Digital BW, The Print

If you are a film scanner person, then this suggestion is not for you. However, I have an Epson Perfection 3200 flatbed scanner which does film from 35mm to 4X5. Some on this list have belittled it's ability with 35mm. However, I find the quality that I get very good with 35mm and excellent with 120 and 4X5. I print with an Epson 2200 and my 13X19 prints look nice to me. I do use LaserSoft's SilverFast Ai 6.0 for scanning though and I believe that is making the difference. Using their USM option, it sharpens them up to the degree that I want. The price can't be beat. It's under $400. Check Photo-i for a complete review.

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/

Russ Martin


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

Russ, I agree.  The 3200 is an excellent scanner.

I use it with a 1280 running the piezography driver
and could not be happier with the results.  I scan
everything from 35 to 4x5

Don

--- mfaphoto@... wrote:
> I have an Epson
> Perfection 3200 flatbed scanner which does film from
> 35mm to 4X5. Some on this list have belittled it's
> ability with 35mm. However, I find the quality that
> I get very good with 35mm and excellent with 120 and
> 4X5. I print with an Epson 2200 and my 13X19 prints
> look nice to me. 
> Russ Martin
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

At 04:27 AM Monday 9/29/03, you wrote:
>Russ, I agree.  The 3200 is an excellent scanner.
>
>I use it with a 1280 running the piezography driver
>and could not be happier with the results.  I scan
>everything from 35 to 4x5

Thanks for this discussion. I currently shoot only 35mm, but plan to move to 120 as well. After setting my sights on the Minolta 5400, you have prompted me to have a re-think (especially after re-reading the i-photo review).

I am now thinking that it might be a better idea for me to start with the 3200, because it will do all the film sizes that I will use - so, when I go to 120 film, I won't have to get a second scanner. 

If I got the Minolta 5400 now, I would have to buy a second scanner eventually (when I move to 120) - so it makes sense to get the 3200 first, in case I find it adequate for my 35mm needs. 

I really do want to be able to get exhibition-quality prints from 35mm, which is what has held me back from buying the 3200 for 35mm negs.

Any thoughts?

thanks,
Richard 
------------------------------
photos: http://photos.smallfield.vze.com 
homepage: http://smallfield.vze.com
favourite website: http://www.masters-of-photography.com/ 


   "Kindness is the golden chain by which society is bound 
   together." 
   --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 
   poet, dramatist, novelist, and philosopher (1749-1832)

I have a 3200 and a NIkon 8000.  Obviously, I only use the 3200 for film larger than 21/4.  I have tried 35 and 21/4 on the 3200 and was not at all happy.  I have Silverfast that came with the scanner.  I don't care for it.  I use the Epson software.  I probably have some learning there.  I haven't tried real hard on the smaller stuff.  I don't have the motivation since I have the 8000.  But, before making the decision to buy the 3200 for smaller film, find a store that knows their stuff and have them demo it on one of YOUR typical pieces of film.  Then, make the decision based on what you think good enough for 'exhibition quality' is.  Remember, a lot of this terminology is subjective.  What is 'good enough' is going to be based on your subjectivity.  
 
Tom Baker

Richard Smallfield <r.smallfield@...> wrote: 
At 04:27 AM Monday 9/29/03, you wrote:
>Russ, I agree.  The 3200 is an excellent scanner.
>
>I use it with a 1280 running the piezography driver
>and could not be happier with the results.  I scan
>everything from 35 to 4x5

Thanks for this discussion. I currently shoot only 35mm, but plan to move to 120 as well. After setting my sights on the Minolta 5400, you have prompted me to have a re-think (especially after re-reading the i-photo review).

I am now thinking that it might be a better idea for me to start with the 3200, because it will do all the film sizes that I will use - so, when I go to 120 film, I won't have to get a second scanner. 

If I got the Minolta 5400 now, I would have to buy a second scanner eventually (when I move to 120) - so it makes sense to get the 3200 first, in case I find it adequate for my 35mm needs. 

I really do want to be able to get exhibition-quality prints from 35mm, which is what has held me back from buying the 3200 for 35mm negs.

Any thoughts?

thanks,
Richard 
------------------------------
photos: http://photos.smallfield.vze.com 
homepage: http://smallfield.vze.com
favourite website: http://www.masters-of-photography.com/ 


   "Kindness is the golden chain by which society is bound 
   together." 
   --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 
   poet, dramatist, novelist, and philosopher (1749-1832)


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

I personally own the 2450, but have friends with the 3200... it isn't 
as sharp as my really cheap Scan Dual for 35mm.  You might think of 
getting something like the Scan Dual now (hey, if you are considering 
a 3200) and getting a good MF scanner when you actually need one... 
things only get cheaper and better with time don't they?  The 3200, 
like the 2450, does not focus, and while you can spend the time 
experimenting to figure out shim thicknesses to get you carriers in 
better focus it never matches decent dedicated film scanners.  The 
one thing I can say though is that the Epson defocus is a rather 
effective grain reducer;)

I think the Epsons are fine for a dual flatbed and occasional 
medium/large format print, but I wouldn't dedicate it for anything.

mark

...
> I am now thinking that it might be a better idea for me to start 
with the 3200, because it will do all the film sizes that I will use -
 so, when I go to 120 film, I won't have to get a second scanner. 
> 
> If I got the Minolta 5400 now, I would have to buy a second scanner 
eventually (when I move to 120) - so it makes sense to get the 3200 
first, in case I find it adequate for my 35mm needs. 
> 
> I really do want to be able to get exhibition-quality prints from 
35mm, which is what has held me back from buying the 3200 for 35mm 
negs.
...

