Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2004-05-03 by mkitei
I've been using an Epson 2450, mostly for medium format. I've been getting good results. I'm thinking of upgrading to the Nikon 8000. Their around, refurbished and guaranteed, for about $1300. More than any of the Epson scanners, but presumably just a step under the imacon in quality. Does anyone have experience using both Epson and Nikon. How would you compare them? Mike
2004-05-03 by tigertwous
I happen to sell Imacon scanners for the company I work for, I have installed and demoed many of them and I can tell you that the Nikon 8000 is more than a step below the Imacon product. I can also tell you that the new Epson 4850 scannners are very good scanners and you may want to take a look at them as well. I'm not puting down the Nikon 8000 it's just that the Imacon is such a fine product that it is in a class by itself. Jack Fisher
2004-05-03 by tigertwous
Sorry, in my last post I made a refference to the Epson 4850 scanner I meant to say the 4870 model. Jack Fisher
2004-05-03 by Peter Nelson
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tigertwous" <jfisher@s...> wrote: > I happen to sell Imacon scanners for the company I work for, I have installed and > demoed many of them and I can tell you that the Nikon 8000 is more than a step > below the Imacon product. I can also tell you that the new Epson 4850 scannners are > very good scanners and you may want to take a look at them as well. I'm not puting > down the Nikon 8000 it's just that the Imacon is such a fine product that it is in a > class by itself. Most modern desktop scanners have resolution that exceeds what is required to scan down to or below the grain. Furthermore, the density range of negative film is well within the range of a decent true 14 bit scanner. (Think 'Zone System' and you can see why) Furthermore I've seen comparison scans of Imacons -vs- good desktop scanners and I couldn't see the diff. So, given the price of an Imacon, could you tell us in non- subjective technical terms what the Imacon can do that a good desktop scanner can't when it comes to scanning black and white negative film?
2004-05-03 by Paul Roark
Mike, I went from an Epson 1600 to a Nikon 8000 and considered it a huge step up. I think the flatbeds' resolution should be cut in half to give you a good comparison to what a film scanner can do. I find the glass carrier with the Nikon is worth having, if not necessary for top notch silver-based film scans. I do not use it for the T400CN due to Newton's rings. (It also seems less needed for T400CN.) I'm sufficiently happy with the Nikon 8000 that I have no incentive to upgrade or spend any more money in that sector. Paul www.PaulRoark.com ____________________________
-----Original Message----- From: mkitei [mailto:mkitei@...] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 8:11 AM To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Digital BW] comments on the Epson scanners vs. the Nikon 8000 I've been using an Epson 2450, mostly for medium format. I've been getting good results. I'm thinking of upgrading to the Nikon 8000. Their around, refurbished and guaranteed, for about $1300. More than any of the Epson scanners, but presumably just a step under the imacon in quality. Does anyone have experience using both Epson and Nikon. How would you compare them? Mike 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
2004-05-03 by Michael Kitei
Thanks Paul. Is t400cn - tmax 400? Mike
From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@verizon.net> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 10:56:08 -0700 To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] comments on the Epson scanners vs. the Nikon 8000 Mike, I went from an Epson 1600 to a Nikon 8000 and considered it a huge step up. I think the flatbeds' resolution should be cut in half to give you a good comparison to what a film scanner can do. I find the glass carrier with the Nikon is worth having, if not necessary for top notch silver-based film scans. I do not use it for the T400CN due to Newton's rings. (It also seems less needed for T400CN.) I'm sufficiently happy with the Nikon 8000 that I have no incentive to upgrade or spend any more money in that sector. Paul www.PaulRoark.com ____________________________ -----Original Message----- From: mkitei [mailto:mkitei@...] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 8:11 AM To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Digital BW] comments on the Epson scanners vs. the Nikon 8000 I've been using an Epson 2450, mostly for medium format. I've been getting good results. I'm thinking of upgrading to the Nikon 8000. Their around, refurbished and guaranteed, for about $1300. More than any of the Epson scanners, but presumably just a step under the imacon in quality. Does anyone have experience using both Epson and Nikon. How would you compare them? Mike 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 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 To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Uns ubscribe> 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]
2004-05-03 by Bernie Ess
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Michael Kitei <>
