Digital BW, The Print

Agreed.  I simply believe people need to be more careful in these discussio=
ns and that 
there ought to be a focused discussion of relative technical quality (vs th=
e best 
equipment available) so that one can make a more educated price/quality tra=
deoff 
decision.  The difficulty I have had (and still am) in trying to determine =
my purchasing 
decision is how much better is the Nikon 8000, or Imacon 343, over the 2450=
 - what 
quality improvement can I expect relative to the best available.  Only when=
 I have this 
at least somewhat clear can I make a decision as to how much I want (or can=
 afford) 
to spend to achieve incremental quality gains...Simply (emotively) saying s=
omething is 
great value for money is not informative in my opinion.  A well priced skod=
a is of no 
interest to a Ferrari buyer - regardless of how well priced it is - and vic=
e versa, 
especially when you have not been able to determine that it is in fact a Sk=
oda or a 
Ferrari....

:-)


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "J Michael Sullivan" 
<michael@h...> wrote:
> 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 2450/320=
0 =
> - 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 c=
an=
>  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 int=
en=
> 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 togeth=
er=
>  with an 
> Epson 2200 -- this is one hell of a good beginners darkroom!
> 
> MJS
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekal=
e@=
> 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 cha=
nc=
> 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 sca=
nn=
> 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, compar=
e =
> 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 N=
ik=
> on
> > 8000 75/100 and the 2450/3200 20/100, I at least know on a relative bas=
is=
> 
> > 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 OP=
TI=
> CAL
> > sharpness for my scans.  Even though it may not make a difference in th=
e
> > final useage 
> > of the image, buyers look at sharpness as a factor when looking at scan=
s =
> 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 dr=
um=
> 
> > scan done 
> > and on what scanner, but here is my drum scan versus 3200 scan and I se=
e =
> 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 sca=
n =
> 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 g=
oi=
> 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... wrot=
e:=
> 
> > > The Epson 3200 delivers nice results. Probably not as good as film sc=
an=
> 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 an=
d
> > 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 s=
am=
> 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 k=
ee=
> p
> > them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject heade=
r.=
> 
> > - 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 variou=
s
> > 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]