> If I got the Minolta 5400 now, I would have to buy a second 
> scanner eventually (when I move to 120) - so it makes sense 
> to get the 3200 first, in case I find it adequate for my 35mm needs. 
> 
> I really do want to be able to get exhibition-quality prints 
> from 35mm, which is what has held me back from buying the 
> 3200 for 35mm negs.
> 
> Any thoughts?

I have the Epson 3200 and the Minolta 5400. My MF equipment has been
gathering dust lately because I feel the final image from a 35mm
negative scanned on the 5400 is better than that of a 6x7 scanned on the
3200. They compare well, but any advantage you may have had with the
larger film size is lost due to the inferiour scanning quality of the
3200.

In any case, you won't get exhibition quality prints from 35mm with the
3200. Even the cheapest film scanners on the market will do better.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

At 06:26 AM 9/29/03 +1200, you wrote:
>At 04:27 AM Monday 9/29/03, you wrote:
> >Russ, I agree.  The 3200 is an excellent scanner.
> >
> >I use it with a 1280 running the piezography driver
> >and could not be happier with the results.  I scan
> >everything from 35 to 4x5
>
>Thanks for this discussion. I currently shoot only 35mm, but plan to move 
>to 120 as well. After setting my sights on the Minolta 5400, you have 
>prompted me to have a re-think (especially after re-reading the i-photo 
>review).
>
>I am now thinking that it might be a better idea for me to start with the 
>3200, because it will do all the film sizes that I will use - so, when I 
>go to 120 film, I won't have to get a second scanner.
>
>If I got the Minolta 5400 now, I would have to buy a second scanner 
>eventually (when I move to 120) - so it makes sense to get the 3200 first, 
>in case I find it adequate for my 35mm needs.
>
>I really do want to be able to get exhibition-quality prints from 35mm, 
>which is what has held me back from buying the 3200 for 35mm negs.
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>thanks,
>Richard
>------------------------------
>photos: http://photos.smallfield.vze.com
>homepage: http://smallfield.vze.com
>favourite website: http://www.masters-of-photography.com/
>
>
>    "Kindness is the golden chain by which society is bound
>    together."
>    --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe,
>    poet, dramatist, novelist, and philosopher (1749-1832)



Another happy Epson3200Photo user here.  Silverfast is great.  Get an 
anti-newton ring glass instead of negative carrier.
Check this out:

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/epson3200/index.html

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/Epson_3200_Bruck.html

You will get fine 35mm prints with Piezo or other quad-tone system.  Some 
think  back-only is reminiscent of TX silver prints.

AZ

Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us

The Epson 3200 delivers nice results. Probably not as good as film scanners, but good. Since there is probably a huge price difference, so get the 3200 and see how it works for your purposes. If you don't like it, sell it for almost what you paid and get the film scanner.

Russ


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

Another view thrown in the pot...

I have the Epson 3200 and I just bought the Minolta Dual Scan Pro.  For prints with 
my Epson 2200 I am happy with the Epson 3200 scanning 120 film (not for 35mm 
though).  But, my use is for stock where I want the best quality and OPTICAL 
sharpness for my scans.  Even though it may not make a difference in the final useage 
of the image, buyers look at sharpness as a factor when looking at scans 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 scan of 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 was impressed 
that there was not a significant difference between the 3200 and a drum scan ( a 
difference but not a huge one).  Well, i don't know where he got his drum scan done 
and on what scanner, but here is my drum scan versus 3200 scan and I see a huge 
difference (although as I said the difference will not show on a Epson 2200 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 scan or even a 
film scan.  But, if sharpness is something that matters and your going beyond a 
13x13 print, this is something you may want to consider.  For me, I'm going to sell 
my 3200 and my Minolta should be here any day.

Jeff

----------------------------------------------------
Jeff Singer Photography
jeff@...
http://www.jeffsingerphotography.com


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, mfaphoto@o... wrote:
> The Epson 3200 delivers nice results. Probably not as good as film scanners, but 
good. Since there is probably a huge price difference, so get the 3200 and see how it 
works for your purposes. If you don't like it, sell it for almost what you paid and get 
the film scanner.

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

> For me, I'm going to sell 
> my 3200 and my Minolta should be here any day.

I give you joy.  Care to comment on why you choose the Minolta
over the Nikon 8000 ?

John

Jeff

This is very helpful given my current purchasing dilemma.  A couple of basic
questions (and please excuse any ignorance):

1. In the first set of images (I assume the Nikon is on the right), why is
the Nikon image so ³grainy² ?  The skin looks quite bad as a result.
2. Any chance you can put the drum scan alongside the Nikon?

