Epson 4990 scanner - Good Enough?

[steve_gabbett]

I've just been checking out Ken Rockwell's site and found he's

been raving about the quality he gets from scanning his 4x5

slides on a relatively cheap Epson 4990 scanner. I understand

the principle of using a larger format to compensate for the

deficiencies in the scanner.

 

Does anybody out there use this combination? is it as good as

Ken thinks?

 

If so, how does scanning files with the 4990 and digitally printing

compare with wet printing? and what kind of size would you be

comfortable printing to?

 

I'm being forced to abandon my darkroom and need to find a

viable alternative (MF film scanners as still very expensive). I

currently shoot my landscapes on 6x7 and wet print.

 

Please help!

[sanders_mcnew]

Steve, I use that scanner. It is fine. But if you are accustomed to the darkroom, you might

find digital printing difficult to accept. I shoot 4x5 and 5x7. I spent several years on the

bleeding edge of B+W inkjet printing, invested in an Epson 7600 printer, special inksets

and RIPs, etc. No matter how I squinted, it never looked like a photograph to me.

 

Last summer I pitched it all and rebuilt my darkroom. A silver gelatin print has a look and

feel and luminosity that no inkjet print can replicate. A darkroom print will resolve details

that wil be lost in the inkjet. And the paper and chemicals and light impose their own

discipline, their own limits on the look of the final print that frustrate some, but that I find

an important part of printmaking -- those limits disappear in the digital world.

 

The scanner will do fine. It's a fine piece of equipment. If you can wait a month or so,

Epson is about to come out with their next generation of flatbeds, and they are rumored to

be a big step forward in scan quality, so you might want to hold off and see. If you are

interested in B+W inkjet printing in particular, you should subscribe to a Yahoo group

called DigitalBlackAndWhiteThePrint -- those folks have done everything, and are great

resources for learning how to get the most out of your printer and scanner.

 

Good luck.

 

Sanders McNew (www.mcnew.net)

[eric_brody]

I'd be a bit wary of Rockwell's site as a realistic reference. He's been known to "review" equipment he's not seen or used though I do not doubt he has used the 4990. Basically I'd look to other reviews regarding any purchase decision.

 

I agree with the other poster about waiting for the new Epson 750. Though it is expensive, it may be useful. Affordable (<$1,000?) scanners may be asymptotically approaching their limit in the marketplace.

 

I do love the look of a silver gelatin print, impractical as they may be. Having said that, if the new Epson is close to as good as expected, I may be tempted.

[greg lockrey]

750's are $780 at DTG. 4990 are $440.

[nicholas_rab1]

I don't want to compare wet printing to inkjet. There are a lot of opinions on the topic you can find. If you are printing b&w only I would consider getting a dedicated printer for that and using quad tone cartridges. I find that injet printing can be fabulous myself.

 

As for the epson scanner, good enough for whom? Nothing like a drum scan, but I find for 6x9 I can reach the limit of my printer (tabloid size) with most negatives no problem. The thing to realize is that some negatives/slides scan easily. The Epson will do a fine job on these. The more difficult negatives will not work out so well.

 

I scan and print up to 13x19 at home. Everything else is outsourced, as the outlay for recompense doesn't make sense to me. I think that one should match their input and output. If you are considering a wide format printer, drop the money on a better scanner, else the epson will be fine.

 

Oh, take everything rockwell writes with a massive grain of salt.

[bob mccarthy]

Is the fact that an inkjet doesn't look comparable to a darkroom print related to paper (surface)?

 

Some of the new papers are getting rave reviews thought I have yet to see any first hand.

 

Bob

[brian_ellis16]

"If so, how does scanning files with the 4990 and digitally printing compare with wet printing? and what kind of size would you be comfortable printing to?"

