shotz Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Ditto on the quality, ease and speed of this unit. Also agree with the assesment of the sub-par software. Here's a 4x5 that I scanned, just in case you are interested...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd frederick Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Joe's idea is interesting. Here is a 1/8 of the full frame scan of the old plow I posted above in a 4x7" format. I think I will also see what happens with a much larger images size.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd frederick Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 This is the same old plow, 1/8th portion of the full 4x5 frame enlarged to about 8x14". This was scanned with the earlier Epson 1640 scanner.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd frederick Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Eric, This is very interesting. Thanks for your question. It's getting me to look at the possibilites with 4x5 after a 15 year hiatus. Strange as it may sound, I just finished making a brass pinhole and pinhole lens board to use with my field camera along with my regular lenses. Yes, I'm weird! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z_z1 Posted January 12, 2003 Author Share Posted January 12, 2003 Thanks again everyone. Well it seems the Epson scanner is well thought of. I will have to scan a contact print of a 4x5 and do the 1/8th analysis as well and post to this thread. I am trying to determine if there is any advantage to scanning the neg or scanning the contact print or maybe even an 8x10. I realize that by scanning the neg you are omitting one generation induced degradation. But I wonder just how much of an effect this added step has. To compare apples to apples I suppose I need to find a scanner that has the same optical resolution as the 2450 to make sure we are doing this fairly. I still have access to a fully equipped darkroom for both color and b&w so if I need a print for sale or display that would still be my first choice. However I want to stock/populate my own website as a commercial venture. After shooting stock for 20 years I have a truck load of chromes (35mm) and these are easy to scan using the Nikon LS4000, it was the MF and LF stuff I was concerned about. On another note I want to thank everyone who shared their work with me (us). It was a joy to see what other LF'ers are doing (even if everything on the site isn't LF). The comment about 72dpi screens is valid, but we are just around the corner for HD computer monitors affordable by we common folk. Once they proliferate thru the "network" so to speak, people will be put off by less than tack sharp images. The difference between 35mm, MF and LF will be easily identifiable IMHO. Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z_z1 Posted January 12, 2003 Author Share Posted January 12, 2003 Here is he link to the picture I was refering to above. I believe the photographer used a drum scanner, but the tonal range and detail is amazing. http://www.photo.net/photo/1123523 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.graemehird.com Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 By scanning a neg (or tranny) you are able to take advantage of the full resolution available from your scanner (neg resolution will exceed the scanners maximum until about 4000 dpi). Scanning a print will result in little real improvement beyond 300 dpi. Then there is the dynamic range of the print compared to the neg.... Scanning the neg is better in nearly every aspect - that's why they make film scanners! Better do some more research Eric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z_z1 Posted January 13, 2003 Author Share Posted January 13, 2003 I'm glad you agree with me Graeme. Your photo's are very nice. Aussie land is somewhere I'd like to go some day. It's so big though, it would take months to just do a bit of it. And then again you'd have to keep me from the scuba diving! No mean feat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.graemehird.com Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Thanks Eric.<p> The 2450 is what I use for my LF scanning - it was worth every cent I paid for it (and it has paid for itself many times over with print sales). I highly recommend it. I have made 30" long Lambda prints from the files that are very good indeed. I'd love to see what can be done with the new 3200 dpi version. <p> I've had drum scans done of some of my trannies and was not blown away by the results. That may have been due to a poor operator, but the images from the 2450 compared remarkably well, with similar resolution and only marginally less depth in the shadows. The drum scan was definitely better, but not by as much as you'd think, and certainly not enough to pick on internet images. <p> The image that you linked to may well have been done on a drum scan, but not necessarily so. I am sure that a skillful photoshop user could produce an internet image of such impact from a scan made on an Epson 2450 (given the tranny in the first place!). It is only when the image is printed out to a large size (say >20"x25" ?) that a difference between a drum scan and a 2450 scan would become apparent.<p> Australia <u>is</u> huge, but if you came to photograph with me, you'd be hard pressed to find a place to dive - the nearest standing water is 400 km away. And by the way, you are welcome to photograph with me any time you like!<p> Cheers,<p> Graeme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z_z1 Posted January 13, 2003 Author Share Posted January 13, 2003 Thanks, Graeme. I just may take you up on that sooner than you think. Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philip_sweeney Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Eric: Getting a good drum scan can be difficult. I currently use Nancy Scans. And their prices are very reasonable. Do not cheat yourself out of some side by side comparison of a drum scan vs whatever! Some subject matter may not need the extra quality: however; many do! A rich color night time cityscape is a difficult subject and I would not think twice about anything but a drum scan. Highlight contrast and detail is destroyed by anything but a top notch scanner. Midtones and shadows suffer too. Remember a grayscale image that will not posterize at 16 levels of gray may not need a pro scan, but an image that posterizes at any level less than 256 would! You might be surprised by the numbers of images that can do fine at 72 levels of gray. Color can be more critical (millions of colors). Perhaps we should have asked what are your goals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z_z1 Posted January 14, 2003 Author Share Posted January 14, 2003 Philip, geez now you have given me a whole other level of frustration, LOL!! You bring up a good point however, my goals. For prints to be displayed or sold I will still utilize my wet darkroom. I prefer the output to anything I have seen from the alternative digital printers. My goal in scanning my 4x5 and MF negs is to achieve a high quality output to be displayed on the web as part of a commercial website selling my lofty aspirations at art. If I make enough money from this venture I may invest in a proper LF neg scanner, but the web sales would have to justify this themselves. I would not cross subsidize from my sale of traditionally made prints to purchase this piece of gear. Each venture has to stand on it's own. So that's where I'm coming from, and hopefully where I'm going. Thanks for the extra input. Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleck Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Eric, Like I said initially, if all you're doing is scanning 4x5 for web presentation, then you can't go wrong with the 2450. For the money, it's really your only option anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now