Cheers

Steve

From: "jsinger986" <jhsinger@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:33:08 -0000
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
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.  For
prints with 
my Epson 2200 I am happy with the Epson 3200 scanning 120 film (not for 35mm
though).  But, my use is for stock where I want the best quality and OPTICAL
sharpness for my scans.  Even though it may not make a difference in the
final useage 
of the image, buyers look at sharpness as a factor when looking at scans 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 scan of 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 was
impressed 
that there was not a significant difference between the 3200 and a drum scan
( a 
difference but not a huge one).  Well, i don't know where he got his drum
scan done 
and on what scanner, but here is my drum scan versus 3200 scan and I see a
huge 
difference (although as I said the difference will not show on a Epson 2200
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 scan or
even a 
film scan.  But, if sharpness is something that matters and your going
beyond a 
13x13 print, this is something you may want to consider.  For me, I'm going
to sell 
my 3200 and my Minolta should be here any day.

Jeff

----------------------------------------------------
Jeff Singer Photography
jeff@jeffsingerphotography.com
http://www.jeffsingerphotography.com


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, mfaphoto@o... wrote:
> The Epson 3200 delivers nice results. Probably not as good as film scanners,
but 
good. Since there is probably a huge price difference, so get the 3200 and
see how it 
works for your purposes. If you don't like it, sell it for almost what you
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 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 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



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

The nikon image is more grainy because the nikon can resolve more informati=
on than 
the epson.  So, it is scanning the grain.  The film was Tri-x 400, so its a=
 higher speed 
film which will of course have more grain.  The nikon scan is also darker t=
han the 
epson (I used "auto exposure" on both which will give different results fro=
m different 
software).  So I think that is contributing to the bad look of the nikon sc=
an.

Additionally, the woman's head is actually a small part of the negative, so=
 this is a 
pretty big enlargement.  That will accentuate grain even more.

The higher the resolution the more grain you are going to get.  The drum sc=
ans which 
has even better resolution than the nikon are even more grainy.

I don't have any scans that were done both with the nikon and the drum scan=
ner.

Jeff
http://www.jeffsingerphotography.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@=
b...> 
wrote:
> Jeff
> 
> This is very helpful given my current purchasing dilemma.  A couple of ba=
sic
> questions (and please excuse any ignorance):
> 
> 1. In the first set of images (I assume the Nikon is on the right), why i=
s
> the Nikon image so ³grainy² ?  The skin looks quite bad as a result.
> 2. Any chance you can put the drum scan alongside the Nikon?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> From: "jsinger986" <jhsinger@t...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:33:08 -0000
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> 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.  For
> prints with 
> my Epson 2200 I am happy with the Epson 3200 scanning 120 film (not for 3=
5mm
> though).  But, my use is for stock where I want the best quality and OPTI=
CAL
> sharpness for my scans.  Even though it may not make a difference in the
> final useage 
> of the image, buyers look at sharpness as a factor when looking at scans =
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 scan 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 was
> impressed 
> that there was not a significant difference between the 3200 and a drum s=
can
> ( a 
> difference but not a huge one).  Well, i don't know where he got his drum=

> scan done 
> and on what scanner, but here is my drum scan versus 3200 scan and I see =
a
> huge 
> difference (although as I said the difference will not show on a Epson 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 scan =
or
> even a 
> film scan.  But, if sharpness is something that matters and your going
> beyond a 
> 13x13 print, this is something you may want to consider.  For me, I'm goi=
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... wrote:=

> > The Epson 3200 delivers nice results. Probably not as good as film scan=
ners,
> but 
> good. Since there is probably a huge price difference, so get the 3200 an=
d
> see how it 
> works for your purposes. If you don't like it, sell it for almost what 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 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 sam=
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 kee=
p

> 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> but here is my drum scan versus 3200 scan and I see =

It it possible you have the wrong detail (of her eye) below
each larger image ?

John

P.S.  She is cute !

It wasn't from the same picture.  I was just using that as another example of the 3200 
vs drumscan.

On that scan the person's face took up a large portion (all pretty much) of the 
negative so the eye was a larger portion of the negative.  that is why I threw that in as 
well.

The full picture is in the "portrait" section on my web page.  Its the picture of the man 
with a big afro.

Jeff

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "johngeyles" <jge@c...> 
wrote:

> > but here is my drum scan versus 3200 scan and I see =
> 
> It it possible you have the wrong detail (of her eye) below
> each larger image ?
> 
> John
> 
> P.S.  She is cute !

Thanks a lot ­ this is very helpful

From: "jsinger986" <jhsinger@telus.net>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:14:29 -0000
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] MF Scanners -- off topic

The nikon image is more grainy because the nikon can resolve more informati=
on than 
the epson.  So, it is scanning the grain.  The film was Tri-x 400, so its a=
 higher speed 
film which will of course have more grain.  The nikon scan is also darker t=
han the 
epson (I used "auto exposure" on both which will give different results fro=
m different 
software).  So I think that is contributing to the bad look of the nikon sc=
an.

Additionally, the woman's head is actually a small part of the negative, so=
 this is a 
pretty big enlargement.  That will accentuate grain even more.

The higher the resolution the more grain you are going to get.  The drum sc=
ans which 
has even better resolution than the nikon are even more grainy.

I don't have any scans that were done both with the nikon and the drum scan=
ner.