From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@v...> > Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com > Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 10:56:08 -0700 > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] comments on the Epson scanners vs. the Nikon 8000 > > > Mike, > > I went from an Epson 1600 to a Nikon 8000 and considered it a huge step up. > I think the flatbeds' resolution should be cut in half to give you a good > comparison to what a film scanner can do. If I may add a word. I know a photographer who is one of the rare in Germany who makes - at least partly - a living by selling fine art b&w photography, and in addition to his Nikon 8000 (or was it a Polaroid 120?) he got this Epson 2450 flatbed for 6x7 negs and he said that often he uses the 2450 now because the scans look somehow more natural. I think the 2450 was the first serious flatbed Epson made, the later 3200 and the last one should even be a bit higher in resolution. And yes, I know its not a scitex... regards, Bernie
2004-05-03 by tigertwous
I don't contest a word you have said, in fact I agree with you, however, when it comes to film flatness this is where the Imacon system really shows where it excels over other systems. I have done comparisons between the Minolta, Nikon, and Imacon film scanners and the Imacon wins this test base upon edge to edge sharpness. Where the other scanners would do a really nice job, the sharpness from edge to edge and through out the file was just far more consistent on the Imacon. Also the final image tended to be cleaner due to the fact that the film holder mechanism doesn't use anything but tension to hold the film in place. Just like with printers and digital capture devices resolution is not the only criteria used in determining the overall quality of a product. The other components of the system need to be taken into consideration as well. I also agree that the price of the Imacon is very high compared to many of the other scanners available, it just depends on what your intended market is and if you are making money or doing this for pleasure only. I will admit that I have become spoiled using an Imacon scanner and I miss not having access to one, that's why I'm switching to digital capture, and bypassing the film issue from now on. Jack Fisher
2004-05-03 by Peter Nelson
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tigertwous" <jfisher@s...> wrote: > I don't contest a word you have said, in fact I agree with you, however, when it comes > to film flatness this is where the Imacon system really shows where it excels over > other systems. Well I agree that would certainly be an issue. I often shoot 6x7 and that's a huge issue with flatness of 6x7 MF in the camera - there's a whole world of folklore and opinion about how to get good film flatness, including not shooting film that's been in the camera for than X amount of time, controlling studio humidity, vacuum backs, stopping way down, etc. But I've seen enough scans that were right down to the grain so I didn't think this was a big issue with most scanners unless the film was badly buckled or something. I'll be buying a new scanner soon because I'm getting a new PC and my existing scanners are all SCSI and I want to go to just USB2 or Firewire. So what do people think - is MF film flatness a big problem with most scanners these days?
2004-05-03 by Paul Roark
Mike, One additional thing I would recommend adding to your list of required features is to be able to scan multiple images on an uncut strip of film, without the need to touch the film. I find I often bracket for focus (sometimes for exposure also). As long as the camera is on a tripod and the adjacent frames are on the same un-cut strip of film, alignment in Photoshop is not too much of a problem. So, the scanner needs to be able to cover at least 2 (better 3) frames on an uncut film strip. (The Nikon can do this.) Paul www.PaulRoark.com
2004-05-03 by tigertwous
In my experience film flatness is always an issue, and in medium format it matters even more because there is so much more surface area to buckle. I've always found it a real pain to deal with and really don't like using glass carriers because of the additional surfaces that need to be kept clean and the added refraction of the glass, not to mention the newton rings or the anti newton coatings on some of the holders that adversely affect the image sharpness. Some of the film holders included with the flatbed scanners really suck and I'm always amazed that the quality is as good as it is. I could go on and on about this but this really isn't the forum for it. I do agree that the current flatbed scanners do a very good job. Jack Fisher
2004-05-03 by Clayton Jones
Hello Peter, >So what do people think - is MF film flatness a big >problem with most scanners these days? A friend of mine has an 8000 and he says that the depth of field on it is miniscule, which makes film flatness in the holder a major issue. He ended up getting the glass holder which, as the others have said, introduces new issues. I scan 6x7/4x5 negs on an Epson 1600SU and the depth of field on it is much greater than his, so not-perfectly-flat negs are not a problem. Assuming that the DOF on the new Epson 4800 flatbed is also greater than the 8000, perhaps it is worth checking out. From what reviewers have said, it would probably be comparable to the scan quality of a 2800 film scanner (and a lot cheaper than the 8000). My 1600 produces these image specs, so you can approximate what the 4800 would give you: 6x7 neg 29 mg 3436 x 4419 prints 11x14 @ 315 dpi 4x5 neg 83 mg 5910 x 7438 prints 11x14 @ 531 dpi, 16x20 @ 372 dpi Regards, Clayton Info on black and white digital printing at http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