 

You've asked several questions. I use the 4990 and scan both 4x5 negatives and slides. It works very well. I print up to about 13 x 19 and I'm satisfied with the print quality (I used to make 8x10 contact prints in the darkroom so my standards are fairly high). I seldom use my 6x7 system any more and I've never scanned 6x7 negatives on the 4990. My guess is that it would do an adquate job as long as you didn't print larger than about 8x10 but that's just a guess based on what I get from 4x5. Someone who has actually used the 4990 with 6x7 film obviously would be a better source of information. Epson reently announced a new line of scanners (700 and 750 I think) that are reputed to be better than the 4990 but in the same price range. If I were in the market for a scanner I'd wait a while and see if these new scanners are as good as preliminary reports indicate they are.

 

With respect to comparisons between scanning and printing digitally vs the darkroom, that's obviously a highly personal thing. I began scanning and printing digitally about three or four years ago, exclusively black and white at that time. My initial thought was that I would do both, make some prints in the darkroom and others digitally. That lasted about a week. After printing digitally it was simply too frustrating to look at a print made in the darkroom and see all the improvements that could have been made digitally but that were impossible in the darkroom. So I haven't been back in the darkroom except to process film since then (and like you I recently lost my darkroom so it's a moot point now).

 

And that was black and white. You apparently do color. I used to make color prints in the darkroom years ago. It was one of the more boring aspects of photography that I've encountered because there was so little that could be done without masking - get the exposure right, get the color balance right, bang, print. Digital gives you infinitely more control over color printing than anything you've ever experienced in the darkroom. I guess there are still people printing color in a darkroom but why I can't imagine.

[mikem77]

Check out this page:

 

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/drum.vs.flatbed-scanners/index.html

 

I think much of it has to do with good workflow. I don't think I'm getting the sharpness out of 2000dpi scans that I should be getting. Probably due to my post-processing techniques-- scans from the 4990 require a good amount of Unsharp Mask.

[james_munoz]

Steve,

I'm an platium printer and also do alternative processes and I scan my 6x7 negs and my 8x10

negs and I have to say I do love my Epson 4990.....

[sladez]

The Epson 4990 will do an excellent job with your images. I will say the scanner is definitely the weak link in the process as they do require a certain amount of sharpening in order to get back to "normal". From the reviews I have seen the new Epson V700/V750 appear to overcome some of this loss of sharpness--we'll see. On the other hand--I have made prints from my 4x5 negs at 13x19 and can see nothing in terms of image degration due to the amount of sharpening required. This may show up on larger prints though.

 

As far as quality between inkjet and wet prints--the printers on the market today will ease your mind. I had extremely high standards for my wetlab prints and what I get from my inkjet exceeds anything I could have done in the wetlab. The only thing that is lacking is the feel of the paper. If you display your prints by handing them around then you may be disappointed as the inkjet papers don't compare--IMO--to good ol' glossy fiber base prints. But if you dispaly them mounted and behind glass--you can't tell the difference. There are some really good new papers that may bring the inkjet papers closer to fiber base papers in feel--hopefully not at the cost of appearance.

[noah]

I don't wish to start a debate, so I'm stating right up front that this is my opinion. I'm not

happy with my 4990 at all. I'm very experienced in digital and analog technologies, and I

know how to get good scans out of different hardware. And I can honestly say I'm only

comfortable enlarging scans made from 8x10 negatives to around 16x20, which is clearly

not a big enlargement. I tried making some 22x28 prints, and there was visible color noise

and a noticeable lack of sharpness. Of course, some of this can be fixed with unsharp

masking, but they you're increasing the noise problems.

 

It's a great scanner for proofs, small prints or for online use, but for exhibition prints it's

not up to par. I recently needed a 40x50 print for a show, and I had a drum scan made.

When I compared that to the epson scan, there was simply no comparison. When I blow

the drum scan to 100%, I can see film grain. With the epson, it's just a noisy mess at that

size.

