Digital BW, The Print

I know that this sounds like a stupid question, and if it is I plead guilty.  
When scanning (Epson 2450) mounted images, i.e. slides (I also mount B/W negs 
in slide mounts to maximize flatness) I find that the images are reversed on 
the screen.  I don't have this problem when scanning prints.  It came to me 
that maybe I have the film reversed.  I have always assumed (and we all know 
what that means) that the emulsion should go down and face towards the CCD.  
Is this right or am I doing it bass ackwards?

Jerry in Houston


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

On 01/23 15:20, glewis4457@... wrote:
> what that means) that the emulsion should go down and face towards the CCD.  
> Is this right or am I doing it bass ackwards?

The instructions on the Epson 2450 states to put the "shiny" side
down.  

....which means the emulsion is facing up.

-- 
Eric

All,

I have a 1640SU that I have used for quick scans for proofing.  The quality
of that scanner is not great.  I have a new client that wants some chromes
scanned.  They are destined for the web.  How much better is the 2450 with
respect the sharpness, noise, shadow detail than the 1640?  I don't want to
drum scan these until we're making prints.  Anyone have real experience with
both scanners?

TIA,

Lawrence
----------------------------------
Lawrence W. Smith Photography
http://www.lwsphoto.com
lsmith@...
----------------------------------

> When scanning (Epson 2450) mounted images, i.e. slides (I also mount B/W
negs
> in slide mounts to maximize flatness) I find that the images are reversed
on
> the screen.  I don't have this problem when scanning prints.  It came to
me
> that maybe I have the film reversed.  I have always assumed (and we all
know
> what that means) that the emulsion should go down and face towards the
CCD.
> Is this right or am I doing it bass ackwards?

A flatbed scanner looks at the picture from underneath. That's why you have
to put your image face down unless you want to flip it horizontally in
Photoshop. If you want to put your film directly on the glass surface you
should put emulsion side down with an antinewton treated glass on top.
That's a way to keep the film flat. Most flatbed scanners (unlike Epson 1680
Pro) have the focus plane a bit above the glass surface though so you might
gain something in keeping the film flat and loose something due to out of
focus.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Lawrence Smith 
<lsmith@l...> wrote:
>How much better is the 2450 with
> respect the sharpness, noise, shadow detail than the 1640?  I don't 
want to
> drum scan these until we're making prints.  Anyone have real 
experience with
> both scanners?


I don't have experience with either scanner, but I recently purchased 
a 1660 photo scanner (i.e. with built-in transparency adaptor) so I 
can offer some general comments...

The 1660 is spec'd at the same, 1600x3200 resolution as the 1640, but 
with higher bit-depth (48 vs 42). I consider 1600dpi to be the 'true' 
optical [/hw] resolution of this scanner as scans @ 3200 are 
noticeably softer (interpolated).

This is probably adequate for scanning many photos for web pages. 
However I have found that while it is quite good at digging up shadow 
detail, it exhibits severely blown highlights, and furthermore on 
dark images (or that have dark areas), there is a noticeable 
uneveness of illumination from the scan, with a bright strip (from 
the poorly-diffused bulb) down the middle. There may be (I hope)
workarounds that ameliorate these defects.

There also seems to be a focus problem with some slides in thick 
mounts, that can be eliminated by taping the unmounted slide to a 
piece of glass then placing it so the emulsion side is in contact 
with the platen (which also gives you access to the full frame).

Compared with my experience with an old SprintScan 35 dedicated slide 
scanner, that does not have nearly the dynamic range of the 1660, but 
does offer 2000 dpi optical resolution, and relatively good 
interpolation to 2700 dpi, I do get markedly better results from the 
higher resolution. You see film grain on a 400-speed 35mm film 
(unlike the 1660 @ 1600 dpi).

So I would say the higher resolution and increased bit-depth of the 
2450 will probably yield a higher percentage of good/usable scans.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Lawrence Smith 
<lsmith@l...> wrote:
> All,
> 
> I have a 1640SU that I have used for quick scans for proofing.  
The quality
> of that scanner is not great.  I have a new client that wants some 
chromes
> scanned.  They are destined for the web.  How much better is the 
2450 with
> respect the sharpness, noise, shadow detail than the 1640?  I 
don't want to
> drum scan these until we're making prints.  Anyone have real 
experience with
> both scanners?


Lawrence, 

The 2450 has performed very well for me in most situations, 
especially for the web and small prints. The 2450 has recently been 
discontinued and the new model the 3200 will be available at the end 
of March.

The info on the new scanner can be found on this page:
http://www.inkjetgoodies.com/3200_waiting_list.htm

IMHO these scanners are only as good as the software driving them. 
The benefit to the new 3200PRO is the software package it comes with.

Good Luck!

Gregory Schern
inkjetgoodies.com
info@...