Digital BW, The Print

Dear Group,

Some incremental information for your files, and a couple
of pennies out of my pocket...

Apple¹s ³Image Capture² application will access the available
6400 DPI within an Epson 4990 Pro.

I use it periodically to see what the image is like, and the
image file is huge, where it tops out at 1.91+ Gb with a 4X5
black and white negative, scanned as a colour transparency
with the profile set to Adobe RGB 1998 8bit, which seems to
be the default profile setting for Apple¹s Image Capture.

The profile is also named Epson Perfection 4990.  There are
a number of other profiles available for the scan with Apple¹s
Image Capture application, but I have not tried any of them
to see what differences might exist.  Maybe I should. :)

The scan, on an older Mac of mine, takes approximately 25
minutes through a Firewire connection at this setting.

The image size becomes 1.27Gb at 16bit, when the colour
information is discarded and the image is inverted, for anyone
that might be interested, and approximately 650Mb for 8bit.
The image file is definitely a smoother image file compared
to my preliminary scan at 4800dpi, where the 4800dpi file
at 16bit is about 750mb.

I do not know if there are any limitations with respect to a
file size, such as scanning an 8X10 negative with Image
Capture, since I do not have one to scan.  That file would
be massive at 6400dpi.  Photoshop might choke on that one.

Personally, I do all of my final selective scanning on a Howtek
Drum Scanner.  An Epson flat bed scanner, at this time, can
not acquire the subtle detailed information buried in the
shadows and, or the highlights compared to a drum scanned
image.

A 4X5 negative in an Epson scanner does not produce a
quality image if the negative is bowed and, or if gravity
impacts the negative shape during a scan. The focused
sweet spot becomes extremely localized, and this issue
alone absolutely retards the effective use of a full negative.

I don¹t think Photoshop developed a filter to improve that fault.

A drum scanned image just rocks with any negative
because the negative is perfectly shaped against the drum,
floating on oil, and held in place by Mylar. The entire negative
is never out of focus.

It is unfortunate that the cost of a drum scanned image is so
exorbitant, depending on the final file size, but for myself, I
will make the choice to drum scan an image, once I decide
to select a specific image for exhibition, and only work with
that image file. I have two excellent sources for a drum
scanned image and their ability to produce a quality file
happens to be legendary.

But within a year or two, who knows. My drum scanning
sources might not be required.  The possibility of wet
mounting a negative on a flat bed might change my view,
but for the moment, that science is outside my fence...

Epson, et al, are slowly acquiring a market share, dominated
by drum scanners, where Epson continually improves the
image quality with each new generation.  Are they yet? I
don¹t think so, but again that is just my own opinion, since I
only like the information I see from a drum scanned image.

If I owned a drum scanner within a business, I would be
spooked by any reduction in business.  It will happen.

That said, and for the moment, my comfort avenue is a
drum scanned image, knowing I have a great image file
to work with, and the opportunity to print a great image.

jim k








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]