sladez

Jon,

I have the iMac 20" (year and a half old version)--not dual core but does carry 2gig of ram.

My files are between 5 and 600meg. Although not the dual core I can almost tell you with

certainty..with files that large--you will hate the iMac! I love everything about mine but would

be pulling my hair out if my files were that large and there wouldnt' be anything I can do

about it. Not even with 3 gig. With the limitations of Photoshop currently, there may be

nothing you can do until they upgrade.

Good luck.

Mona, I use either the supplied Epson software or full version of Silverfast. Like I said

earlier--playing around with getting the sharpening or contrast just right in the scanner

may or maynot have any ill effects but I would always make it a recommendation to never

use "destructive" post processing techniques which is what the scanner software does. I

am not a software engineer but I can't imagine any software for scanning use can do what

PS does.

 

Our disagreement may be because we do two different things. I can see possibly using a

low level of sharpening and tonal corrections in my scanner if I had "many" small format

negs to process--much more efficient this way. I scan 1 4x5 inch negative at a time and

not all that often--so for me, I wouldn't even think about doing anything but producing a

scan that will have all the information in it when brought over to PS for editing. I always

save a copy of the untouched scan in a separate file and Hard Drive. All sharpening is

done as the final step after resizing for print.

I personally wouldn't do any sharpening in the scanner. It may or maynot hurt anything but

you have no control over it and the software used is pretty basic.

 

I have tried and paid for many sharpening routines/plugins and have only found one worth

anything--TLR Professional Toolkit. And it's FREE! It is bar none the best I have found. It

uses a 3 stage sharpening routine and is non-destructive (done in layers which also means

you have that much more control over it with the "opacity" slider). I do recommend a

donation if you do use it and like it---there are many great Photoshop actions and scripts

made by TLR--lets keep them going.

Hi Steve--

A good scan shouldn't look all that great in my opinion--as far as print quality goes. If it

does I think you have taken it too far in the scanning process and "may" have lost a bit of

information. A good scan is usually a little soft and a little flat. The real "printing" gets done

in a photo editing program such as Photoshop. You can achieve great looking prints by

scanning correctly.

 

Hope this helps.

I use HP Premium Plus Glossy 99.9% of the time--the other .1% I use Satin. I have tried many other papers and these are the best in my opinion.

Rick--

I will second, third, and fourth what everyone else is saying. I have read on another forum

where some people have had problems but they seem to be isolated. I have printed a ton

with this printer and never once had an issue.

 

Hope this helps.

Chris--

I exclusively use an HP 8750 which produces superb BW prints using a 3set gray cartridge.

It is the best I have seen (and I have seen almost all of them) on glossy/satin papers. I

also came from the world of selenium toning fiber base prints and straight out of the box

the 8750 BW's were a bit warm to me. I have devised a very simple method of introducing

a hint of color into the print without showing metamorism to give it that selenium look. If

what you are after is something more extreme this can be done just as easily.

I won't go into detail here but if you are interested let me know and I would be glad to

help.

 

Good luck.

Or you could just scan them and look at them on your monitor;-) Kidding, I know that

isn't what you were looking for. Actually an interesting concept but as easy and cheap

that you could build a lightbox I think it will be more trouble to convert your scanner than

it is worth. Even if you could get the light to stay in the middle it won't be very uniform

and some sort of frosted glass is preferred over the clear glass that is on the scanner bed.

I suppose if you were planning on junking the scanner it would make a nice looking "outer

shell" for a light box which has power already running to it. You would need to take it

apart and empty everything out of it, replace the inside with more uniform lighting,

replace the glass with maybe white plexi---almost too much work. And, if you do color

work and are concerned about color temp......you might want to just build one or purchase

an inexpensive one ready to go.

 

Let us know how it goes.

I have the 4870 and scan 4x5 BW negs with no problem using the supplied Epson profiles.