Jeff
http://www.jeffsingerphotography.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@=
b...> 
wrote:
> Jeff
> 
> This is very helpful given my current purchasing dilemma.  A couple of ba=
sic
> questions (and please excuse any ignorance):
> 
> 1. In the first set of images (I assume the Nikon is on the right), why i=
s
> the Nikon image so ³grainy² ?  The skin looks quite bad as a result.
> 2. Any chance you can put the drum scan alongside the Nikon?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> From: "jsinger986" <jhsinger@t...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:33:08 -0000
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> 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.  For
> prints with 
> my Epson 2200 I am happy with the Epson 3200 scanning 120 film (not for 3=
5mm
> though).  But, my use is for stock where I want the best quality and OPTI=
CAL
> sharpness for my scans.  Even though it may not make a difference in the
> final useage 
> of the image, buyers look at sharpness as a factor when looking at scans =
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 scan 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 was
> impressed 
> that there was not a significant difference between the 3200 and a drum s=
can
> ( a 
> difference but not a huge one).  Well, i don't know where he got his drum=

> scan done 
> and on what scanner, but here is my drum scan versus 3200 scan and I see =
a
> huge 
> difference (although as I said the difference will not show on a Epson 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 scan =
or
> even a 
> film scan.  But, if sharpness is something that matters and your going
> beyond a 
> 13x13 print, this is something you may want to consider.  For me, I'm goi=
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... wrote:=

> > The Epson 3200 delivers nice results. Probably not as good as film scan=
ners,
> but 
> good. Since there is probably a huge price difference, so get the 3200 an=
d
> see how it 
> works for your purposes. If you don't like it, sell it for almost what 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 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 sam=
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 kee=
p
> 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 
 ADVERTISEMENT
 <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=262770.3825277.5149013.1473480/D=egroupweb/S=1705019
182:HM/A=1759951/R=0/SIG=133r2anun/*http://www.flipalbum.com/ims/clickthru/?
x=a_yahoo&y=Http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flipalbum.com%2Fims%2Fc%2Fc1>

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 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



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

Steve writes:

> 1. In the first set of images (I assume the Nikon is
> on the right), why is the Nikon image so \ufffdgrainy\ufffd ?

Looks like Tri-X.  I love the tonality of Tri-X, but I'm not at all keen on
the grain.  Especially in 35mm, you can forget about even the most
conservative cropping with Tri-X.

Hi Anthony,

> Looks like Tri-X.  I love the tonality of Tri-X, but I'm not at
> all keen on
> the grain.  Especially in 35mm, you can forget about even the most
> conservative cropping with Tri-X.

The amount of grain really depends on how you expose it, and how you develop
it.  I shoot it at 200/400 and 800.  Of course, the grain increases with
EI...but at 200, it's quite nice, and even at 400 with careful development,
grain can be reduced significantly.  I develop using D-76 1:1, and really
like the results.

Regards,

Austin

Austin writes:

> The amount of grain really depends on how you expose it,
> and how you develop it.

So I've discovered.

When I first starting using Tri-X again after a decades-long hiatus, I had
it developed at a one-hour lab.  The results seemed terribly grainy and
contrasty.  Turns out the lab uses some sort of hyperaggressive Ilford
chemistry that develops film at lightspeed; the chemistry is matched to
their printing, so their prints from the film look fine, but when you scan
the negatives yourself the result is scary.

Once I discovered this (only just short of giving up on Tri-X, even though I
didn't remember it being _that_ grainy), I started developing it myself.  I
use D-76 straight.  The results are a zillion times better than the one-hour
lab--quite beautiful, really, given my awkward and very casual approach to
lab parameters.  It scans very nicely.

Still, the grain is more than I'd like to see.  Sometimes it looks artsy,
and that's fine, but most of the time I don't want artsy grain, although I
do want the Tri-X response to light.  In 35mm, cropping is not very
practical.  When I shoot TXP in 120 format, though, the results are much,
much nicer, with far less visible grain, nicer tones, and better shadow
detail.  I expose both TX and TXP at the speeds on the box (400 and 320,
respectively).  Always in D-76 straight, at whatever temperature the stuff
is at when I use it (adjusting times appropriately).  The MF TXP _can_ be
cropped within reasonable limits without the grain creeping out from under
the bed to terrify the photographer, although I try not to crop, anyway.

If I want grain-free photos, I shoot Portra 400BW (when I'm lazy, or when I
need Tri-X-like speed) or Technical Pan (when I'm not lazy and when there is
enough light or a tripod).  Technical Pan has a wonderful look of its own,
but Portra tends to be very neutral and sometimes flat in photos with low
contrast, although it performs very well in high-contrast and night shots
(as examples that I have previously shown here illustrate).

Hi Anthony,

> > The amount of grain really depends on how you expose it,
> > and how you develop it.
>
> So I've discovered.
>
> When I first starting using Tri-X again after a decades-long hiatus, I had
> it developed at a one-hour lab.  The results seemed terribly grainy and
> contrasty.  Turns out the lab uses some sort of hyperaggressive Ilford
> chemistry that develops film at lightspeed; the chemistry is matched to
> their printing, so their prints from the film look fine, but when you scan
> the negatives yourself the result is scary.
>
> Once I discovered this (only just short of giving up on Tri-X,
> even though I
> didn't remember it being _that_ grainy), I started developing it
> myself.  I
> use D-76 straight.  The results are a zillion times better than
> the one-hour
> lab--quite beautiful, really, given my awkward and very casual approach to
> lab parameters.  It scans very nicely.
>
> Still, the grain is more than I'd like to see.

