Epson V750M examples

If you're like me and was looking for examples, any examples, of what the

V750's capabilities are, I thought I'd help out a little. Here are some of the

first scans I made with the V750. The film was Kodak E100 shot with a medium

format camera hand-held. The film holder tabs were put on the "+" symbol. I'd

say it looks pretty good. When printed to 8x10 the photo looks really, really

good. If you were wondering I was .25 miles away.

 

Check out all the bare rocks. 20 years ago it was covered in ice and snow.

Thanks to global warming and other factors we can now go rock climbing:<br>

<a href="http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2004815967261734301"><IMG src="http://aycu07.webshots.com/image/566/2004815967261734301_rs.jpg"></IMG></a>

<p>

Getting closer to the main ice-falls:<br>

<a href="http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2004887413056919432"><img src="http://aycu34.webshots.com/image/3113/2004887413056919432_rs.jpg"></img></a>

<p>

Finally, up close and personal:<br>

<a href="http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2004818640585618764"><img src="http://aycu01.webshots.com/image/1360/2004818640585618764_rs.jpg"></IMG></a>

I have a friend who is interested in this scanner, I can't seem to open your links. Can someone else link them ,so I, and he can see the photos. If anyone else knows anything about this scanner , I would like to know what you think as well. thanks

Get rid of the brackets on the end, IE ] ETC and you can view them

How about some info.

What rez did you scan at ??

Are these crops or reduced or what ??

 

Can you post a full 2400 dpi scan somewhere straight off the scanner ??

 

Thanks

Sorry, Troy, but 2400dpi is out of the question. What you have is all I can give. Other sizes are too big. They basically give you a good idea on the sharpness of the lens I used to take the photo, the film I used, how steady my hand is (handheld shot), the scanner's ability to capture small things (after sharpening), and the ability to capture shadow details.

 

I can give you more info on the scan. They were originally scanned at 4800dpi using the regular, glassless carriers. I reduced it down to 300dpi and I guess the photo site I posted the pictures reduced it down to 72dpi. The 2.25"x2.25" slide was not cropped. I used Photoshop CS2 and used the Unsharpen Mask extensively. I think it was something like 175% (or more) and 2.9. The carrier tabs had to be at the "+" end. I have scans taken at the regular default settings and they're a joke.

 

I apologize for the lousy way I posted the links. I thought this forum would allow html posts.

 

Hope they helped anyway.

<a href=http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_1.htm>Here's the best review of the V750PRO</a> I have seen to date.

<i>>>I thought this forum would allow html posts.<<</i>

<p>

<b>It does!</b>...<i>but</i>, you must use the correct code.

The Photo-i review compares the V750 to a Canon flatbed at the pixel level, but only compares it to the Nikon LS-9000 using entire images reduced to web size. This is fairly typical of commercial reviews - comparisons made in a way to defy comparison, and to put the product under review in the best possible light. It's like describing a blind date as having a "good personality".

 

In a more objective sense, the V750 appears to have a practical resolution of about 2000 ppi, compared to an Epson 4990 at 1500 ppi and a 2450 at 1200 ppi. The LS-9000 is 3750 ppi or better. The tonal range of all these scanners is adequate, and the color accurate if profiled.

Try this site:

 

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

 

It compares the V700 versus the 4990 and Nikon 8000 (scroll a bit more than halfway down)

Edward Ingold had it right on the reviews. Also users should be aware of the inherent problem with the Epson fluid mounting adapter due to the additional refraction from the heavy chunk of glass resulting in reduced resolution. There are ways around it, take a look at http://wetmounting.com

Photo-i reviews are fairly good. But still, I find I do not trust the results from anyone. This is because everyone has a different view of what quality represents to them. Some will argue a 3x enlargement is the maximum, and others 5x for an Epson 4990. Who is right? Looking at the monitor doesn't cut it because the image a monitor reproduces is soft in comparison to a print (although at 100% magnification it is useful). I like what Vince had to say...

 

"I have just made an A3+ print of this 35mm scan and it looks superb, the printed image on paper certainly looks every bit and better than anything I have could have produced via traditional wet chemistry. The photograph displays corner to corner sharpness and every girder on the crane is clearly visible. You may be looking at the scans above and on previous pages and perhaps thinking the scans are lacking in biting sharpness. This is more a problem of digital imaging whereby we have the facility to view our pictures at any magnification and then blow out of all proportion any minor faults we can find, and then complain the pictures are not sharp. THE ONLY VALID TEST is to print the picture and view it at a reasonable distance before making a judgment. This is exactly what I have done with the Epson V750 scan, (sorry Epson this time I used the HP B9180 for my print). As a professional photographer I will say this 19x13 inch print looks very sharp and has a good range of subtle tones - I would be more than happy to use this print as final artwork for any exhibition."

 

With high speed, why not give us the opportunity to download a 8x10 section of that 13x19" file (if 4x5 film is tested, then a crop of a 24x30" print). Downloading with high speed a 20-30 meg file is no big deal. Lets see the goods rather then something blown out of proportion at 100% on screen (which to me is only useful when comparing one scanner to another).