I select Document Type: Film; Film Type: B&W Negative Fim; Image Type: 16-bit Grayscale.

All other options "off" such as sharpening etc. After selecting "Preview" I select the

"Histogram Adjustment" and keep pressing the "Show Output" button and making

adjustments to the histogram black and white point sliders until they are (just) outside or

touching the edges of the histogram (every time you make a move with one slider you

need to hit the Show Output button again to see where it moved the graph)---making

sure I don't have any black edges or white

spectral areas the histogram is reading to skew the graph.

 

This will result more than likely in a flat image. This is fine--the important thing is to not

clip any info. Don't try and get the image to look fantastic from the scan--just get all the

info across. If for some reason it is grossly flat then use the middle slider to adjust as

necessary to help out.

 

I have also scanned an unexposed but processed negative (fb+f) and used the

densitometer reading to find the films black point which in my case was 15 on the

histogram. I tried this with a zone 9 neg for the upper end only to find my development

isn't as uniform as I once thought:-) Decided to not worry too much about the upper end

and go with the flow. The "15" is just a starting point that I know nothing should be below

this. I typically scan around the 2400 dpi range.

 

This produces great negs for CS2. Hope this helps.

Hi Mark. The biggest mistake made is too much tilt. It takes much less than you think. With a 90mm this amount is very little and I sometimes will just use Hyperfocal distance instead.

 

If you want an easy method try the Wheeler's rule of 60. You can go to his writing to see "why" it works or just use it http://www.bobwheeler.com/photo/ViewCam.pdf --it does work. Basically it states: the distance (in mm) between the point of far focus and near focus on the rail divided by the distance of these two points on the ground glass multiplied by 60.

 

Example: you focus on a nearby rock in front of the camera (mark this point on the rail) and then the far mountain top in the background and measure the distance between the two....say 10mm. Then move to your ground glass (mine has grid lines marked in 10mm increments or you can use the same measuring device as for the rail) and measure the distance on the groundglass from top to bottom between the foreground rock and the mountain top.....say 75mm. Divide 10 by 75 = .133 and then multiply this by 60 which equals 8.0 degrees of tilt.

 

Once you do it a time or two it will become very simple.

My original two post were not hostile at all. I pointed out both printers and suggested he

try the Epson--why not, I would have. I only get hostile when the Epson group chimes in

and is unwilling to state either side. The only reply given is--"use Epson" "Epsons never

clog". This can be very dangerous to someone that is seeking information. We all know

that there is not one perfect printer for everyone. If I was in the business of producing

portraits or doing wedding for clients--there is a good chance I would be using an Epson.

M. asked about BW and mentioned he currently uses the 8450 and is happy with it. Even

knowing this and being someone that believes in the 8750 I still told him to give the

Epson a try.

 

Now if it were reversed and he was happy with his 2200 and someone gave him a 8450--

what would your response have been? "throw it away--all HP's are garbage. Use the

Espon". Forgive me for putting words into your mouth but this is how it appears.

 

I will be the first to admit--don't sneeze on your prints if they are from an HP 8450/8750

if they haven't been spray coated. That is the only draw back there is--unless you want to

print on something other than gloss/satin--but I've already stated that earlier. In the 25

years of printing I have never once sneezed on a print. Typical moisture isn't a problem at

all and I've never heard of anyone having an issue with this.

 

There is room for both but if someone that doesn't know the pros and cons of either be

careful how you state your case. You may convince someone to actually purchase the

2200 only to find that "John" didn't have clogging issues but they only print on occasion

and if in the wrong environment it has a good chance of clogging--which is very

expensive. Or, this doesn't print nearly as good BW's as their old 8450 did that they

tossed, looks horrible on glossy, scratches too easily, drinks ink every time it cleans

itself.........or, they may love it. But unless you point out the good and bad of each side

that could be an expensive recommendation/lesson.

 

I can always respect a poster that has tried both and likes the Epson better. I have no

issue with that. I purchased the 8750 for its BW print quality on the type of paper I prefer.

