fattfreddie Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Since Epson is now offering a $100 rebate on the 2450, I ran out and purchased one. I picked a nice sharp Acros negative that I shot with my C330. Using the Epson Twain software and Photoshop 5, I scanned it. And honestly, I'm not impressed. I did not find the scan to be sharp, and the exposure controls offered by the Epson software were pretty paltry. In the interest of giving the scanner a chance before I drop it off at Circuit City, I was wondering if some scaning experts might offer me some pointers. Maybe I'm just not doing it optimally. A nice sharp scan is my goal, but I don't feel like I'm even close ! Thanks in advance for your assistance. Fattfreddie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
continuity Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Have you scanned much film before? I was unimpressed with my first film scans (on a dedicated film scanner)... Straight scans just don't seem "sharp" (maybe it would be better defined as edge sharp) Almost every scan can benefit from some Unsharp Mask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d._r._martin1 Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Your 2450 should come with Silverfast SE, the lite version of Silverfast. Have you tried that yet, with the sharpening control set right in the middle? That's what I use with my 2450 and 120 film, and I have no complaints about sharpness. I've made beautiful, crisp 12"x12" prints without recourse to Photoshop's unsharp mask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cg Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 I've done quite a bit of scanning and you will be dissappointed with any flatbed scanner if you are used to looking at pin sharp images through a high quality loupe. Flatbed scanners simply do not resolve enough details and they do not hold the film flat enough or precisely enough. The sharpest scans come from a drum scanner, Imacon and dedicated film scanners like the Nikon 8000. However, the 2450 does a very good job with film for the price and is useable for web based images and small prints depending on your quality requirements. You can also experiment with the way you place the film on the 2450 glass. I found that you have to experiment with shims to get optimal sharpness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fattfreddie Posted January 21, 2003 Author Share Posted January 21, 2003 I put a couple of test scans in my portfolio, but you really can't tell if they are sharp or not, as I sized them down a lot. I have been experimenting with both of the software packages included with the scanner, and the Silverfast certainly seems to be more functional. But based on the (very fast, thank you) responses to my question, maybe I'm just expecting too much. Back to the darkroom with these, I guess ! Thx, Fattfreddie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_falck Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 I have that scanner too for my 645 slides. I have the Nikon LS-4000 for my 35mm. I have found that with both of them how you get the pic to be sharp in Photoshop is a lot easier for ones I am manipulating for looking at on my computer screen. This is because what you see is what you get when you set PS to "actual pixels" view and use unsharp mask. When looking at one that I intend to print it is very different. They never look sharp in "actual pixels" view (where you may actually see a tiny part of the whole pic anyway. It does look sharp when I do the "fit to screen" or "print size" view. When doing the unsharp mask, it is tricky, because there is no way to get it to look sharp in "actual pixels" view, and if you try to do so, you will actually ruin it. I do the unsharp mask in "actual pixels" view and switch to "screen view" to see the result. My prints have come out extremely sharp doing this. The problem is that in "actual pixels" view, you are seeing a level of detail you would never see in the print, unless you looked at under a microscope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_westbrook Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Read through Norman Koren's great web page about the scanner: <a href="http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/Epson_flatbeds.html">http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/Epson_flatbeds.html</a>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfrey Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Essentially, scans do not appear as sharp as the negs do because of losses in analog->digital conversion, called aliasing, unless the sampling frequency is significantly higher than the details in the film being sampled. That's simply not going to happen at 2400ppi, and is questionable even at 4000ppi. High end scanners operating at 6000ppi or higher produce shatteringly crisp images at the expense of huge dataset management issues. The solution is to apply a light pass of Unsharp Mask filtering at full resolution to clean up the losses through aliasing. I use Photoshop and find that a cleanup pass at about 60-100%, 1.1 pixel circle and threshold 2 is essential to obtaining a good, crisp appearance with 6x6 negatives scanned on the Epson 2450. Further sharpening I perform downstream of that, after the image has been color corrected and sized for its intended output use. I wish I could afford a Nikon LS8000ED but that's at least a year into the future on my present budget... Meanwhile, the 2450 is making some beautiful 13x19 prints from 6x6 and 645 negatives, given proper image processing