I'm glad to hear you're giving Tri-X a real try...and I strongly suggest
trying D-76 1:1 and seeing how you like the reduced grain, and the enhanced
tonality...

> When I shoot TXP in 120 format, though, the results are much,
> much nicer, with far less visible grain, nicer tones, and better shadow
> detail.

Yes, I agree...one of my favorite films for MF B&W use...and again, I can
shoot from 200/400 and 800...

> If I want grain-free photos, I shoot Portra 400BW (when I'm lazy,
> or when I
> need Tri-X-like speed) or Technical Pan (when I'm not lazy and
> when there is
> enough light or a tripod).

Knowing you, as I know you...I'd recommend Plus-X...I really think you'll
love it.  Again, D-76 1:1.  It's a physically thick film, with VERY
long/rich tonality, and incredibly low grain...  It scans simply amazingly
on my scanner.  Give it a try, and let me know what you think...

Regards,

Austin

Is the one on the right the Epson?
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "jsinger986" <jhsinger@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 12:33 PM
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.  For
prints with
> my Epson 2200 I am happy with the Epson 3200 scanning 120 film (not for
35mm
> though).  But, my use is for stock where I want the best quality and
OPTICAL
> sharpness for my scans.  Even though it may not make a difference in the
final useage
> of the image, buyers look at sharpness as a factor when looking at scans
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 scan of
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 was
impressed
> that there was not a significant difference between the 3200 and a drum
scan ( a
> difference but not a huge one).  Well, i don't know where he got his drum
scan done
> and on what scanner, but here is my drum scan versus 3200 scan and I see a
huge
> difference (although as I said the difference will not show on a Epson
2200 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 scan
or even a
> film scan.  But, if sharpness is something that matters and your going
beyond a
> 13x13 print, this is something you may want to consider.  For me, I'm
going to sell
> my 3200 and my Minolta should be here any day.
>
> Jeff
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Jeff Singer Photography
> jeff@...
> http://www.jeffsingerphotography.com
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, mfaphoto@o... wrote:
> > The Epson 3200 delivers nice results. Probably not as good as film
scanners, but
> good. Since there is probably a huge price difference, so get the 3200 and
see how it
> works for your purposes. If you don't like it, sell it for almost what you
paid and get
> the film scanner.
> >
> > Russ
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> 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 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/

>
>
>
>

Jeff,

That is an impressive difference - as I love grain -
big boulder grain - I may have to give drum scanning a
look.

Also, anyone using one of the newer Minolta Scan Dual
3 film scanners?  I'm wondering about the sharpness
and I love the price.

Don
> > Here is a scan with a Nikon 8000 versus the Epson
> 3200.  This is a scan of
> 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:


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

Interesting, Jeff. What 120 film did you use? Will you show us a side-by-side 
scans from your new Minolta and a drum?

_____________________________________________
Help end spam and telemarketing... never respond to it, even to "unsubscribe."

----- Original Message ----- 
From: jsinger986 
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] MF Scanners -- off topic


Another view thrown in the pot...
...snip...

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

Try over exposing Tri-X Professional a stop (ISO 160) and under developing about
12%
in your D76, but diluted 1:2 and keeping it cool enough to give you at least
five minutes development. You'll see a huge improvement. You can see
what I'm talking about by looking at the curves in Kodak's "Professional B&W
Films"
publication. Also, you'll see there's more than an ISO difference between Tri-X
Professional (320) and Tri-X (400).

_____________________________________________
Help end spam and telemarketing... never respond to it, even to "unsubscribe."

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Anthony Atkielski
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] MF Scanners -- off topic
...snip...

Still, the grain is more than I'd like to see.  Sometimes it looks artsy,
and that's fine, but most of the time I don't want artsy grain, although I
do want the Tri-X response to light.  In 35mm, cropping is not very

...snip...


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

The shot of the girl in the drum scan sample was Plus-x 125 @ 80, D76 1:1 for 9 min 
@ 68deg.  The rest were Tri-x 400 @ 320, D76 1:1 @ 11:15 @ 68deg.

Jeff

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "kenschuster" 
<ken.schuster@a...> wrote:

> Interesting, Jeff. What 120 film did you use? Will you show us a side-by-side 
> scans from your new Minolta and a drum?
> 
> _____________________________________________
> Help end spam and telemarketing... never respond to it, even to "unsubscribe."
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: jsinger986 
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 1:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] MF Scanners -- off topic
> 
> 
> Another view thrown in the pot...
> ...snip...
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Jeff,
 
it is obviously correct that you give us unsharpened scans, yet I think the final evaluation should be done with the best you can get from each scan, and that involves sharpening.
The epson scans can take heavy sharpening, as this scanner's lack of sharpness almost eliminates grain, whereas both for Nikon and, to a lesser extent, drum scans grain becomes way too evident very soon.
Caveats:
1) I'm in no way saying that the final result is the same, but sure the Epson gets much nearer. Depending on how small a section this is of the actual image, the difference on the final print - for not too large prints - may be negligible.
2) Film is definitely an issue: if you shoot grainless film, the difference between the Epson and the other scanners can't probably be reduced that much through sharpening.
3) Advanced sharpening techniques are necessary. For example, a brutal USM of 400-1.2-0 on the epsonvsnikon image works for the girl's face, not for the sky, so you'd have to mask it or use edge sharpening or other techniques.
 