I have never seen an add for it once and have never played with it in any of the big stores.

The fact there are more professional using Epson is because Epson has been in the game

longer--doesn't make them better just.....in the game longer. Also, a lot of professionals

are the ones doing portraits and weddings and need other media besides glossy. I would

never base my descision for my work off of that. I have no need to print on canvas or

matte papers and at this point Epson rules that market.

 

Epson is going to have to step it up if it is going to keep this market as both HP and Canon

have been the inovative ones as of late. Next year I may be writing to an HP guy telling

him the same thing because I own an Epson--I hope so, all this competition is good for

everyone.

 

All I am trying to say in this long drawn out post is be careful in what you post. Read the

OP's question carefully and find out what he or she is after you probably have info we can

all learn from. Don't just see the word Epson and say--"Use Epson, everything else is

junk" especially if you have never used them. What they need may be an Epson or maybe

an HP or even a Canon. Read what they are asking.

 

I know how postings can "sound"--none of what I said was out of hostility.

Well, I never intended this to happen but should have guessed so. If any of the Epson

folks would have read my first few posts--you would see I am not an HP fanantic. I own

one and use it but could care less who makes the printer. I also told M. to try the 2200--

it is a great printer--a ton of people love it and he may as well. He did mention he

already owns the 8450 and is happy with it so it is only obvious I would inform him about

the HP 8750. I also mentioned that Epson has solved many of its earlier problems.

 

An Epson fanatic on the other hand skims anough of the thread to find something

negative about an Epson and begins throwing darts. I frequent several dedicated printer

forums and many still have issues with clogging even using Epsons new inkset--not

everyone and not as many as before but still an issue. It is also an issue about Epson

waste of ink but we won't get into that.

 

If you noticed I also made claim to the paper choices with each printer--glossy/satin use

HP--all other use Epson. Each printer has its own characteristics and the user needs to

decide which direction they want to go. M. asked the question and all I did was give him

an honest answer.

 

Again you throw Canon out there as if I would be upset--I love Canon and hope they do

take over the market. But an honest response is that they are still behind and not there

yet on several issues. If I were going to be brand loyal it would be to Canon or Apple or

Shen Hao....oh, and I also own an Epson scanner. The only piece of equipment I own that

is HP is my printer--that is not an HP fanatic.

 

If what you want to do is print on glossy or satin then HP 8750 is great in BW and pretty

darn good with color. BW is as simple as it gets "push print" but I have found the color to

require a custom profile to get just right. I think probably one of the best color printers

on the market and for the best price and most frugile when it comes to ink are the HP

Designjet series--now that is hard to argue.

If what you want to do is print anything other than glossy/satin and have its longevity be

80+ years then you need an Epson. Epson has many more paper options and yes--HP

dyes are not waterproof but there have been zero claims about humidity/stability issues.

If you are someone that spills liquid or spits alot then HP dyes on swellable paper is not

for you. Epsons can and do scratch easily but since I don't spill things on my prints I also

don't tend to scratch at them either so I consider both of these a mute point.

 

I have no problem with John Kelly or Daniel but your type of responses without reading

what I had originally posted is considered a "fanatic". Chris on the other hand had a

wonderful post. He like Espon better--I said many do. But he backed it up with both

sides of the argument and stated both cases clearly.

 

John--Lexus vs a Hyundai?? This is what I am talking about. I would love to exchange

prints from my Hyundai and see what your Lexus can do for all that money--in a friendly

manner. Maybe the prints I saw from the 2400 weren't as good as they can get--I would

love to be shown wrong. If I saw an Epson that could outperform my 8750 in BW I would

sell it in a heartbeat and buy the Epson and be the first to come back here and say I did.

All I want is the machine that makes the best prints I can get and don't care if I have to eat

crow to do it. If you need my email address let me know.