2004-05-03 by Peter Williams
> -----Original Message----- > From: Clayton Jones [mailto:cj@...] > > >So what do people think - is MF film flatness a big > >problem with most scanners these days? > > Assuming that the DOF on the new Epson 4800 flatbed is > also greater than the 8000, perhaps it is worth checking > out. I just tried scanning a calculator (Canon LS80H), approx 5mm out of flat on my Epson 4870 and it was sharp all over. -- Peter Williams
2004-05-04 by sandersm@aol.com
Bernie said: "If I may add a word. I know a photographer who is one of the rare in Germany who makes - at least partly - a living by selling fine art b&w photography, and in addition to his Nikon 8000 (or was it a Polaroid 120?) he got this Epson 2450 flatbed for 6x7 negs and he said that often he uses the 2450 now because the scans look somehow more natural. I think the 2450 was the first serious flatbed Epson made, the later 3200 and the last one should even be a bit higher in resolution." Truer words were never spoken. I scan 120 Tri-X (shot at EI 200 and developed in Rodinal 1:100) with an Epson 3200 and a Microtek Artixscan 120tf. The Microtek is a dedicated MF film scanner, and it handles traditional b+w emulsions quite well. When I scan landscapes, I tend to favor the Microtek. Not always, but as often as not. But If I'm scanning a portrait or a figure study, the Epson flatbed wins hands down every time. It produces a slightly more diffuse image, and smoother skin tones. It might not be as clinically sharp as the Microtek, but that's not what I want with a negative I've shot with a wide-open Heliar or Dagor lens, or a diffused focusing lens. For an example, see the image at this link, which I shot on Sunday afternoon with a Heliar lens at f/6.3, and scanned on the Epson 3200: http://www.pbase.com/image/28572673 It's taken me awhile to appreciate that there are different tools for different tasks, and that the sharpest blade is not always the the best. The Epson might not have the best numbers compared to the Microtek or the Nikon or the Imacon, but it produces some wonderful scans. Sanders McNew www.mcnew.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-05-04 by sandersm@aol.com
"Not for me. I use a liquid mounting technique developed by Mac Holbert (Nash Editions) where the neg/tran is set directly on the glass of a flatbed scanner. I imagine that celluloid is about as flat as it can be!" A much easier way to get the same result is to lay the negative, emulsion-side down, directly on the scanner glass and cover it with a piece of anti-newton glass. Sanders McNew www.mcnew.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-05-04 by Scott Graham
Hi Sanders, Are you saying that since the Epson doesn't produce as sharp an image you f= avor it sometimes? sort of like putting vaseline on a lense for some special appli= cations? :~) Scott > > Truer words were never spoken. I scan 120 Tri-X (shot at EI 200 and > developed in Rodinal 1:100) with an Epson 3200 and a Microtek Artixscan 1= 20tf. The > > But If I'm scanning a portrait or a figure study, the Epson flatbed wins = > hands down every time. It produces a slightly more diffuse image, and sm= oother > skin tones. It might not be as clinically sharp as the Microtek, but tha= t's not
> > > Sanders McNew > www.mcnew.net > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-05-04 by sandersnyc
Scott, in a word: Yes. But's it's not that simple. It's not so much a ma= tter of sharpness, as it is of diffusion. People with a lot of experience scanning= traditional b+w emulsions have often favored the Polaroid SprintScan and the Microtek 1= 20 (same machine, basically) over the Nikon scanners because the light they us= e gives a more diffuse scan, which tends to smooth out grain in b+w film. I suppose = you could couch this in terms of sharpness, but to my eye the image remains sharp, ex= cept highlights tend to spread and smooth over grain. The Epson flatbed is yet = a bit more diffuse than the Polaroid/Microtek scanners. Your reference to Vaselined lenses is apt. I often work to create portrait= s with diffuse highlights. Some people go for the "soft-focus" approach, and shoot throug= h Vaseline or tulle or whatever. (I know somebody who leaves their Holga nex= t to the stove when frying up the bacon.) But that degrades the image in ways I don= 't like. I go another route: I will shoot an old lens, like a Dagor or a Heliar, at a= wide aperture, or else will use an older "diffused focus" lens like a Wollensak Verito. M= y goal is not a muddy or unfocused image, but a tack-sharp image with diffused highlights. = I'm not sure I'm doing a good job of articulating the difference, but there is one.