techniques. Godfrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_laban Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Frankly i'm not impressed either. Not with the scanner, that's fine and when used well it is quite exceptional, but I am far from impressed with some of the responses to this question. Take a look at a thread I started a few days ago on the Digital Forum. <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004OCO">Epson 2450 or Drum Scan</a><p><a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">www.keithlaban.co.uk</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_f._stein Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 I have read both threads and when all is said and done, I think this one will hold it's own. #1 - You can produce fine work with an Epson 2450 that works well because (of many applicable factors) it doesn't take a 100 percent "copy" of the original to produce a pleasing output, just as it doesn't take 256 distinct tones to produce a quality black and white print; #2 - The sharpness of a raw scan is in some ways irrelevant. I find that negs from certain lenses produce sharper RAW scans than from other lenses; on the other hand, I expect other factors apply such as the reflective nature and quality of the processed film surface. Some films, in my experience, just seem to scan better than others. #3 - Download Vuescan and play around with it-you will learn a lot about scanning by testing its options and viewing the histograms. Excellent scans are attainable with the Epson Twain-it even has a way to push more or less scanner light through the film, but Vuescan excels-among many ways-in its built-in profiles for color negative film. #4 - My unexpert opinion is that slide film is not a flatbed scanner's forte. GOOD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bas1 Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Freddie, just send you one of your pictures from your portfolio with the photoshop USM applied. looks much better. Unsharp Mask is what every digital photo or scan requires for some reason. Good luck Bas p.s. if the email adres in your profile is not correct letme know and I'll resent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry_pluta3 Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Freddie, You will also find that you need to expose a little different for scanning then for darkroom work. I found that while I can shoot T-Max100 at asa 100 for the enlarger, I have to shoot it at asa 50 to get full detail in the shadows. If you look at my uploaded images you will find a scan I made from a 4x5 negative that is as nice as it gets. And that is on the predecessor to the the 2450. The truth is the extra effort I have to use to get a good scan is more then made up for in the ease of spotting, dodging, and burning an image. I have been able to print several negatives that I was never able to pull off with an enlarger, for me at least that is well worth it. Good luck, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xato Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 I find that this Epson does no shapening on its own so feel free to USM it to heck. I find can use up to 200% depending on the image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_tucker2 Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 I bought a 2450 to scan my 4x5 BW negs, and you MUST buy the full version of SilverFast 6AI, in order to max out the scanner. The Epson driver is just plain bad. Just fork out the $150 for the Silverfast before you judge the scanner. And, in addition to that, how much room do you have to complain, when the scanner is only three hundred bucks? You've got to have your expectations in the realistic level. If it's that bad, buy a $14,000 Imacon flatbed, and THEN see how you feel about the Epson; you might be quite satisfied with it. Just my opinion. Mark Tucker, http://marktucker.com/sanmiguel/ This whole chapter was scanned with the 2450 and silverfast 6AI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andre_noble4 Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 David, I have the 2450 Epson and would really like to know how to increase scanner light through dense negatives via Twain, if you would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugh_jaramillo Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 I use the 2450 all the time and have produce very impressive looking prints with it, a couple of things that you have to consider. 1. The provided Epson software is not very good, so in order to get a better scan you need to revert to other software more suited to do high end scanning. 2. In order to scan a good MF image you need to scan the image at a very large size, 20-40 MB per image. 3. Make sure that your image is properly position against the scanner face. Good luck Hugh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gl5 Posted January 23, 2003 Share Posted January 23, 2003 I have the 2450 and am VERY happy with medium format negative scans I've done at 2400 resolution. This is with the stock driver (Mac OSX). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frdchang Posted January 23, 2003 Share Posted January 23, 2003 where is this rebate that you speak of? i don't think its listed on the epson site? links would be great! cheers,fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fattfreddie Posted January 24, 2003 Author Share Posted January 24, 2003 I purchased the scanner at Best Buy - it might be their rebate (I have already mailed it off, sorry). 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