started digitally printing about 6 years ago, I had the Nikon Coolscan 4000 and the Epson 1280 printer, and no clue what I was doing. One day, about 3 months after the purchase, I began to wonder if this was the right choice. I sent a couple of slides to a few of local labs to have prints made and compared them with my work. My prints were significantly better - I even asked a couple of friends to pick which ones they preferred, with the same result.
It will be pretty hard to find a good local lab out there that still understands slide film well enough to do a good job with the conversion. They are out there, but digital has killed of a lot of the better ones. I'd probably go the digital route. Whether this means upgrading your scanner or going to drum scans as needed you'll have to decide, based on finances and end use, but I think you'll probably do a better job, short of expensive custom work at a pro lab.
Printing from slides is an art, and some do it very well, but they're much harder to find these days. Scanning an image in PS and getting it optimized for printing is also an art, but one that you have control over. Once you have that scanned image optimized, getting it printed well is a relatively easy exercise.
As to whether or not "Drum" scanning is the best approach depends on the intended output (and your budget). I drum scan only those images that I know will be printed large, or those images I have that are special. It's too expensive - for me anyway - to drum scan all of my 35mm and 4x5 keepers.
Discussion
9 repliesI'd make one qualification. I would look at the Nikon Coolscan scanners. The results are quite good. Not quite drum scan, but for most purposes, good enough. I am not sure the tradeoff of the slightly higher quality vs cost is worth it for what *I* do, which is the main reason for going that route. Your mileage may vary.
If you decide to go the drum scan route, I'd recommend Danny Burk's drum scan service. While I haven't used it, I've seen a lot of his prints in person and they are first rate. Here is the link:
http://www.dannyburk.com/drum_scanning.htm
Several people here have used his services and have been happy with his work.
I'm not an expert, but I've had about 100 slides (35mm) scanned to CD in jpeg format at 400dpi by a company here in Denver, CO (Qube Visual). They are pretty good and only cost 2.50 compared to 30.00 for a drum scan. The Agfa machine they use doesn't require the transparency to be taken out of its cardboard sleeve. Some scanners require this, and if you don't your scan isn't as good. And, from what I understand, if you have photoshop you can take the scan and work it on your computer (I don't have PS) to take scratches off. I've made prints through the same company up to 12x18...full frame and they look good. Of course this could be because of the woman who does the printing and is really good. I've had hit or miss experiences over the years at other places and I won't take my photos anywhere else now to get printed. But they are not custom prints but machine prints...so that's less expensive too. I've heard that drum scans are so good that they sometimes show more than you want. I've also heard that TIFF format may be better than JPEG for a scan, it's a bigger file but has better quality to work with. The only thing I've noticed and have inquired about is that these scans (the cheap ones) crop about 2-3% on each edge...so if you have a really tight composition some of it will get chopped off...not a lot, but I have a couple I wish weren't. The only way to get full frame is with a drum scan.
That's my two cents...good luck in making your decision. The scans I've had done are on my website if you want an example...for the amount of money I spent trying to do it cheaply, I'm satisfied for now.
Cynthia Spence
www.geolightphoto.com
I'm aware of Danny Burke's drum scanning service and his reputation among NPN members.
I have been shooting digital for almost four years, but I have many 35mm slides. I'm not able to do the printing myself right now, digital or otherwise. I want high quality prints of 12" x 18", perhaps even larger. I'm not particularly satisfied with the quality of prints done by my local photo printer so I'm looking on line for a good printer. I'm particularly dissatisfied with the quality of prints from slides done by my local printer.
I have scanned slides for web use, but my low end slide scanner is not up to the task of making files for large high quality prints.
I'm just wondering if converting slides to digital files for printing is better than printing directly from the slides and if so, is drum scanning the best way to go for the best quality.
I've had expensive drum scanning performed, and I prefer the results with Nikon's transparency scanners. I scan mostly with my 9000 ED, but I started out with a Coolscan V ED which is very good. You'll save a huge amount of money if you scan by yourself. Prints made from the Coolscan V ED also looked better than the drum scan prints at 16" x 24", at least from my personal experience.
You did mention you weren't satisfied with prints made directly from slides. I wouldn't necessarily blame the process, but most likely who did the prints. In the "olden" days before digital, you may or may not have had to had an interneg made, then to print. And as with scanning, drum, or otherwise, you're dealing with a 2nd generation image; not the original. You can spend lots of money on a drum scan, get poor service or a crummy operator and get poor results. You can also get crummy results from a dedicated film scanner. Having said that, you can get fine to excellent results by scanning yourself on a quality consumer-based dedicated film scanner like the Nikon. I happen to have the Konica/Minolta Diimage 5400II and can get excellent results. There are so many variables, it's hard to make sweeping statements. A professional, properly executed drum scan will win - and you will pay highly for it. A properly executed dedicated film scan in a calibrated environment, perhaps even wet-scanning, and good PS skills will also give you excellent results.
Of course if you start with a 35mm slide that is not tack sharp, focus nailed with lots of DOF, blowing that tiny thing up to a 16x20 can quickly show the flaws. So again, many, many variables.
Bottom line for me... if you have a client who's paying good money for a print - have it drum scanned. If you have tons of slides you would like scanned and printed for personal use or for the occasional friend or family member - purchase a slide scanner and you can scan to your hearts content.
Lon
It will be pretty hard to find a good local lab out there that still understands slide film well enough to do a good job with the conversion. They are out there, but digital has killed of a lot of the better ones. I'd probably go the digital route. Whether this means upgrading your scanner or going to drum scans as needed you'll have to decide, based on finances and end use, but I think you'll probably do a better job, short of expensive custom work at a pro lab.
As to whether or not "Drum" scanning is the best approach depends on the intended output (and your budget). I drum scan only those images that I know will be printed large, or those images I have that are special. It's too expensive - for me anyway - to drum scan all of my 35mm and 4x5 keepers.