= The Epson 3200 renders a very sharp image. But it has a rather diffuse lig= ht source, and that seems to smooth over some of the grain while preserving the detail= in the image that I care about. Because of that, the Epson seems to do a much bet= ter job of rendering skin tones in my b+w portraiture. I apologize for being less than articulate about this -- I'm sure somebody = who knows what they're talking about will jump in and explain better than I. Sanders McNew www.mcnew.net --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Graham" <gebilwil@n...> wrote: > Hi Sanders, > > Are you saying that since the Epson doesn't produce as sharp an image you= > favor it > sometimes? sort of like putting vaseline on a lense for some special > applications? > > :~) > > Scott > > > > > Truer words were never spoken. I scan 120 Tri-X (shot at EI 200 and > > developed in Rodinal 1:100) with an Epson 3200 and a Microtek Artixscan= 1= > 20tf. The > > > > But If I'm scanning a portrait or a figure study, the Epson flatbed win= s = > > > hands down every time. It produces a slightly more diffuse image, and = sm= > oother > > skin tones. It might not be as clinically sharp as the Microtek, but t= ha=
> t's not > > > > > Sanders McNew > > www.mcnew.net > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-05-05 by mike_nunan
Hi Sanders and Scott, I noticed something similar with the Epson 3200, and I've also put it down to the light source. However, there is no doubt that the Epson flatbeds are significantly less sharp than decent film scanners. This isn't a problem with moderate sized prints from 120 film, but I didn't find the results acceptable for 35mm. Also, the lack of gain/exposure control in the hardware plus absysmal colour accuracy led me to return my 3200 within a month of purchasing it. However, looking at some of the beautifully toned B&W medium format scans I obtained from the unit, I'm slightly regretful of this and I'm coming around to the idea of getting a 4870 purely for this type of work. B&W scans on my Minolta 5400 (even with its built-in diffuser enabled) are hard as nails by comparison, and so too was the Minolta Scan Multi which I thought might make a good solution for MF. From what I hear, even the much-vaunted Imacons produce extremely hard B&W scans. So like you Sanders, I've come to the conclusion that if you want good results from several different film types, you need to consider having multiple scanners. For instance, my 5400 is worth having just on the merits of the fabulous job it does with 35mm Kodachrome. -= mike =- --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sandersnyc" <sandersm@a...> wrote: > Scott, in a word: Yes. But's it's not that simple. It's not so much a ma= > tter of > sharpness, as it is of diffusion. People with a lot of experience scanning= > traditional > b+w emulsions have often favored the Polaroid SprintScan and the Microtek 1= > 20 > (same machine, basically) over the Nikon scanners because the light they us= > e gives a > more diffuse scan, which tends to smooth out grain in b+w film. I suppose = > you could > couch this in terms of sharpness, but to my eye the image remains sharp, ex= > cept > highlights tend to spread and smooth over grain. The Epson flatbed is yet = > a bit more > diffuse than the Polaroid/Microtek scanners. > > Your reference to Vaselined lenses is apt. I often work to create portrait= > s with diffuse > highlights. Some people go for the "soft-focus" approach, and shoot throug= > h > Vaseline or tulle or whatever. (I know somebody who leaves their Holga nex= > t to the > stove when frying up the bacon.) But that degrades the image in ways I don= > 't like. I > go another route: I will shoot an old lens, like a Dagor or a Heliar, at a= > wide aperture, > or else will use an older "diffused focus" lens like a Wollensak Verito. M= > y goal is not a > muddy or unfocused image, but a tack-sharp image with diffused highlights. = > I'm not > sure I'm doing a good job of articulating the difference, but there is one.= > > > The Epson 3200 renders a very sharp image. But it has a rather diffuse lig= > ht source, > and that seems to smooth over some of the grain while preserving the detail= > in the > image that I care about. Because of that, the Epson seems to do a much bet= > ter job of > rendering skin tones in my b+w portraiture. > > I apologize for being less than articulate about this -- I'm sure somebody = > who knows > what they're talking about will jump in and explain better than I. > > Sanders McNew > www.mcnew.net <snip>
2004-05-05 by Scott Graham
Of course "decent film scanners" produce better results than a flat bed, for film. They are designed to scan film as opposed to large flat "objects". And they cost more cuz they have more capability (for film, like res, dmax, etc). Sort of like a sports car and a station wagon: you might want both. And of course someone will always try to go cheap like using a flat bed for film. I certainly will if it meets my needs. You get what you pay for. And it is a bit like the old condenser vs diffusion enlarger question. I always preferred detail and sharpness. If you have it, you can get rid of it; if you don't have it you can't get it. and on the 3200, it is a fine scanner. You returned it for the wrong reason. Scott --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mike_nunan" <mike_nunan@h...> wrote:
