Epson 2450 vs Howtek D4000

I'm used to a Howtek drum scanner, so I was not sure how

much I would be impressed by this scanner, but I've been

reading up on the 2450 all summer, and finally took the plunge

this morning. <P>

 

I spent some time getting it calibrated and producing scans I

thought looked good, and then compared those scans against

some I did on the drum scanner, just to see the difference.<P>

 

<img src="http://www.coreygeorge.com/photo/test2450.jpg"><P>

this is the whole scan made on the 2450, scanned at 100% at

2400 dpi with unsharp mask turned off. The film is Kodak Portra

160. No adjustments were made in Photoshop.<P>

 

<img src="http://www.coreygeorge.com/photo/areahowtek.jpg">

<p>

This is same negative scanned on the Howtek at 2400 dpi at

100%. Again, no adjustments made in Photoshop.<P>

 

<img src="http://www.coreygeorge.com/photo/area2450.jpg">

<p> This is the same area, from the above scan on the 2450,

with the following applied in Photoshop:<P>

Levels:Auto<p>

Unsharp Mask:<BR>

25%<BR>

Radius: 1 pixel<BR>

Threshold: 0 levels<P>

Color Balance: -32 Cyan<p>

 

I'm fairly impressed with the 2450. Obviously, it's not drum

scanner quality, but it's not $10,000 either.<P>

Just out of personal curiosity, what Howtek was used? If you remember.

 

I find the Epson 2450 to be an incredible value as well. I do not own one, but I use them very frequently and have been impressed with the quality that can be obtained by them. They're not as sharp as a Nikon 8000, they don't have the dynamic range, and they don't pull out as much detail, but they don't band either. And for the <$400 they can be bought for, if I needed to scan mf a lot, I would get one without a doubt. I've also used them for 4x5, which again, they do an excellent job with.

 

Are you using the film holders, or do you lay the film on the glass? Emulsion up or down? As others on this site have noticed, some produce sharper results when the film is not placed in the holders, but rather on the glass or at different distances from it.

The drum scanner is a Howtek D4000. It's a few years old, but

still chugs along producing excellent scans.

 

I had the negative directly on the glass, as suggested by the

comments here. It was emulsion side up, I didn't notice a

difference emulsion up or emulsion down. I plan on cutting a

custom holder for my negs, since I have most of the cut into

individual frames because of drum scanning.

I have the 2450 and have recently started using my own holder for film (4x5) instead of the supplied one. I cut a piece of black matboard in the shape of the holder, and lined the opening edges in tape. Now, to attach a piece of film, I tape it to the holder at eight points (corners and edges). Because of the tape lined edges, the tape used to secure the film is easy to remove. It's a hassle, but now I get no newton rings and my film is FLAT. So flat that I can easily combine bracketed exposures with perfect registration in Photoshop (impossible with the supplied holders).

Drum scanners, as I've learned from experience, aren't always the best way to go with print films. They tend to produce to much pronounced grain. The softer resolution of the 2450 and 1640 is often much more appealing.

 

Slides on the other hand rock with drum scans.

 

As Carl mentioned, the 2450 and 1640 aren't prone to banding like the Nikon 8000.

Scott,

 

My experience with a drum scanner has been the exact opposite.

I've had much better results with print film than chromes.

Chromes always wind up being a huge PITA to get a good scan

off of, as they always scan contrasty. Like with wet printing, print

film just seems to have a lot more flexibility in producing a good

scan off of a drum scanner.

 

The grain with print film is fairly pronouced, but after using the

Dust and Scratches filter in Photoshop, it gets toned down quite

a bit.

Wish I could agree Corey, but any 100 speed print film under-exposed a bit looks like hell when drum scanned and the resulting grain resembles one of those desktop novelty toys full of oil and colored glitter. Once you get the higjlight curves mastered for Provia, you'll get addicted real fast to slides.

 

Plus, I've found the software for most drums to be a pain to scan negs with. I'm glad you're having good luck with negs though. I'm one of the few that's actually made succesfull closed loop neg workflows along side slides work. Print films get an undeserved bad rap compared to slides in general.

 

I atttached one of my reference images from Provia 100. I can't remember if it's from my 1640 or my 2450 at work, but the image speaks for itself. White Iris in daylight shot with slide film and not scanned with a drum, yeah 'impressed' is an understatement when I regard the 1640 and 2450 for larger format film work.

 

And you don't have to oil mount film either!!!!!

Your comment about underexposed film resulting a crappy scan

brings up a imprtant point with any film: expose properly. I agree

with you that underexposed print film on a drum scannerlooks

awful, nothing can save it.

 

I'd have to say that we've both a method that works for us, and

are planning to stick to our respective methods. I learned the

drum scanner with negatives, and I always had bad luck with

chromes, so I stick with negs. I've gotten quite used to fixing my

scans in Levels and the dust and scratches filter, and have

gotten results I'm happy with.

 

Mounting doesn't bother me, I've gotten quite good at it, plus we

use the alcohol based mounting fluid, which is no where as

messy, but you have to be quick.

 

That is a nice scan of the iris. Could you tell me if that's from a

2450 or a 1640? I'm shopping for a scanner for the photo

computer lab, and they don't want to buy a drum scanner, but

insist on something will scan 4x5.

I'm about 70% sure that image was done with my 1640. I simply pile scans in one archive, and being my 1640 seems to be sharper than typical 1640s in general it's tough to tell from my 2450 scans. Hence my decision to borrow a 2450 when I need it and wait for the next model, provided there is one.

 

I can tell my 1640/2450 scans from Nikon 8000/drum scans though.

 

I can't imagine why the 1640 wouldn't be a solid option for 4x5 work on a budget. It's an awesome litte scanner for the money provided your are working with larger film.

Scott,

 

Thanks for the info. Are you sure it's a 1640? Epson doesn't

show the 1640 as having a transparency adapter, only the 1680.

<p>After running these through my post-scan unsharp mask and doing some color

adjustments, I'm not convinced that the Howtek <i>is</i> better. The 2450 scan

has better color fidelity (look at the greens in the background on both) and

better contrast (the blue on the Howtek is so dark that it appears black), and doesn't seem to be any less sharp, either.</p>