Better scanner? Better printer? Thoughts please...

[rich815]

I've been fairly happy with my current post-processing set-up:

 

 

Nikon LS-4000 with roll film-adapter for 35mm scans

 

Epson 4990 for medium format scans

 

Epson 2200 printer

 

Photoshop CS2

 

 

My work is perhaps 90% B&W, especially my "fine art" work.

 

I've been fairly happy (amazed frankly) at what good results I've gotten from

my Epson flatbeds thru the years (1200U, 2450 and now 4990) in scanning my MF

negs and while I know that a dedicated film scanner like an LS-8000 or 9000

would give me some better quality but I've always thought the 10-20% better

quality scan was not exactly worth the huge extra cost for a dedicated MF film

scanner, especially as I do not tend to print much bigger than maybe Super A3

size. But I've always wondered. Am I leaving out too much sharpness or tonal

range by using the Epsons?

 

I've been fairly happy as well with my 2200 for B&W printing on matte (mostly

printing BO, or with QTR occasionally when I want some subtle toning). But

I've been intrigued by the 2400 and recently the 3800 thinking how nice it

would be to print on gloss or lustre and get better, deeper blacks than I get

with my 2200 and no bronzing (and less ink cost and bigger prints with the

3800).

 

I sell my work from time to time but not regularly as I am not actively

marketing myself and just sell about 8-10 or so prints per year, or 2-3 times

a year I'll hear from someone wanting a digital image file for an ad or

promotional work and so far the Nikon or Epson scans have been sufficient.

 

But like anyone, I do feel my work is slowly getting better and better and

evolving as my skills, not only in making my photos improves, but as does my

technical skills with my equipment, B&W film development and in the digital

darkroom (PS CS2) and therefore I always want to be sure I'm getting the best

I can from my negs---of course keeping things in perspective (drum scans are

not in the budget nor are lightjet prints every time I want a print).

 

My quandary now is should I get a new Epson printer to get myself better

prints or a better MF scanner to do more justice to my MF negs? (I shoot with

some pretty nice glass and wonder if I'm leaving too much on the table by

simply using my Epson flatbeds and will squeezing out that extra bit be worth

it?

 

Which do you think will show the most improvement in the results I get? The

printer or the better scanner?

[robert lee]

"...10-20% better quality scan was not exactly worth the huge extra cost for a dedicated MF film scanner..."

 

I think the resolution difference is more likely to be 100%. Why don't you do a trial scan of 35mm on the 4990 and compare the same to the Nikon? See for yourself.

[rich815]

Robert, yes, pixel-peeping and scientifically compared by the "numbers" you may be right about that. But with good scan techniuqe and post-processing workflow and sharpening process the end result from an Epson in a final print is really not all that big of a difference in the end---at least that's my sense. I may go down to a local photo center here in San Francisco (Rayko) where they have an LS-8000 for rent for $25/hour and scans a few negs and see what I think.

 

But again, people thoughts are always helpful to get.

[r_bryant]

Read this first.

http://ajaxnetphoto.blogspot.com/2006/11/digital-solutions-for-film-lovers-flat.html

 

Rob

[rich815]

Thanks R. Saw that a couple weeks ago. I think his big improvement was mostly from cleaning his glass and mirrors. Wish he did that and then tested first before blacking it all out.

[troyammons]

I read comment a while back. I bought an epson then I was amazed at the resolution until I saw a drum scan.

 

 

The difference between a 4990 and a nikon 8000 or 9000 will be more then 10-15%. The difference between a v750 and 4990 is more like 10-15%. The nikon 8000 and 9000 scanners are as close to a drum scanner at 4000 dpi as you will get from a current film scanner. The epson v750 is about 35-40% efficient. The nikon scanners are about 80-85 % efficient.

 

That said, all the scanning/printer concerns works into the system resolution. IE if your camera/lens/film combo is not resolveing over 35-40lp/mm a Nikon scanner might be an overkill, but if you are shooting a Rollei 6008 with a PQ lens, a hassy or a 645 contax and velvia you would see a huge difference between a nikon scanner and a Epson scanner.

 

Personally I prefer sharp everthing, so I have a drum scanner which is a total hassle, but results are nice.

 

Personally if I shot MF film on a regular basis and did not own a drum scanner I would definately own a Nikon MF scanner, no matter what camera I shot, but thats just me. Epson and nikon IMO are like night and day.

