luisarguelles Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 Hi all, after posting some comments on a recent thread, I've just scanned two B&W images and uploaded them in Photo.net in order to share experiences. Film is Ilford XP2, the camera is a Rolleiflex-T and the scanner is the Epson 3200. The scans have been made at only 600 dpi. Even so, the size of the uploaded pictures is about 1,300 x 1,300 pixels. Please, click on "Large" to see them bigger: </p> http://www.photo.net/photo/1984267 </p> http://www.photo.net/photo/1984291 </p> The pictures (nothing special by themselves) where taken in the Spanish region of Asturias, in the North of the Country. Hope you like them!. Cheers, Luis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richardcook Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 "The pictures (nothing special by themselves)..." They are really quite nice and therefore are, themselves, special! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg_jones1 Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 Very nice, Luis. Excellent examples of what that little old Tessar can do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hendrik Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 Hi Luis, I don't know if you'r using the templates that came with the 3200, what I have found to work far better is to use 2mm plate glass on top of the neg/tran to achiece better flatness for the scan. 600dpi is actually an overkill if you're going to print at 300dpi. It only serves to make the file twice as big and the max print size half as big. Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mskovacs Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 Hendrik I think you need to learn some more about scanning basics. A 6x6cm neg scanned at 300 dpi will allow a 6x6cm print, a 12x12cm print scanning at 600 dpi etc. Its the dimensions in pixels that matters, not the dpi. You need 6000x6000 pixels to do a big 20x20" print at 300dpi. Thats a scan just over 2500dpi for a 6x6cm MF negative. Luis there doesn't seem to be a lot of detail in the snow. Is there detail on the neg or are we seeing the limits of this scanners dynamic range in these dense highlight areas? With the news in the other thread of the new Epson 4870, I think I'll hold out just a little while longer. I shoot MF trannies too (including Velvia) and I would like the extra dmax of the new model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul utkin Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 Mike, I seriously doubt that this new epson will be sharper than 3200 or 3170 models... And if it will be so I do not see a reason to pay more than 3170 model costs. I compared 3200 and 3170 and got 3170 and it is truly nice little cheap thing for previews and home prints. Just get a scan from nikon ls8000, drum scanner and from one of that epsons and compare. I did. From my understanding spending more than $200 for epson`s flatbed is a complete waste of money (unless they did some sort of the miracle with this new 4870 model optics that is highly doubtful anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LenMarriott Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 Luis, Thanks for the reminder (of the potential of my too long, sitting on the shelf, unused 'T'). Makes me want to get it down off the shelf, load it up & try to duplicate your results. I'd forgotten the sharpness & tones it is capable of. Your shots qualify as fine art in my estimation. Best, LM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mskovacs Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 Paul its not the sharpness that concerns me, its the ability to pull detail out of the dark areas of colour transparancies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k._rivkin Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 Well, I'm again with my critique of Epson series. It's a great scanner but instead of addressing the resolution issue, I would like to see the dynamic range issue being addresses through _measuring_ the D, instead of just taking the number of bits used to store files and converting it into D number inside the manual. The first photograph above is a good example of low dynamic range of Epson flatbeds. So unless 4870 is really a breakthrough model with a completely different attitude what we are going to see is yet another collection of numbers - "4800 dpi", "4.8D" having very little to do with reality. But - in 3 years we should have either flatbeds to grow up to our needs, or used and dedicated film scanners drop in price, or digital cameras to grow into the mf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lachaine Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 Ok, lots of info and comments about the Epsons, but has anybody tried the Canoscan 9000F for 120 film? I already know the 8000F does a pretty good job with 35mm negatives (all but the latest pictures in my portfolio were scanned with this scanner - I've since sold it though). I think the 8000F will also scan medium format (the head in the lid is wide enough), but you have to make a holder yourself (I sold it long before I could try this). The 9000 comes with the appropriate film holders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luisarguelles Posted December 18, 2003 Author Share Posted December 18, 2003 Mike, I raised the contrast at the computer in the first picture, so I think the issue with the dynamic range is not fair at all. Incidentally, light was extremely hard and it's surprising to know that only there is snow in the upper right area of the image. Other bright areas are simply grass, but completely bouncing light to me. I enclose here an absolutely raw scan from a small area of the negative. </p> Len, I happy these pictures can help to put again your T into action. It's incredible how much MF quality can be enjoyed with such a nowadays affordable camera! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luisarguelles Posted December 18, 2003 Author Share Posted December 18, 2003 Oops, I'm unable to post a picture here in the thread. I've uploaded the selected area to one of my folders: </p> http://www.photo.net/photo/1986265 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hendrik Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 Hi Mike, Sorry if I cofused you with my comment on the scan dpi.......... The software with the scanner actually asks you what dpi you would like to print and then automaticly applies the math for the scan. I scan about $100- worth of 120 film a day and know the basics. I would also like to say that the Epson 3200 can not and should not be compared with dedicated film scanners that is not in the same price range. Dinamic range of this scanner can also not be compared with dedicated film scanners, and high contrast will present problems. (you can also make two or more scans of different parts of the photo to overcome this.......if you know scan basics!) For the price, this is a great scanner for a beginner into the MF scan field 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