Alessandro

-----Original Message-----
From: jsinger986 [mailto:jhsinger@...]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 19:33
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
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.  For prints with 
my Epson 2200 I am happy with the Epson 3200 scanning 120 film (not for 35mm 
though).  But, my use is for stock where I want the best quality and OPTICAL 
sharpness for my scans.  Even though it may not make a difference in the final useage 
of the image, buyers look at sharpness as a factor when looking at scans 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 scan of 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 was impressed 
that there was not a significant difference between the 3200 and a drum scan ( a 
difference but not a huge one).  Well, i don't know where he got his drum scan done 
and on what scanner, but here is my drum scan versus 3200 scan and I see a huge 
difference (although as I said the difference will not show on a Epson 2200 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 scan or even a 
film scan.  But, if sharpness is something that matters and your going beyond a 
13x13 print, this is something you may want to consider.  For me, I'm going to sell 
my 3200 and my Minolta should be here any day.

Jeff

----------------------------------------------------
Jeff Singer Photography
jeff@...
http://www.jeffsingerphotography.com


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, mfaphoto@o... wrote:
> The Epson 3200 delivers nice results. Probably not as good as film scanners, but 
good. Since there is probably a huge price difference, so get the 3200 and see how it 
works for your purposes. If you don't like it, sell it for almost what you 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=1705019182:HM/A=1732163/R=0/SIG=11n0nglqg/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=30510&media=zone> click here	
  <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=194081.3897168.5135684.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1732163/rand=118493164> 	

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 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 the Yahoo! Terms of  <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service. 




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

Austin writes:

> Knowing you, as I know you...I'd recommend Plus-X...

I thought Plus-X was history?  Or am I confusing it with something else?  Is
it available in both 135 and 120?

> It's a physically thick film, with VERY long/rich
> tonality, and incredibly low grain...  It scans
> simply amazingly on my scanner.  Give it a try,
> and let me know what you think...

I'll see if I can find it when I have a bit more money.

Hi Anthony,

> > Knowing you, as I know you...I'd recommend Plus-X...
>
> I thought Plus-X was history?  Or am I confusing it with
> something else?  Is
> it available in both 135 and 120?

As far as I know, I have a fridge with quite a few rolls in it, that I
bought over the past year...

> > It's a physically thick film, with VERY long/rich
> > tonality, and incredibly low grain...  It scans
> > simply amazingly on my scanner.  Give it a try,
> > and let me know what you think...
>
> I'll see if I can find it when I have a bit more money.

It's actually quite cheap, and stores well...you might try to find some
dated rolls of it in a camera store...

Regards,

Austin

Hi Don,

I have the Minolta Scan Dual III, however, I don't have now or ever had any other 35mm film scanner so I really can't compare it to anything. Sorry.

I will say, though, that it produces sharper scans than my Epson Expression 1680 flatbed. No surprise there, I guess. I bought the Dual III mainly because of the price. I don't scan much 35mm so, for the price (I paid $279), I thought it a very good bargin. Overall, I have been happy with the results from this scanner. Of course, I'm not trying to produce exhibition prints, either.

Hope this helps.

Alan Huntley

> 
> From: "D. Hill" <hill14701@...>
> Date: 2003/09/30 Tue PM 10:27:22 EDT
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] MF Scanners -- off topic, but new question
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> That is an impressive difference - as I love grain -
> big boulder grain - I may have to give drum scanning a
> look.
> 
> Also, anyone using one of the newer Minolta Scan Dual
> 3 film scanners?  I'm wondering about the sharpness
> and I love the price.
> 
> Don
> > > Here is a scan with a Nikon 8000 versus the Epson
> > 3200.  This is a scan of
> > 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:
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 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 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/ 
> 
> 
>

FYI ­ Calumet in Drummond St, London, has a workstation you can rent by the
hour with an Imacon 848 and Nikon 8000 attached.  I did not get the chance
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 scanning
film.  The scans were amazing, sharp and plenty of depth in the shadows!  I
can further say that anyone who thinks the Epson 2450 (and perhaps the 3200)
is a great scanner is indeed seriously misinformed.  That does not mean that
it isn¹t GOOD VALUE FOR THE MONEY but in assessing a piece of equipment I
believe that one should score it technically first ­ without regard to its
cost ­ to determine its ³quality level² and then, and only then, compare it
to other LIKE QUALITY equipment with regard to price.  Anyone, with
reference to their own budget etc, can then determine whether they are
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 Nikon
8000 75/100 and the 2450/3200 20/100, I at least know on a relative basis
what I get in terms of quality for the cost difference between each and can
decide accordingly.

Cheers

Steve

From: "jsinger986" <jhsinger@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:33:08 -0000
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
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.  For
prints with 
my Epson 2200 I am happy with the Epson 3200 scanning 120 film (not for 35mm
though).  But, my use is for stock where I want the best quality and OPTICAL
sharpness for my scans.  Even though it may not make a difference in the
final useage 
of the image, buyers look at sharpness as a factor when looking at scans 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 scan of 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 was
impressed 
that there was not a significant difference between the 3200 and a drum scan
( a 
difference but not a huge one).  Well, i don't know where he got his drum
scan done 
and on what scanner, but here is my drum scan versus 3200 scan and I see a
huge 
difference (although as I said the difference will not show on a Epson 2200
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 scan or
even a 
film scan.  But, if sharpness is something that matters and your going
beyond a 
13x13 print, this is something you may want to consider.  For me, I'm going
to sell 
my 3200 and my Minolta should be here any day.

