t._l._burger

If you're scanning 645 then you can fit two frames in each window, anything bigger and

you're SOL. If your film is laying flat enough then maybe you can try to use the 8x10 glass

holder. The little "Microtek" nylon stickers don't really help much. If I think of a better

solution I'll post it here. Sorry to hear about the trouble.

BO on Enhanced Matte produced a print that was far too cool for my taste. If you're

wanting to do BO, for whatever reason, a warmer paper would help get you to a neutral

gray. Not worth the paper chase if you ask me.

I've actually been getting the best results with printing all the colors to get to get my b&w

image. On the 1280 I had vary noticeable color shift, with the R1800, what color shift

there is seems to be a natural shift in white balance.

The Premium Glossy paper has been giving me the best results, with the deepest blacks,

but the Enhanced Matte isn't too shabby either. The Heavy Weight Matte lacks depth as

does the Watercolor-RW.

What I see on the screen FINALLY matches my prints. Careful color management goes a

long way with this printer. Enjoy it.

-Anthony

In one word: Yes.

In more words, it's a great printer that consistently matches what I see on screen. More

importantly, as a primarily B&W photographer I'm getting results that are on par or better

than some of the best darkroom prints I've seen.

Also there's little to no color shift in different lighting conditions. I actually see more color

shift in the paper than the ink.

The detail is incredibly fine, even under a 10x loupe it's hard to see print dots as they're so

tightly grouped (even in the highlights).

The amount of ink that I've gone through does seem a little excessive. I'm hoping that the

reason for small number of prints with these first cartridges is due to it being new and the

lines were not charged.

All things considered, this printer's detail and color accuracy well justifies the cost of it's

ink. I don't have to wait days anymore to get my "fine prints" back from my local lab or

places like Mpix or Adorama. I've actually reprinted some pictures to compare to the Mpix

and Adorama prints, and it's no comparison, this printer wins hands down. I will never

have to source out anything 13x19 or smaller again.

It's very nice, and I highly recommend it.

Well this isn't exacting, but it's what ink I've gone through since picking this bad boy up on

Wednesday. I've printed the following sizes on the following papers:

13x19 - (1) Water Color (6) Premium Gloss

11x14 - (4) Heavy Weight Matt

8x10 - (5) Enhanced Matt (3) Premium Gloss

4x6 - (6) Premium Gloss

As it stands, here are my ink levels:

Yellow - 40%

Magenta - 30%

Cyan - 30%

Matte Black - 50%

Photo Black - 90% (This is my 2nd cartridge)

Red - 50%

Blue - 50%

Gloss - 50%

As you can see, I've already gone through one entire cartridge of Photo Black. My printing

habits use most, if not all of the printable area. About 30% of the prints were

full color, 65% black and white (using color ink), and 5% black only.

Hope that helps some.

I started having the same problems after downloading the newest version of Vuescan. If

only there was a way to get back the old one... If you happen to get it working, let me

know! I love that program!

I have the i900 and it's great for my 4x5s. Excellent scans with all different types of film.

I've tried scanning a few 35mm slides with it, and the resulting image was far below

expectations. If 4x6 is the biggest you want to print your slides, then maybe this scanner

would be for you.

I've been using Mpix for awhile now. They are a great service, and the results are very

good! In addition to regular photo paper, they also offer metallic and true black and white

paper. They will do a 10x10, but not a 20x20. (They do have a 20x24, although.)

I purchased the i900 a couple months ago and had been using it exclusively for 4x5 large

format scans. I also shoot 6x7 medium format every now and then and in the process of

scanning some I noticed that there was a noticeable blue haze on my image. I did a scan

of just the glass-less area with just an empty holder only to find that there was a blue

haze on the right side of my image, and a yellow haze on the left side. I contacted

Microtek, and after trading a few emails and phone calls they gave me an RMA # and I

shipped it back to them for servicing. I guess I was lucky to receive support at all.

