scanning for the web

[robert_clark]

I would like to scan slides and B&W negs for web viewing. I was told

that the Epson 2400 flat bed scanner would be pretty good for this.

Could anyone make a comparison between this and the newer Epson 3200.

Would I benefit at all from the newer model.

 

I also shoot MF and have read that flat bed scanners are a realistic

alternative to MF scanners and considerably more affordable. What

sort of quality could I expect from this 2400 with MF? Would the

results be printable and if so, up to what size? What would the

difference be between scanning with one of these and a genuine MF

scanner?

[charles_stobbs2]

I have a Canon 2400U flatbed scanner with the 35mm,slide, and 2 1/4 attachments and it does a pretty good job except for what I think is called dynamic range. You might compare the specs on this factor before making up your mind.

[godfrey]

<center>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/godders/.Pictures/London-Minox/tate

-0003.jpg"><br>

<i>At the Tate Modern - Minox EC negative scanned with Epson 2450</i><br>

</center><br>

The Epson 2400 is a cost-reduced version of the 3200 predecessor. It is cheaper built and

has a smaller transparency scan section. If you want to scan medium format film, go for

the 3200.

<br><br>

I've scanned from Minox to 616 format with the 2450 model, the 3200 is higher resolution

and a little faster, has cleaner optics in my understanding. It's fine for web-resolution

images even with Minox, but for quality prints I would advise a dedicated film scanner for

35mm and smaller. Medium format film scans (645 and up) print nicely to 13x19" at 300+

ppi resolution.

<br><br>

A dedicated film scanner will produce sharper, better saturated scans due to a more

sophisticated focusing system and better optimized hardware, but these flatbeds can go a

long way with suitable Photoshop post-processing at 1/4 the money.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[ralph_barker]

<p>Opinions will vary all over the map on this, but I, too, have found the Epson 3200 to be a reasonable compromise between price and functionality for 35mm, MF, and 4x5 film scanning, and excellent for prints. Scan film with the emulsion down, however, notwithstanding the Epson instructions to the contrary, and then flip in Photoshop - you'll get better sharpness that way. Note that both the scanning software and post-processing techniques have a huge impact on the final result. </p>

<center>

<img border=2 src="http://www.rbarkerphoto.com/misc/Travel/BshipPk1203-0303bowshot-600bw.jpg">

<p>Epson 3200 scan of 35mm FP4+ neg, M6 TTL, 50mm DR Summicron</p></center>

[ray_wilson1]

Robert,

 

I wasn't going to shell out ~$2K for a MF scanner either, so I bought a Epson 3200 Photo. Here are two photos. The first is a scan of the full two-and-a-quarter negative. The second is an example of the detail. Incidentally, the camera used to take this photo was a $40 Yashica EM TLR. I'm happy with the results. What do you think?

Ray<div></div>

[ray_wilson1]

Here's the detail captured by the scanner.<div></div>

[jim_mcbride]

I don't have any serious disagreement with any of the above, although I am holding out to

purchase Epson's latest all-around flatbed scanner, the 4870. It's supposed to have

somewhat higher resolution and comes in two models: an economy model with a modest

software package and a "professional" model with a more expensive software suite. B&H

Photo in NYC seems to have the economy model in stock but not the "professional" model

(which is the one I want) as of the date of this writing (02-17-04).

[andy m.]

Seriously impressive, Ray.

[peter_n1664876959]

Just completed review of the EPSON Perfection 4870:<br><br>

 

<a href="http://www.photo-i.co.uk/">Interactive Review: Epson 4870</a><br><br>

 

Click on the scanner under the bloke's picture to go to the first page.