> Hi Sanders and Scott, > > I noticed something similar with the Epson 3200, and I've also put it > down to the light source. However, there is no doubt that the Epson > flatbeds are significantly less sharp than decent film scanners. This > isn't a problem with moderate sized prints from 120 film, but I
2004-05-06 by mike_nunan
Hi Scott, Sorry if I irritated you somehow, but I returned the scanner for this reason: > the lack of gain/exposure control in the hardware plus absysmal colour accuracy > led me to return my 3200 within a month of purchasing it. It may be a fine scanner in some respects, but I found it very hit- and-miss and the exposure control issue was a huge bugbear (does anyone know if that has been fixed in the 4870??) I also found it impossible to compensate for the extreme hardness of Minolta B&W scans by post-scan treatment. It's not just a matter of contrast, it's to do with the way that the light source renders the grain, and I couldn't fix it via curves and/or blur. By the time I got the tones as smooth as the Epson's, the Minolta scans ended up being far softer. If you or anyone else has a workflow that will mimic the sort of creamy-smooth output the Epson can give, starting with a much harder scan, then I'd love to hear about it. (Is anybody in this group using an Imacon for B&W, and what are your opinions on this topic?) Regards, -= mike =- --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Graham" <gebilwil@n...> wrote: > Of course "decent film scanners" produce better results than a flat bed, for film. They are > designed to scan film as opposed to large flat "objects". And they cost more cuz they have > more capability (for film, like res, dmax, etc). Sort of like a sports car and a station > wagon: you might want both. > > And of course someone will always try to go cheap like using a flat bed for film. I certainly > will if it meets my needs. > > You get what you pay for. > > And it is a bit like the old condenser vs diffusion enlarger question. I always preferred > detail and sharpness. If you have it, you can get rid of it; if you don't have it you can't get > it. > > and on the 3200, it is a fine scanner. You returned it for the wrong reason. > > Scott > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mike_nunan" > <mike_nunan@h...> wrote: > > Hi Sanders and Scott, > > > > I noticed something similar with the Epson 3200, and I've also put it > > down to the light source. However, there is no doubt that the Epson > > flatbeds are significantly less sharp than decent film scanners. This > > isn't a problem with moderate sized prints from 120 film, but I
2004-05-06 by lulalake_1999
Hi Folks, I invite you folks to join us on our forums; http://groups.yahoo.com/group/epson4870/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/epson3200/ There are some pretty knowledgeable folks there, some professional scanner/printer people, and a bunch of casual (If using the 4870 can be considered casual) users and the like. Recently there has been a long discussion of Wet Mounting techniques on flatbeds. A bunch of us have done it with some pretty cool results. Also the various scanner software has been pretty well explored. Post your questions and comments. Thanks Jules --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mike_nunan" <mike_nunan@h...> wrote: > Hi Scott, > > Sorry if I irritated you somehow, but I returned the scanner for this > reason: > > > the lack of gain/exposure control in the hardware plus absysmal > colour accuracy > > led me to return my 3200 within a month of purchasing it. > > It may be a fine scanner in some respects, but I found it very hit- > and-miss and the exposure control issue was a huge bugbear (does > anyone know if that has been fixed in the 4870??) > > I also found it impossible to compensate for the extreme hardness of > Minolta B&W scans by post-scan treatment. It's not just a matter of > contrast, it's to do with the way that the light source renders the > grain, and I couldn't fix it via curves and/or blur. By the time I > got the tones as smooth as the Epson's, the Minolta scans ended up > being far softer. If you or anyone else has a workflow that will > mimic the sort of creamy-smooth output the Epson can give, starting > with a much harder scan, then I'd love to hear about it. (Is anybody > in this group using an Imacon for B&W, and what are your opinions on > this topic?) > > Regards, > > -= mike =- > > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Graham" > <gebilwil@n...> wrote: > > Of course "decent film scanners" produce better results than a flat > bed, for film. They are > > designed to scan film as opposed to large flat "objects". And they > cost more cuz they have > > more capability (for film, like res, dmax, etc). Sort of like a > sports car and a station > > wagon: you might want both. > > > > And of course someone will always try to go cheap like using a flat > bed for film. I certainly > > will if it meets my needs. > > > > You get what you pay for. > > > > And it is a bit like the old condenser vs diffusion enlarger > question. I always preferred > > detail and sharpness. If you have it, you can get rid of it; if > you don't have it you can't get > > it. > > > > and on the 3200, it is a fine scanner. You returned it for the > wrong reason. > > > > Scott > > > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mike_nunan" > > <mike_nunan@h...> wrote: > > > Hi Sanders and Scott, > > > > > > I noticed something similar with the Epson 3200, and I've also > put it > > > down to the light source. However, there is no doubt that the > Epson > > > flatbeds are significantly less sharp than decent film scanners. > This > > > isn't a problem with moderate sized prints from 120 film, but I
