Digital BW, The Print

I should add that I am comparing scans with my 2450 using Silverfast AI and=
 4x 
sampling vs a single pass from the Imacon.  The 2450 scans received 
considerable additional "Creative Sharpening" using Photokit Sharpening Pro=
 to paint 
in extra sharpening in detail areas.  The Imacon scans did not need this at=
 all.  At 
print (A3) the Imacon image is still very visibly sharper.  And yes the 848=
 is out of my 
financial reach to purchase but when I test the 8000 I will, I think, have =
a good 
benchmark....


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m, "Steve Kale" 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Agreed.  I simply believe people need to be more careful in these discuss=
io=
> 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 t=
ra=
> deoff 
> decision.  The difficulty I have had (and still am) in trying to determin=
e =
> my purchasing 
> decision is how much better is the Nikon 8000, or Imacon 343, over the 24=
50=
>  - what 
> quality improvement can I expect relative to the best available.  Only wh=
en=
>  I have this 
> at least somewhat clear can I make a decision as to how much I want (or c=
an=
>  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 sk=
od=
> a is of no 
> interest to a Ferrari buyer - regardless of how well priced it is - and v=
ic=
> 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 2450/3=
20=
> 0 =
> > - by a 
> > long shot. I personally use a Polaroid Sprintscan 120 together with Kod=
ak=
>  P=
> > orta 400 
> > and it is nothing short of fabulous for my application (I happen to lov=
e =
> 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 contrar=
y.=
>  I=
> > f you are 
> > scanning 4x5's and limit your enlargement to about 30"x40" AND you lear=
n =
> 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 b=
ut=
>  t=
> > he most 
> > demanding applications. If you wanted to scan 2 1/4" or 35mm I would no=
t =
> 
> > recommend it as there are such nice medium format scanners out there no=
w.=
> 
> > 
> > All in all, it DOES matter what scanner and software combination you us=
e =
> (i=
> > nteresting 
> > how no one is talking about SOFTWARE!!!). But it also matter what the i=
nt=
> en=
> > ded 
> > output size and media will be and ultimately the quality of the origina=
l.=
>  I=
> > n other 
> > words, there is nothing wrong with starting out with an Epson 3200 toge=
th=
> er=
> >  with an 
> > Epson 2200 -- this is one hell of a good beginners darkroom!
> > 
> > MJS
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevek=
al=
> 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 c=
ha=
> 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 s=
ca=
> nn=
> > ing
> > > film.  The scans were amazing, sharp and plenty of depth in the shado=
ws=
> ! =
> >  I
> > > can further say that anyone who thinks the Epson 2450 (and perhaps th=
e =
> 32=
> > 00)
> > > is a great scanner is indeed seriously misinformed.  That does not me=
an=
>  t=
> > hat
> > > it isn¹t GOOD VALUE FOR THE MONEY but in assessing a piece of equipme=
nt=
>  I=
> > 
> > > believe that one should score it technically first ­ without regard t=
o =
> it=
> > s
> > > cost ­ to determine its ³quality level² and then, and only then, comp=
ar=
> e =
> > it
> > > to other LIKE QUALITY equipment with regard to price.  Anyone, with
> > > reference to their own budget etc, can then determine whether they ar=
e
> > > 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 b=
as=
> is=
> > 
> > > what I get in terms of quality for the cost difference between each a=
nd=
>  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@...m
> > > 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.  F=
or=
> 
> > > prints with 
> > > my Epson 2200 I am happy with the Epson 3200 scanning 120 film (not f=
or=
>  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 sc=
an=
> 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 sc=
an=
>  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 w=
as=
> 
> > > impressed 
> > > that there was not a significant difference between the 3200 and a dr=
um=
>  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 Epso=
n =
> 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 s=
ca=
> n =
> > or
> > > even a 
> > > film scan.  But, if sharpness is something that matters and your goin=
g
> > > 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... wr=
ot=
> 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 320=
0 =
> an=
> > d
> > > see how it 
> > > works for your purposes. If you don't like it, sell it for almost wha=
t =
> 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 hea=
de=
> r.=
> > 
> > > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flame=
s
> > > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the vari=
ou=
> 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]