Digital BW, The Print

Simon, respectfully: *over sharpening* - as one usually do with Epson flatbeds - is not "bringing the detail which is there"... this is simply "making up pixels". I totally agree with Julian on his last statement adding "for 35mm film" on the end.

Regards,
Loris.

---- Orijinal Mesaj #1 ----
Kimden: julianthomas@...
Kime: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Bilgi: 
Konu: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what (was: Epson3200 - Test results)
Tarih: 3/17/2003 7:14:09 PM
exactly my point! I'd be interested in how you can say that 'the detail is
there' if the scan appears very soft. I can give the appearance of
sharpness - as i do - by USM tricks - but the details (I'm thinking here of
thin branches, trees etc - the usual difficult suspects) are missing. When
people say the 1680/3200 are sharp, what they are really saying is 'sharp
enough for them' - but as to some form of 'absolute' sharpness (I feel
Austin about to dive in;-0 ) they are very second rate IMO compared to film
scanners.

Julian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Lamb" <simon@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what? (was: Epson3200 - Test
results)


> Julian
>
> I must be losing the thread here.  What Polaroid and Minolta are you
> comparing scans with?  If the Multi Pro and SS120 then you cannot compare
> flatbed to dedicated film scanner.  My 3200 scans appear very soft but
look
> great after sharpening in PS, and all the detail is there.
>
> Simon



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

Loris

I posted some examples on the photo-I forum which speak for themselves.  I
do not over sharpen, I sharpen properly and appropriately.  The Epson
produces excellent results, far in excess of what one would expect to be
associated with a £330 scanner.  You cannot make up pixels, they either
exist or they don¹t.   The only way to make up pixels is to resample the
image.  As I have shown in the example url I posted in this thread, an image
that looked like there was detail missing did in fact have the detail.

As for agreeing about the 1680 and 3200 being second rate to film scanners,
I am prepared to put that to the test.  I can produce two prints of the same
image, both at 12X12, one scanned with the 3200 and one with an Imacon
Flextight Photo.  I absolutely guarantee that if I do not tell anyone which
is which, 99% of the general viewing public wouldn¹t have the faintest idea,
nor would they care.  They would look at either image and appreciate it for
what it is ­ a depiction of a scene or event captured on film and printed.

This retentive nature about ultimate sharpness is really just too much.  Who
cares, certainly not anyone except those who scan an image at 4000ppi, blow
it up to 100% and then start looking at edge definition, colour fringing and
Œultimate sharpness¹  For pete¹s sake, it won¹t even show on a 22X22, let
alone a 12X12 ort 10X8!

The only exception I would make to this is large prints and fine art prints
for sale or exhibition, where someone may well look at the fine detail.  As
I do neither I am happy with the 3200, as most people would be if they work
at it and get the most from it.

Simon  

On 17/3/03 10:13 pm, "Loris Medici" <lorism@...> wrote:

> 
> Simon, respectfully: *over sharpening* - as one usually do with Epson flatbeds
> - is not "bringing the detail which is there"... this is simply "making up
> pixels". I totally agree with Julian on his last statement adding "for 35mm
> film" on the end.
> 
> Regards,
> Loris.
> 
> ---- Orijinal Mesaj #1 ----
> Kimden: julianthomas@...
> Kime: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Bilgi: 
> Konu: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what (was: Epson3200 - Test
> results)
> Tarih: 3/17/2003 7:14:09 PM
> exactly my point! I'd be interested in how you can say that 'the detail is
> there' if the scan appears very soft. I can give the appearance of
> sharpness - as i do - by USM tricks - but the details (I'm thinking here of
> thin branches, trees etc - the usual difficult suspects) are missing. When
> people say the 1680/3200 are sharp, what they are really saying is 'sharp
> enough for them' - but as to some form of 'absolute' sharpness (I feel
> Austin about to dive in;-0 ) they are very second rate IMO compared to film
> scanners.
> 
> Julian
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Simon Lamb" <simon@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 5:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what? (was: Epson3200 - Test
> results)
> 
> 
>> > Julian
>> >
>> > I must be losing the thread here.  What Polaroid and Minolta are you
>> > comparing scans with?  If the Multi Pro and SS120 then you cannot compare
>> > flatbed to dedicated film scanner.  My 3200 scans appear very soft but
> look
>> > great after sharpening in PS, and all the detail is there.
>> >
>> > Simon



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

Loris Medici wrote:

>Simon, respectfully: *over sharpening* - as one usually do with Epson flatbeds - is not "bringing the detail which is there"... this is simply "making up pixels". I totally agree with Julian on his last statement adding "for 35mm film" on the end.
>
>
>  
>
If you are serious about scanning 35mm, you really NEED a film scanner..
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 




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

That's what I told.

Julian said: "... they are very second rate IMO compared to film
scanners ..." (about Epson 1680/3200)
I added: "... for 35mm film."

Loris.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Editor P.O.V. Image Service [mailto:editor@...] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 2:10 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Ynt: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what 
> (was: Epson3200 - Test results)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loris Medici wrote:
> 
> >Simon, respectfully: *over sharpening* - as one usually do 
> with Epson 
> >flatbeds - is not "bringing the detail which is there"... this is 
> >simply "making up pixels". I totally agree with Julian on his last 
> >statement adding "for 35mm film" on the end.
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> If you are serious about scanning 35mm, you really NEED a 
> film scanner.. Keith

Again,

Quoting myself: 
"I totally agree with Julian on his last statement adding ***for 35mm
film*** at the end."

Please pay attention I didn't make any statement for Medium Format or
4x5" Large Format film. I use my 2450 with pleasure for my 6x6
negatives.