Jeff

----------------------------------------------------
Jeff Singer Photography
jeff@jeffsingerphotography.com
http://www.jeffsingerphotography.com


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, mfaphoto@o... wrote:
> The Epson 3200 delivers nice results. Probably not as good as film scanners,
but 
good. Since there is probably a huge price difference, so get the 3200 and
see how it 
works for your purposes. If you don't like it, sell it for almost what you
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 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 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



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

Steve,

Were you scanning color neg/slides or b&w negs ?
And just curious, how much did it cost you per hour for the Imacon ?
Not that I'll want to jump on the next plane to London as no such 
service is available locally.
Cheers,
Andre

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 2450/3200 =
- by a 
long shot. I personally use a Polaroid Sprintscan 120 together with Kodak P=
orta 400 
and it is nothing short of fabulous for my application (I happen to love gr=
ain, btw). I 
have tested the same negs on both the Epson 2450 and the Polaroid and I can=
 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 contrary. I=
f you are 
scanning 4x5's and limit your enlargement to about 30"x40" AND you learn 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 but t=
he most 
demanding applications. If you wanted to scan 2 1/4" or 35mm I would not 
recommend it as there are such nice medium format scanners out there now.

All in all, it DOES matter what scanner and software combination you use (i=
nteresting 
how no one is talking about SOFTWARE!!!). But it also matter what the inten=
ded 
output size and media will be and ultimately the quality of the original. I=
n other 
words, there is nothing wrong with starting out with an Epson 3200 together=
 with an 
Epson 2200 -- this is one hell of a good beginners darkroom!

MJS

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@=
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 chanc=
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 scann=
ing
> film.  The scans were amazing, sharp and plenty of depth in the shadows! =
 I
> can further say that anyone who thinks the Epson 2450 (and perhaps the 32=
00)
> is a great scanner is indeed seriously misinformed.  That does not mean t=
hat
> it isn¹t GOOD VALUE FOR THE MONEY but in assessing a piece of equipment I=

> believe that one should score it technically first ­ without regard to it=
s
> cost ­ to determine its ³quality level² and then, and only then, compare =
it
> to other LIKE QUALITY equipment with regard to price.  Anyone, with
> reference to their own budget etc, can then determine whether they are
> 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 Nik=
on
> 8000 75/100 and the 2450/3200 20/100, I at least know on a relative basis=

> what I get in terms of quality for the cost difference between each and 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@yahoogroups.com
> 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.  For
> prints with 
> my Epson 2200 I am happy with the Epson 3200 scanning 120 film (not for 3=
5mm
> though).  But, my use is for stock where I want the best quality and OPTI=
CAL
> sharpness for my scans.  Even though it may not make a difference in the
> final useage 
> of the image, buyers look at sharpness as a factor when looking at scans =
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 scan 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 was
> impressed 
> that there was not a significant difference between the 3200 and a drum s=
can
> ( a 
> difference but not a huge one).  Well, i don't know where he got his drum=

> scan done 
> and on what scanner, but here is my drum scan versus 3200 scan and I see =
a
> huge 
> difference (although as I said the difference will not show on a Epson 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 scan =
or
> even a 
> film scan.  But, if sharpness is something that matters and your going
> beyond a 
> 13x13 print, this is something you may want to consider.  For me, I'm goi=
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... wrote:=

> > The Epson 3200 delivers nice results. Probably not as good as film scan=
ners,
> but 
> good. Since there is probably a huge price difference, so get the 3200 an=
d
> see how it 
> works for your purposes. If you don't like it, sell it for almost what 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 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 sam=
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 kee=
p

> 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I was just scanning some Fuji Velvia 120 slides.  They charge GBP35 plus VAT
(17.75%) an hour for the Imacon station ­ although today they charged me
just GBP 25 per hour as an intro rate ­ not cheap but beats a lab which
would have charged me around GBP40-50 per scan.  The scanner is amazingly
fast ­ 100mb a minute ­ but rather frustratingly they would not let me
connect my laptop to take down the files once finished.  I spent another
hour burning CDs!  This was the first time I had used this scanner and I was
not very organised.  I still did 8 scans in the hour at max ppi ­ 4000 for
120, 6800 for 35mm.  As an indication of quality, when I scanned these same
images with my 2450 I had to do a very significant amount of ³Creative
Sharpening² in Photokit Sharpening Pro.  With the Imacon scans I did no
creative sharpening at all (just Capture and Print, as with the 2450).  At
A3 the Imacon scan prints are very visibly sharper.

