Digital BW, The Print

for $400 you can afford a good film scanner ..

.. i was using a CanonScan 2720 which gave me great results for blowups as
large as 8x12  (full frame 35mm scans) ..

.. and 8x12 print looks great matted up to 16x20 ..

minolta also makes some good scanners with about the same DPI as the 2720
scanner ..

-- ricardo


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Flatbed scanners with film adaptors - good, bad,
or ugly?


> Rarely will any flatbed give great results with 35mm film.  The canon
> probably has the better lenses of most affordable flatbed scanners.  If
> you don't go beyond 8x12 you can ge by with the canon flatbed. It will
> be great for the larger sizes. I would prefer canon over epson for ANY
> scanner, and Epson over Canon for ANY printer.
>
> jerry
>
> steve1t wrote:
> >
> > Group,
> >
> > A dedicated film scanner would be great to have, but is beyond my
> > needs and means.
> >
> > While shopping for a new flatbed scanner, I came across two that
> > feature built in film adaptors capable of scanning any film or
> > transparency - up to 4x5" for the Canon D2400UF CanoScan and up
> > to 6x9" for the Epson Perfection 2450 Photo Scanner.  Both feature
> > 2400x4800 dpi 48 bit scans, street price around $400.
> >
> > Does anyone have experience with these or similar scanners?  How do
> > they compare with dedicated film or drum scanners?  Are they close
> > quality wise, or is this too good to be true?
> >
> > As for my personal requirements, I'm an amateur photographer with
> > 35mm, 6x6, and 4x5 negatives and transparencies.  No pro or fine art
> > print sales here, but, I do appreciate fine prints, both color and
> > b&w and seldom print larger than 11x14.  All my new photos are with
> > a 4 mega pixel Canon G2, RAW file format post processed - I'm
> > pleased with the results.
> >
> > Thanks for any input.
> >
> > stephentucker@...
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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
keep 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
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> 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
>
> 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 keep
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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

At 02:12 PM 7/8/2002, Ricardo wrote:
>for $400 you can afford a good film scanner ..

But not one that will scan medium format and 4x5.

Stan

================================
Photography by Stan McQueen
http://www.smcqueen.com

Ricardo Lagos wrote:

>for $400 you can afford a good film scanner ..
>
>.. i was using a CanonScan 2720 which gave me great results for blowups as
>large as 8x12  (full frame 35mm scans) ..
>
>.. and 8x12 print looks great matted up to 16x20 ..
>
>minolta also makes some good scanners with about the same DPI as the 2720
>scanner ..
>
>  
>

And right now there are a good number of used Nikon LS4000's and 
Polaroid SprintScan 4000's on the street for around $400 to $500...  You 
might consider one for 35mm...

As for the larger sizes. the big problem is that  negs and 
transparencies tend to sag when held by the templates made for most 
flatbed scanners..  If you go that route, I strongly suggest ordering 
some anti-newton glass to place in the template beneath the 
transparency.  That generally will give it enough rigidity to prevent 
any serious sagging.

Alternatively, one could sandwich the larger neg/transparency between 
two pieces of the glass and place it directly on the flatbed glass..

The glass itself is quite inexpensive..

Keith

>
> As for the larger sizes. the big problem is that  negs and
> transparencies tend to sag when held by the templates made for most
> flatbed scanners..  If you go that route, I strongly suggest ordering
> some anti-newton glass to place in the template beneath the
> transparency.  That generally will give it enough rigidity to prevent
> any serious sagging.
>
> Alternatively, one could sandwich the larger neg/transparency between
> two pieces of the glass and place it directly on the flatbed glass..
>
> The glass itself is quite inexpensive..
>

or buy a pack of 100 8x10 anti-newton sheets from media street... Just got
some and they seem to do the trick for 4x5 and 8x10

tim

Tim Atherton wrote:

>>    
>>
>or buy a pack of 100 8x10 anti-newton sheets from media street... Just got
>some and they seem to do the trick for 4x5 and 8x10
>
>  
>

So, you FINALLY  decide to update us... LOL

Glad to hear they work!


Keith
 



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

Tim Atherton wrote:

>>A
>>
>or buy a pack of 100 8x10 anti-newton sheets from media street... Just got
>some and they seem to do the trick for 4x5 and 8x10
>  
>
 I shoulda asked how many uses a sheet generally lasts...

>  
>

Keith



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

Jerry,
have you actually compared (or seen any comparison of) scans from the
epson2450 vs. canon2400?
 
Alex

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Olson [mailto:jerryolson@...]
Sent: lunedì 8 luglio 2002 22.19
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Flatbed scanners with film adaptors - good, bad,
or ugly?


I strongly recommend you actually scan a typical slide/negative with the
brand of scanner you are going to buy before you buy it. I personally
have never seen a really crisp, sharp scan from any epson scanner,
especially with smaller negatives. But they do fine with the larger
negs, especially the 4x5. I don't think epson optics are in the same
league as canons.

Try before you buy, anyhoo.

Jer




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

I don´t find the link anymore, but I have seen that comparision once. The Epson (that I have as well) is better, its not a huge difference, but visible. The Epson is in fact  exceptional value for the money. 

I was about to get the new Minolta MF or the Polaroid 120 when a professional photographer I know recommended me to save the money for a nice trip and get the Epson 2450 instead. He has the Polaroid 120 but said he partly uses the 2450 now instead because the images look somehow more natural. 

Specially for those who print up to A3+ the Epson is godsent for MF work.

Greetings Bernhard

----- Original Message ----- 

  Jerry,
  have you actually compared (or seen any comparison of) scans from the
  epson2450 vs. canon2400?


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

> I strongly recommend you actually scan a typical slide/negative with the
> brand of scanner you are going to buy before you buy it. I personally
> have never seen a really crisp, sharp scan from any epson scanner,
> especially with smaller negatives. But they do fine with the larger
> negs, especially the 4x5. I don't think epson optics are in the same
> league as canons.

I'd suggest the Epson scans are much like your beloved D30. Very smooth, but
not incredibly sharp. However, they can take a fair bit of sharpening.

We just got an Epson 1680 at work which I'm going to try with 8x10 and 4x5
see how it works. I'll be interested to see how a pro epson scanner compares
to the consumer ones.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Moreno Polloni [mailto:mp@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 9:12 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Flatbed scanners with film adaptors - good,
> bad, or ugly?
>
>
> > I strongly recommend you actually scan a typical slide/negative with the
> > brand of scanner you are going to buy before you buy it. I personally
> > have never seen a really crisp, sharp scan from any epson scanner,
> > especially with smaller negatives. But they do fine with the larger
> > negs, especially the 4x5. I don't think epson optics are in the same
> > league as canons.
>
> I'd suggest the Epson scans are much like your beloved D30. Very
> smooth, but
> not incredibly sharp. However, they can take a fair bit of sharpening.
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 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 keep 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

> I'd suggest the Epson scans are much like your beloved D30. Very smooth, but
> not incredibly sharp. However, they can take a fair bit of sharpening.

That's a good analogy, I agree. The unsharp qualities approximates a
Gaussian blur to a great degree so unsharp mask operations are quite
effective when used carefully.

Godfrey