Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Vs: [Digital BW] scanner doubts - IMHO Epson 4870

Vs: [Digital BW] scanner doubts - IMHO Epson 4870

2004-04-01 by Ukko Heikkinen

IMHO Epson 4870 

If I scan a 6x6 cm negative on Epson 3200, my reaction is: "That looks fine, what will I do next?" 

If a scan the same negative on Epson 4870, my reaction is: "That's it!" 

I do not know the actual resolutions or lpi's; perhaps the differences have something to do with local contrast or whatever.

Of course the 4870 scans need sharpening, but they sharpen well. 

If the scans were sharper I'd want to use a soft-focus filter. 

I have shot on my Hasselblad a Fuji (160 ASA) negative, scanned it on 4870, cut it, scanned the 35 mm part on my Minolta 5400 and printed both. If I won something in sharpness I lost it by diffusing the grain. 

In my eyes one of the greatest dangers in digital image making is oversharpening. Please study the old masters of the darkroom: the prints are sharp and yet soft in a very beautiful way. 

But don't take my word for it; this is just IMHO. I am satisfied but one should test the alternatives, if possible. 

I could not do that, but I don't mind.

Now I'd be able to print about 70 x 70 cm prints without interpolation, output resolution 360 dpi, if I'd want to, but A3 is big enough.

For 35 mm negatives Minolta is better.
 
Ukko Heikkinen
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Stephen Kobrin <kobrins@wharton.upenn.edu>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 5:34 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] scanner doubts


I have been thinking about getting back into MF, especially given 
what Bronica ECs are going for on Ebay at this point.  What is 
stopping me is the price of a MF film scanner.  Given that recent 
posts indicate that true resolution on a flatbed is 2-3 times lower 
than a comparable flim scanner, I wonder how adequate they are in 
practice for scanning 120 film.  Do people get 8X10 prints, for 
example, that they consider satisfactory?  Put differently, would I 
see an improvement versus 35mm scanned on a film scanner if I used 
one of the better flatbeds and 120, all things equal.  If so, a 
flatbed, which is always useful, might be a reasonable stopgap until 
I can replace my LS 2000 with a true MF film scanner.

Steve




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Vs: [Digital BW] scanner doubts - IMHO Epson 4870

2004-04-08 by Ukko Heikkinen

Addendum:

Please take a look at

http://www.gnyman.com/Personal/Epson3200vsEpson4870vsCanon9900F.htm

Ukko Heikkinen


----- Original Message ----- 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: Ukko Heikkinen <ukko.heikkinen@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 7:00 PM
Subject: Vs: [Digital BW] scanner doubts - IMHO Epson 4870


>IMHO Epson 4870 

>If I scan a 6x6 cm negative on Epson 3200, my reaction is: "That looks fine, what will I do next?" 

>If a scan the same negative on Epson 4870, my reaction is: "That's it!"

Re: Vs: [Digital BW] scanner doubts - IMHO Epson 4870

2004-04-09 by Dragonfly Imaging & Printing

Thanks for posting your results Ukko.
I've had a 4870 for about a month.
It really is the best bang for the buck in scanners right now.
Cheers,

John Toles
http://www.dragonflyprinting.com/
http://www.dragonflygallery.ca/
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Apr 8, 2004, at 5:03 PM, Ukko Heikkinen wrote:

> Addendum:
>
> Please take a look at
>
> http://www.gnyman.com/Personal/Epson3200vsEpson4870vsCanon9900F.htm
>
> Ukko Heikkinen
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ukko Heikkinen <ukko.heikkinen@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 7:00 PM
> Subject: Vs: [Digital BW] scanner doubts - IMHO Epson 4870
>
>
>> IMHO Epson 4870
>
>> If I scan a 6x6 cm negative on Epson 3200, my reaction is: "That 
>> looks fine, what will I do next?"
>
>> If a scan the same negative on Epson 4870, my reaction is: "That's 
>> it!"

Re: Vs: [Digital BW] scanner doubts - IMHO Epson 4870

2004-04-09 by Dragonfly Imaging & Printing

My apologies to George Nyman.
It is his website review and not Ukko's.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Apr 9, 2004, at 1:37 AM, Dragonfly Imaging & Printing wrote:

> Thanks for posting your results Ukko.
> I've had a 4870 for about a month.
> It really is the best bang for the buck in scanners right now.
> Cheers,
>
> John Toles
> http://www.dragonflyprinting.com/
> http://www.dragonflygallery.ca/
>
> On Apr 8, 2004, at 5:03 PM, Ukko Heikkinen wrote:
>
>> Addendum:
>>
>> Please take a look at
>>
>> http://www.gnyman.com/Personal/Epson3200vsEpson4870vsCanon9900F.htm
>>
>> Ukko Heikkinen
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Ukko Heikkinen <ukko.heikkinen@...>
>> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 7:00 PM
>> Subject: Vs: [Digital BW] scanner doubts - IMHO Epson 4870
>>
>>
>>> IMHO Epson 4870
>>
>>> If I scan a 6x6 cm negative on Epson 3200, my reaction is: "That 
>>> looks fine, what will I do next?"
>>
>>> If a scan the same negative on Epson 4870, my reaction is: "That's 
>>> it!"
>

Re: Vs: [Digital BW] scanner doubts - IMHO Epson 4870

2004-04-09 by T

My personal reaction to the posts regarding which scanner is better.  When I started in photography. Won't tell how long but suffice to say years ago..:)  We were taught to fill the frame when making a photograph. Unless you are printing billboards, many of the tests seen on websites aren't that valid for photographic purposes where a small section of a negative is shown as a comparison. 
 
Think about why telephoto lenses were invented.  Prime purpose is to fill the negative frame from a distance. Choosing the proper lens for each situation will make your photography much better.  The other consideration is the size of the final image. A good start to learn how to think as a photographer is with the Ansel Adams series!
 
Just one man's opinion...:)
 
Griller1
 
 
 



 

 


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

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

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.