2004-05-06 by Scott Graham
Hi Mike, Not irritated here. so good at it that I sound like it some other times too though. Sorry. I will be running a Nikon on B&W later this week and sure hope that I am right. All my comments all come from a darkroom. On the other hand I am a nit for detail and sharpness so maybe I won't be able to tell. :~) I still think the 3200 is a fine scanner, but only know from a expert friend's --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mike_nunan" <mike_nunan@h...> wrote:
> Hi Scott, > > Sorry if I irritated you somehow, but I returned the scanner for this > reason: > > > the lack of gain/exposure control in the hardware plus absysmal > colour accuracy > > led me to return my 3200 within a month of purchasing it. > > It may be a fine scanner in some respects, but I found it very hit- > and-miss and the exposure control issue was a huge bugbear (does > anyone know if that has been fixed in the 4870??) > > I also found it impossible to compensate for the extreme hardness of > Minolta B&W scans by post-scan treatment. It's not just a matter of
2004-05-06 by mike_nunan
Hi Scott, So hard to read people's mood via text sometimes -- glad I had it wrong =) Please let me know how you get along with the Nikon. I'm planning on a 9000ED once the dust has settled after my impending house move (that and a second printer for B&W work) but it would be good to hear some feedback from users who are particular interested in the quality of the B&W scans. My old LS-30 was pretty good in that regard, and I understand that the light source in the 8000 and 9000 is more diffuse, so I'm hoping for a good result. The 4870 seems like a good device to have alongside, as it's relatively cheap and I don't have anything at all for scanning prints at the mo. Any good film scanning results will be a bonus. -= mike =- --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Graham" <gebilwil@n...> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > Not irritated here. so good at it that I sound like it some other times too though. Sorry. > > I will be running a Nikon on B&W later this week and sure hope that I am right. All my > comments all come from a darkroom. On the other hand I am a nit for detail and > sharpness so maybe I won't be able to tell. > > > :~) > > > I still think the 3200 is a fine scanner, but only know from a expert friend's --- In > DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mike_nunan" <mike_nunan@h...> > wrote: > > Hi Scott, > > > > Sorry if I irritated you somehow, but I returned the scanner for this > > reason: > > > > > the lack of gain/exposure control in the hardware plus absysmal > > colour accuracy > > > led me to return my 3200 within a month of purchasing it. > > > > It may be a fine scanner in some respects, but I found it very hit- > > and-miss and the exposure control issue was a huge bugbear (does > > anyone know if that has been fixed in the 4870??) > > > > I also found it impossible to compensate for the extreme hardness of > > Minolta B&W scans by post-scan treatment. It's not just a matter of
2004-05-06 by mike_nunan
Hi Jules, Thanks for that -- I've joined up. -= mike =- --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "lulalake_1999" <lulalake_1999@y...> wrote: > Hi Folks, > > I invite you folks to join us on our forums; > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/epson4870/ > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/epson3200/ > > There are some pretty knowledgeable folks there, some professional > scanner/printer people, and a bunch of casual (If using the 4870 can > be considered casual) users and the like. > > Recently there has been a long discussion of Wet Mounting techniques
> on flatbeds. A bunch of us have done it with some pretty cool > results. Also the various scanner software has been pretty well > explored. Post your questions and comments. > > Thanks > > Jules
2004-05-06 by lulalake_1999
Cool. It's a good group, very informed and many pros (opinonated at times as pros are)participate. Jules --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mike_nunan" <mike_nunan@h...> wrote: > Hi Jules, > > Thanks for that -- I've joined up. > > -= mike =- > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "lulalake_1999" > <lulalake_1999@y...> wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > > > I invite you folks to join us on our forums; > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/epson4870/ > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/epson3200/ > > > > There are some pretty knowledgeable folks there, some professional
> > scanner/printer people, and a bunch of casual (If using the 4870 > can > > be considered casual) users and the like. > > > > Recently there has been a long discussion of Wet Mounting > techniques > > on flatbeds. A bunch of us have done it with some pretty cool > > results. Also the various scanner software has been pretty well > > explored. Post your questions and comments. > > > > Thanks > > > > Jules