 

If you're shooting 6x7, why not try to find a deal on a used Nikon scanner? I used to use

one of these before I started shooting 8x10, and those scans were far superior. Not quite

drum scan quality, but much closer. Another option, at least here in NYC, is renting an

imacon scanner. There are labs around here where you can rent a scanning station for a

very reasonable price, so you can end up doing scans for maybe $5-10 each if you're fast.

 

For what it's worth, I don't make inkjet prints, I make color digital-c prints on a poli

laserlab or Lightjet for larger prints. I find them very cost effective in the long run, and

also I still like the look of traditional chromogenic paper.

 

I'm very picky, and my work contains lots of large areas of sky and smooth gradations,

which are much harder for the epson than, say, complicated images with lots of texture. I

don't think there is a problem with my scanner, as my friend bought the 4990 also, and

has been similarly underwhelmed with his 4x5 scans, and he's a fulltime digital imaging

tech so he knows his stuff.

[doug_dolde]

I don't think it's that good. I dumped mine for a Leafscan <br>45...MUCH better. That said I might consider one of the new <br>Epson 750's when they hit the street.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.painted-with-light.com">My website.</a>

[troyammons]

I used to think my 4870 did a pretty good job, until I bought a drum scanner.

 

The most rez an average shooter with normal Eq. will get out of 4x5 will be around 45-50 lp/mm. IMO the 4870 is good for about 30-35, but even at that it is a fuzzy 30-35.

 

I never use the 4870 over 1200 dpi. The pixel edges are just too soft. If you print at 240 dpi thats a 5x enlargement.

 

You can easily do a detailed 10-12x enlargement with a drum scanner. Hopefully the V750 will be close.

 

Wait for the Epson V750.

[sladez]

I would have to partly agree--if it was me I would wait for the V700/V750 for sure. Maybe

it's the fact I scan and print b+w--but I would have film grain problems before I saw any

issues with this scanner. I print at 13x19 inch and it isn't even close to having problems

and could easily go quite a bit larger. The 13x19's look no different at all compared to the

8x10's of the same image. I have had a drum scan done and they are nice--but side by

side comparisons of a 13x19 inch print showed zero difference. I am positive the

difference would show up at the 50 inch mark but I have no reason to print that large--if I

did I would send it out to be drum scanned that one time.

 

If you get your scanning techniques down--I mean really down--and your sharpening

techniques perfected--you can get great images from this scanner. I have the proof.

Again--this is b+w---may be a whole different ball game with colour as others have

stated.

[james_munoz]

NOAH,

just wanted to know for what show did your print 40x50?

I too printed a 40x50 (scanned with my 4990) and it looks pretty good.

I live in NYC and wanted to know what what show??

[noah]

I feel like this is off topic, but since james asked, the picture I was referring to was in a

group show, it's not still up, at Jen Bekman gallery. It's a cool little space and they have

lots of photo shows. www.jenbekman.com

 

James, if you could pull a good 40x50 out of the epson, more power to you. It doesn't

work well for me. I mean, if you do a large print from the epson and look at it by itself, it

might look decent, especially from a normal viewing distance. But scan the same neg on a

drum scanner and do another print, and see how they compare. Maybe I have a particularly

poor example of the 4990, but as I said my friend has one too and has had similar results.

[james_munoz]

NOAH,

No worries mate, OF COURSE compared to a drum scan there is a BIG difference.

I think we all know that. All I was saying is that I've had good results with the Epson. That was

Steve Gabbet's question wasn't it? Epson 4990-Good Enough.

[steve_gabbett]

Cheers guys for all your responses - most helpful!

 

From your comments I think it would be wise to hold off until the

V750 hits the shelves (and reviewers) before making a decision.

If it's as good as people are predicting I'm hoping I might be able

to hold onto my 6x7 gear and shoot with that (rather than moving

up to 4x5). How realistic do you guys think that will be (compared

to wet printing that is)?

 

If any of you do take the leap before me and get there hands on a

V700 or V750 I'd love to hear what you think of it.

 

Thanks again!