 

If you never enlarge more than 6-8x an Epson v750 would do fine, but if you want more it will take a better scanner.

[robert lee]

"Robert, yes, pixel-peeping and scientifically compared by the "numbers" you may be right about that."

 

I just bought a 4490 (not the 4990) recently on impulse. Now I'm really curious about how the newer 4990 and V7xx's compare.

 

My experience thus far has been that the flatbed is significantly less sharp than the Nikon. It's fine for 8x10 proofs, but nothing larger; ~5x enlargement would be about it. I posted a couple of images on this thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00J1d2

[ilkka_nissila]

I used to own the 4990 and a 3rd party glass holder for it. I now have the LS-9000. The difference is huge. It doesn't require pixel peeping. First of all the 9000 scans medium format images in a few minutes with ICE (depending on settings) while the 4990 took about 25 min to scan using ICE at 2400 ppi. Spotting by hand takes about the same time. The sharpness difference ... well, I never got more than about 600-1000 ppi worth of detail out of the Epson. The difference at 2000 ppi is staggering. It is obvious in a 8x10 inch print.

 

If you play with sharpening, you can improve the scans from the Epson but why waste time on something like that? When you can get much sharper originals with the Nikon. The scans of 6x7 film I got using the 4990 were not in any way better than my D70 images at 8x10 inch size. While the 9000 gives scans from 6x7 film that are more detailed than those from a D200. I can't imagine paying for 120 film and processing, and spend hours scanning if the results are so bad. It's a terrible waste of time.

 

I did get the rotating glass carrier for the Nikon - it is great. The 35 mm format scans are also very good from the Nikon - in fact it scans Kodachrome with ICE!

[steven_clark]

I would argue that 25 minutes for MF on a 4990 impleies something wrong with your machine. I get much better times than that with mine.

[prashanteju]

My experience is that FB scans are good for web and small prints. At the most 3x (we are talking MF and LF film). For fine art printing/sales drum scanning or with a high end film scanning is the way to go.

 

One thing you should try is use a RIP software. The difference is amazing. No color casts etc. Epson 2200+Hahnem�hle photo rag 308gsm+RIP is the combination I use.

[marek_fogiel]

I've just bought a Nikon Coolscan 9000, after having realized how crippled my results with Epson V750 have been. This has been caused by a series of shots scanned from TMY400.

 

As long as you use top MTF elements in your chain, in my case Hasselblad's Zeiss lenses, plus the sharpest film (Velvia, etc), you get quite good results for up to 5-6 times enlargement and decent results for up to 8 times, this, I intend, if you scan at the highest resolution with careful technique and lots of sharpening afterwards,but as soon as you screw up something, these scans just fall apart.

 

Also, if you want to "see the film grain", that is if you want to get at least to the level you could have obtained in traditional darkroom, you have to get the Nikon, or better.

 

I have just scanned a 33 year old colour negative shot done with a Pentacon Six camera, and I think the 50mm lens, which was nothing to write home about in terms of quality, still, the photo came out very well and I have made today the best print out of this nostalgic shot that has ever been produced, to the point that I intend framing it. I am sure it would have come out very muddy with the Epson.

 

I believe, there is a certain improvement in terms of quality between the Epson 2200 and the K3 printers, but it probably relates more to longevity and/or bronzing than else. Anyway, I print on R2400 and I like it a lot except for the hassle with the matte/photo black switch and for the ridiculously small and expensive cartridges.

 

I am convinced for a big quality jump you should swap your 35mm Nikon scanner with the 9000, and if you only shoot chromes, you can get rid of the 4990 as well. As for the printer, I believe the 4800 has bigger cartridges than the 3800 and it can handle roll paper as well, but if A2 is sufficient for you, then the easier MK/PK switch of the 3800 is alluring.<div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

Steven, the Epson was fast enough until I turned ICE on. Some people have reported scan times in excess of an hour with ICE. Nothing's wrong with my computer, works fine with everything else. Of course you can always get a faster computer with more memory, but why should you have to if better hardware works fast?

[rich815]

My Epson 4990 with ICE (or dust-removal) is MUCH faster using Vuescan instead of Epson SCAN.

[thomas_sullivan]

printer....the new Epson's that use the K3 inks are a major step in B&W printing.