Digital BW, The Print

As long as this does not devolve into a "my car can blow the doors off of y=
our car" 
discussion then yes, the Imacon is clearly superior to the Epson 2450/3200 =
- by a 
long shot. I personally use a Polaroid Sprintscan 120 together with Kodak P=
orta 400 
and it is nothing short of fabulous for my application (I happen to love gr=
ain, btw). I 
have tested the same negs on both the Epson 2450 and the Polaroid and I can=
 back 
up my claim that the Polaroid is literally 3 times as sharp. BUT....

That doesn't mean the Epson cannot produce a great scan. On the contrary. I=
f you are 
scanning 4x5's and limit your enlargement to about 30"x40" AND you learn ho=
w to 
properly sharpen things (without oversharpening) AND you have a decent 
original, then you might just find the Epson pretty damn good for all but t=
he most 
demanding applications. If you wanted to scan 2 1/4" or 35mm I would not 
recommend it as there are such nice medium format scanners out there now.

All in all, it DOES matter what scanner and software combination you use (i=
nteresting 
how no one is talking about SOFTWARE!!!). But it also matter what the inten=
ded 
output size and media will be and ultimately the quality of the original. I=
n other 
words, there is nothing wrong with starting out with an Epson 3200 together=
 with an 
Epson 2200 -- this is one hell of a good beginners darkroom!

MJS

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@=
b...> 
wrote:
> FYI ­ Calumet in Drummond St, London, has a workstation you can rent by t=
he
> hour with an Imacon 848 and Nikon 8000 attached.  I did not get the chanc=
e
> to try the 8000 but did do some 120 film scans at 4000ppi on the 848.  I =
can
> only say that the 1 hour session restored my faith in the notion of scann=
ing
> film.  The scans were amazing, sharp and plenty of depth in the shadows! =
 I
> can further say that anyone who thinks the Epson 2450 (and perhaps the 32=
00)
> is a great scanner is indeed seriously misinformed.  That does not mean t=
hat
> it isn¹t GOOD VALUE FOR THE MONEY but in assessing a piece of equipment I=

> believe that one should score it technically first ­ without regard to it=
s
> cost ­ to determine its ³quality level² and then, and only then, compare =
it
> to other LIKE QUALITY equipment with regard to price.  Anyone, with
> reference to their own budget etc, can then determine whether they are
> prepared to pay x more for y more quality.  Too often, however, this is
> muddled into an answer when someone asks ³how good is equipment x?².   If=
,
> say, the best drum scanner scores 100/100, the 848 scores 95/100, the Nik=
on
> 8000 75/100 and the 2450/3200 20/100, I at least know on a relative basis=

> what I get in terms of quality for the cost difference between each and c=
an
> decide accordingly.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> From: "jsinger986" <jhsinger@t...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:33:08 -0000
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] MF Scanners -- off topic
> 
> Another view thrown in the pot...
> 
> I have the Epson 3200 and I just bought the Minolta Dual Scan Pro.  For
> prints with 
> my Epson 2200 I am happy with the Epson 3200 scanning 120 film (not for 3=
5mm
> though).  But, my use is for stock where I want the best quality and OPTI=
CAL
> sharpness for my scans.  Even though it may not make a difference in the
> final useage 
> of the image, buyers look at sharpness as a factor when looking at scans =
of
> comporable images.  Most scans in quality stock agencies are done by
> professionals 
> using drum scanners and film scanners at the least.
> 
> Here is a scan with a Nikon 8000 versus the Epson 3200.  This is a scan o=
f a
> 120 neg 
> and it is a 100% crop of the image as it came out of the scanner.  No
> sharpening on 
> either.  I'll let you decide which is which, but to me its a clear
> difference:
> http://www.jeffsingerphotography.com/quickview/nikonvsepson.jpg
> 
> 
> I decided to buy the 3200 based on the review  at photo-i.co.uk.  I was
> impressed 
> that there was not a significant difference between the 3200 and a drum s=
can
> ( a 
> difference but not a huge one).  Well, i don't know where he got his drum=

> scan done 
> and on what scanner, but here is my drum scan versus 3200 scan and I see =
a
> huge 
> difference (although as I said the difference will not show on a Epson 22=
00
> print with 
> a good application of sharpening).
> http://www.jeffsingerphotography.com/quickview/drumvsepson.jpg
> 
> Of course, I wouldn't expect a $500 flatbed scanner to match a drum scan =
or
> even a 
> film scan.  But, if sharpness is something that matters and your going
> beyond a 
> 13x13 print, this is something you may want to consider.  For me, I'm goi=
ng
> to sell 
> my 3200 and my Minolta should be here any day.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Jeff Singer Photography
> jeff@j...
> http://www.jeffsingerphotography.com
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, mfaphoto@o... wrote:=

> > The Epson 3200 delivers nice results. Probably not as good as film scan=
ners,
> but 
> good. Since there is probably a huge price difference, so get the 3200 an=
d
> see how it 
> works for your purposes. If you don't like it, sell it for almost what yo=
u
> paid and get 
> the film scanner.
> > 
> > Russ
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>  
>  ADVERTISEMENT
>  <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.3897168.5135684.1261774/D=egroupweb/
S=1705019
> 182:HM/A=1732163/R=0/SIG=11n0nglqg/*http://www.ediets.com/
start.cfm?code=305
> 10&media=zone>  
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this sam=
e
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to kee=
p
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.=

> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]