I'm far of being a "quality - detail/definition - sharpness freak"; I
like clumpy grain and use a 25 years old soviet camera system (Zorki 4K
and 35/2.8, 50/2.0, 85/2.0 lenses) for instance... But IMO, it is not
fare to describe the Epson's as "fine scanners which scan 35mm film
adequately for A3+ / 13x19" output size" - this is simply misinforming
people. In the other hand these are nice for MF and/or LF films.

Regards,
Loris.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Lamb [mailto:simon@...] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:46 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Ynt: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what 
> (was:Epson3200 - Test results)
> 
> 
> Loris
> 
> I posted some examples on the photo-I forum which speak for 
> themselves.  I do not over sharpen, I sharpen properly and 
> ...

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

From: "Loris Medici" <lorism@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what
(was:Epson3200 - Test results)


> I'm far of being a "quality - detail/definition - sharpness
freak"; I
> like clumpy grain and use a 25 years old soviet camera system
(Zorki 4K
> and 35/2.8, 50/2.0, 85/2.0 lenses) for instance... But IMO, it
is not
> fare to describe the Epson's as "fine scanners which scan 35mm
film
> adequately for A3+ / 13x19" output size" - this is simply
misinforming
> people. In the other hand these are nice for MF and/or LF
films.

Loris, if you ever get near a Russian Iskra 6x6 folder don't
hesitate to buy it. You will be surprised what a good one is
capable of and it will be better than the 2450 can reveal. I've
made very detailed colour negatives with it that were scanned on
the Nikon 8000 wetmounted. At 70 Euro streetprice you cannot be
disappointed, if you get a bad one, buy another and keep the
first for spares.
Zorki 4 rangefinder type with a longer base. Very nice lens, on
par with the best Tessar types of the 60's and 70's. I rather
accompany it with a 6x9 folder camera but for that quality of
lens and rangefinder you have to get an Ensign Autorange 820 and
they are not going below 600 Euro. There are several good sites
with Iskra (2) information.

In the end there's no substitute for square inches of film. But I
prefer them in the fewest cubic inches of camera.

Ernst

> In the end there's no substitute for square inches of film. But I
> prefer them in the fewest cubic inches of camera.
>
> Ernst

Me too Ernst - I use a 1959 rolleiflex F. My Horseman 6x9 field camera stays
at home. Anyone interested in a 6x9 field camera??

Julian

For colour and my usual 'street' activites I'm perfectly happy - but
shooting landscape where I really want to see detail in bare trees etc it is
driving me nuts. Scans I made of 35mm negs on my ss4000 have loads more
detail than 6x6 on the flatbed. So to add it to my list I just need a new
scanner, new PC and lf printer ;-) oh yeah, I'm also yearning for a hassy
superwide.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Loris Medici" <lorism@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what (was:Epson3200 - Test
results)


> Again,
>
> Quoting myself:
> "I totally agree with Julian on his last statement adding ***for 35mm
> film*** at the end."
>
> Please pay attention I didn't make any statement for Medium Format or
> 4x5" Large Format film. I use my 2450 with pleasure for my 6x6
> negatives.
>
> I'm far of being a "quality - detail/definition - sharpness freak"; I
> like clumpy grain and use a 25 years old soviet camera system (Zorki 4K
> and 35/2.8, 50/2.0, 85/2.0 lenses) for instance... But IMO, it is not
> fare to describe the Epson's as "fine scanners which scan 35mm film
> adequately for A3+ / 13x19" output size" - this is simply misinforming
> people. In the other hand these are nice for MF and/or LF films.
>
> Regards,
> Loris.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon Lamb [mailto:simon@...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:46 AM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Ynt: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what
> > (was:Epson3200 - Test results)
> >
> >
> > Loris
> >
> > I posted some examples on the photo-I forum which speak for
> > themselves.  I do not over sharpen, I sharpen properly and
> > ...
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 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 same
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 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
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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/
>
>
>

Thanks Ernst, I'll keep my eyes open :)

Regards,
Loris.

P.S. I currently use a Yashica Mat 124G (damaged lens due to fungus -
very nice soft portraits wide open, sharp at f8 and f11) which I like
very much.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ernst Dinkla [mailto:E.Dinkla@...] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:56 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what 
> (was:Epson3200 - Test results)
> 
> Loris, if you ever get near a Russian Iskra 6x6 folder don't 
> hesitate to buy it ...

Loris

You didn't read my text carefully.  I quoted 6X6 all through my post.  Of course a flatbed won't scan better than a modern dedicated film scanner for 35mm at large print sizes.  That said, look at the results on www.photo-i.co.uk - not bad for a flatbed with 35mm and up to 10X8 the 3200 isn't that far from the quality of my Nikon LS30.

Simon

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Loris Medici 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:07 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what (was:Epson3200 - Test results)


  Again,

  Quoting myself: 
  "I totally agree with Julian on his last statement adding ***for 35mm
  film*** at the end."

  Please pay attention I didn't make any statement for Medium Format or
  4x5" Large Format film. I use my 2450 with pleasure for my 6x6
  negatives.

  I'm far of being a "quality - detail/definition - sharpness freak"; I
  like clumpy grain and use a 25 years old soviet camera system (Zorki 4K
  and 35/2.8, 50/2.0, 85/2.0 lenses) for instance... But IMO, it is not
  fare to describe the Epson's as "fine scanners which scan 35mm film
  adequately for A3+ / 13x19" output size" - this is simply misinforming
  people. In the other hand these are nice for MF and/or LF films.

  Regards,
  Loris.

  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Simon Lamb [mailto:simon@...] 
  > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:46 AM
  > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  > Subject: Re: Ynt: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what 
  > (was:Epson3200 - Test results)
  > 
  > 
  > Loris
  > 
  > I posted some examples on the photo-I forum which speak for 
  > themselves.  I do not over sharpen, I sharpen properly and 
  > ...




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