Actually it wasn't too bad of an experience. Turn around time on the repair was two weeks

to the day.

I bought this scanner mainly to scan 4x5 and the occasional 6x7. I shoot mostly Provia

100F and Tri-X 320. This scanner is faithful to the colors of the original slides, and I can

make sharp 24x30 inch prints and could probably do a decent 40x50 inch print.

For my Tri-X, this scanner is a dream. I've never really been happy with scans of 35mm

Tri-X. They always came out too punchy and lacking the tonal range capable of this film.

The i900 produces a very neutral image that can then be tweaked to your heart's content

using contrast adjustments and Photoshop's Shadow & Highlight command. Print size for

the black and white is the same as I stated for slide, although, I think that larger may be

possible, only because I think that the grain structure adds a little something to the image.

A beautiful print at normal viewing distance, and beautiful grain patterns when viewed

close up.

I did scan some C-41 4x5 and found the results lacking. The colors were muted and there

was no apparent contrast. Sure, tweaking with it in photoshop could help it, but it would

just be too much work. Luckily, this isn't a real problem for me, as I don't shoot color

negative!

The scanning software that you use also has a great impact. The scanwizard software

blows, and silerfast 6 Ai isn't documented enough in it's own manuals. I prefer using

VueScan. It's easier to use than the other two, and has features that the others can't

touch. (Muti-pass scanning, over-expose scanning, etc.) You can try it out for free, and if

you really dig it, the pro version only costs 100$. (worth the price and then some!)

Vuescan really helped me capture a tough slide that I had under-exposed by 1/2 a stop.

(Forgot about the bellows extension factor.) The dark areas had noticeable CCD signal

noise. Since signal noise is a random occurrence, I used VueScan to do a 2x multi-pass on

the image and then do a long exposure pass on it to help breath some life back into it.

After doing these three separate scans, they were all merged to create a useable image! I

was really impressed!

i900 Pros:

Faithful to original colors.

Sharp prints up to 24x30 using 4x5 film.

Beautifully neutral black and white scans. (All tones and gradations accounted for!)

Nice 4x5 and 35mm slide holders

No newton rings.

Decent software for the average user.

Vuescan supports this scanner!

Technical support (when they're there and feel like picking up the phone)

i900 Cons:

Visible noise in really dark areas (black is still black, but if there's something there, it will

come out as noise. VueScan can help fix this and scanning at 48-bit also helps a lot)

Medium format holder blows! Why single frames and not strips!?

That's my review! I find the Epson 4870 comparable to the i900, but went with the i900

because of the glass-less scan area. Despite the problem I initially had with my unit, I'm

happy with my choice.

-Anthony

I shoot 4x5, b&w and color slide, and scan with the i900. For b&w it delivers an

awesomely neutral tonal range that you can tweak to your heart's content using the

channel mixer and contrast adjustments. I've posted some hi-rez images on my site.

Check them out:

<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.anthony-burger.com/i900images/i900test.html">i900 Scans</a>

<br>

<br>

Just click on the image for a full rez scan. Hope it helps!

I cannot comment for the 4870, but I have recently purchased an i900. I purchased it

mainly for it's glass-less capabilities when scanning my 4x5's. While the image quality is

excellent, I still wouldn't recommend it to anyone. The one I have is going back for several

reasons (visible scan lines on my E-6 and a blue haze present on the right 10% of the scan

area). Technical support wasn't any help either. I waiting for photo-i to finish it's review

of the Canon 9950F before committing to the Epson. You might also want to look at the

1800f or the new Epson F3200 when it becomes available.

My recommendation would be DVD-RAM. I've used them since their introduction, (5 years

now) and they all still work just as new. They've gotten cheap too! I get them at a local

Office Depot at 12$ for a double sided, 9.4GB disc. Best of all, they are a caddy-based

media, so you can't physically touch the disc or scratch it, unless you REALLY wanted to

for whatever reason.