Cheers

Steve

From: "sceptre12345" <am1000@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 20:08:42 -0000
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] MF Scanners -- off topic

Steve,

Were you scanning color neg/slides or b&w negs ?
And just curious, how much did it cost you per hour for the Imacon ?
Not that I'll want to jump on the next plane to London as no such
service is available locally.
Cheers,
Andre


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 
 ADVERTISEMENT
 <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=256694.4002236.5216697.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705019
182:HM/A=1784493/R=0/id=noscript/SIG=11q7p9e7k/*http://webevents.yahoo.com/u
niversal/intolerablecruelty/>

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 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



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

Agreed.  I simply believe people need to be more careful in these discussio=
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 tra=
deoff 
decision.  The difficulty I have had (and still am) in trying to determine =
my purchasing 
decision is how much better is the Nikon 8000, or Imacon 343, over the 2450=
 - what 
quality improvement can I expect relative to the best available.  Only when=
 I have this 
at least somewhat clear can I make a decision as to how much I want (or can=
 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 skod=
a is of no 
interest to a Ferrari buyer - regardless of how well priced it is - and vic=
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 2450/320=
0 =
> - by a 
> long shot. I personally use a Polaroid Sprintscan 120 together with Kodak=
 P=
> orta 400 
> and it is nothing short of fabulous for my application (I happen to love =
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 contrary.=
 I=
> f you are 
> scanning 4x5's and limit your enlargement to about 30"x40" AND you learn =
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 but=
 t=
> he most 
> demanding applications. If you wanted to scan 2 1/4" or 35mm I would not =

> recommend it as there are such nice medium format scanners out there now.=

> 
> All in all, it DOES matter what scanner and software combination you use =
(i=
> nteresting 
> how no one is talking about SOFTWARE!!!). But it also matter what the int=
en=
> ded 
> output size and media will be and ultimately the quality of the original.=
 I=
> n other 
> words, there is nothing wrong with starting out with an Epson 3200 togeth=
er=
>  with an 
> Epson 2200 -- this is one hell of a good beginners darkroom!
> 
> MJS
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekal=
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 cha=
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 sca=
nn=
> ing
> > film.  The scans were amazing, sharp and plenty of depth in the shadows=
! =
>  I
> > can further say that anyone who thinks the Epson 2450 (and perhaps the =
32=
> 00)
> > is a great scanner is indeed seriously misinformed.  That does not mean=
 t=
> hat
> > it isn¹t GOOD VALUE FOR THE MONEY but in assessing a piece of equipment=
 I=
> 
> > believe that one should score it technically first ­ without regard to =
it=
> s
> > cost ­ to determine its ³quality level² and then, and only then, compar=
e =
> it
> > to other LIKE QUALITY equipment with regard to price.  Anyone, with
> > reference to their own budget etc, can then determine whether they are
> > 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 bas=
is=
> 
> > what I get in terms of quality for the cost difference between each and=
 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@yahoogroups.com
> > 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.  For=

> > prints with 
> > my Epson 2200 I am happy with the Epson 3200 scanning 120 film (not for=
 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 scan=
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 scan=
 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 was=

> > impressed 
> > that there was not a significant difference between the 3200 and a drum=
 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 Epson =
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 sca=
n =
> or
> > even a 
> > film scan.  But, if sharpness is something that matters and your going
> > 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... wrot=
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 3200 =
an=
> d
> > see how it 
> > works for your purposes. If you don't like it, sell it for almost what =
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 heade=
r.=
> 
> > - 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 variou=
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]

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]

I haven't seen any scanner software that *couldn't* get a good scan 
so long as you knew what you're doing, but some make it easier (and 
don't do annoying things like always trying to revert to auto 
sharpening etc.)... Vuescan is a reasonable package to standardize on 
for all scanning (like I did).  Personally, I thought the Epson 
software was fine... didn't like the way SilverFast worked... but it 
did work... I think most people's mistake is to expect scanning 
software to do a good job *post* processing during the scan... big 
mistake... do it in PhotoShop or maybe GIMP (if you've already spent 
every last penny on a scanner;)

mark

...
> > All in all, it DOES matter what scanner and software combination 
you use =
> (i=
> > nteresting 
> > how no one is talking about SOFTWARE!!!). 
...

Here we disagree.

Most scanning software WILL do a good job assuming the slide or the negative is 
"normal" in the sense of exposure and shadow detail. But some applications have real 
problems with deep shadows -- even though the scanner hardware is "capable". 
Software that provides 16-bit curves at scan time (rather than sliders which tend to 
clip shadow and highlight detail) is best.

But I do agree with one thing you said: "as long as you knew what you're doing" (or 
for that matter, as long as you know what the SOFTWARE is doing behind the 
scenes!!)

Cheers,
mjs




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hahn" 
<markhahn2000@y...> wrote:

> I haven't seen any scanner software that *couldn't* get a good scan 
> so long as you knew what you're doing, but some make it easier (and 
> don't do annoying things like always trying to revert to auto 
> sharpening etc.)... Vuescan is a reasonable package to standardize on 
> for all scanning (like I did).  Personally, I thought the Epson 
> software was fine... didn't like the way SilverFast worked... but it 
> did work... I think most people's mistake is to expect scanning 
> software to do a good job *post* processing during the scan... big 
> mistake... do it in PhotoShop or maybe GIMP (if you've already spent 
> every last penny on a scanner;)
> 
> mark
> 
> ...
> > > All in all, it DOES matter what scanner and software combination 
> you use =
> > (i=
> > > nteresting 
> > > how no one is talking about SOFTWARE!!!). 
> ...