 

Sorry about all the fuss M.--not sure this is what you had intended. For some reason I feel

a bit out numbered;>)

No offense John but you must not frequent too many online discussions regarding Epson printers as the forums are littered with clogging issues with both 3rd party and OEM inks. Some clog and some don't--nobody can say what the difference is except amount of printing.

 

I also wouldn't compare the 2200 to the 8750 in terms of BW--everyone knows the 2200 can't compare. I don't have to worry about not printing with the yellow as I only use gray inks. Longevity? I would say HP 8750 and the Epson 2200 are equal in this department. I assume you have read the reports? In fact, if you want the best longevity and zero clogs but still want to use pigment (why I could never understand)..then look at the new HP 9180. I would love nothing more than if Canon could produce a great printer. They have yet to do so. They have great speed and with their newer lines increadible gamut but longevity still isn't close. There new pigment printers have been reported to have enormous issues with image quality. I love Canon and look forward to the day--it just isn't here yet.

 

M. Try to ignore the Epson fanatics that have spent too much money on their equipment and spend too much time trying to "tell" people theirs is better. They are just upset with a company like HP that has begun to take over this market and don't like to claim Epson is playing catchup. I have no issue with Epson, HP or Canon. I am only concerned about print quality--period. I could care less who makes the printer. Try the 2200--it will only cost you a cable.

A great review for the 2200 can be found here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/Epson2200.shtml

 

You are correct--each ink cart. in the 8750 has a built in head. This makes for more expensive cart but it also guarantees ZERO clogs and the same quality print from the first day until many years down the road when you decide to upgrade--or forever. Also, printing mostly BW I can say one of the #102 gray carts will print aprox. 50 8x10's before running dry. At $30 per cart that to me is pretty cheap coming from a wetlab. Epsons are notorious for clogging if you don't print quite often. I don't print much at all and my 8750 can sit for many weeks at a time with no problems. I don't want to condem Epson for the clogging issue as not everyone has problems and from what I have read the newer Ultrachrome inks have solved much of the pigment ink issues--metermarizm and clogging. Not eliminated but they are suppose to be much better.

 

This is what I usually tell people--if you like to print on satin or glossy then stick with the 8750. If you like to experiment with matte/cotten or any other media--pigment (Epson) is a much bette choice as HP's longevity claimes are only good on swellable papers.

 

I would still give the 2200 a shot. Just shake the crap out of the carts before printing and see what happens. If you like what you get and don't have issues with clogging on your printing schedule then buying a new set of carts won't be that big of a deal.

Well.....I use the big brother to the 8450--HP 8750 and couldn't be happier. That said, for the cost of a cable I wouldn't hesitate to at least try it. I have heard good things said about the 2200 but it will be different than what you are use to. Now if I had to purchase a cable AND purchase a full set of ink then I probably would look at the 8750 if you are happy with your 8450.

 

Epsons are nice I've just done too many test between the 2400, 1800, and the 8750--for what I do the 8750 is better. Again, for the cost of a cable I wouldn't think twice about giving it a shot. Everyone likes something different in a printer and you may find you love the 2200 as many others do.

 

Let us know what you decide and what you think of it if you chose to keep it.

I don't know much about the Nikon scanner but I use an Epson 4870 for all my 4x5 scans

with great success. Keep in mind, there is a little more to it than just hitting the scan

button to get a good scan but it is definitely possible. I will say that I think unless you are

willing to ship your negs off and pay big buck for a drum scan the scanner is the weak link

in the film to digital process. My prints look great at about 24"--haven't gone any larger

but would suspect they might begin to show the weakness of the scanner much bigger.

 

From what I have read/seen about the new Epson V700/750 there is some real

improvements to scan quality but they are a bit pricey. You can pick up an Espson 4870

for not much money these days and you will be very happy with the results. My prints up

to 24" do not look any different than printed at 8x10 and they both look as good if not

better than what I got from the wetlab.

 

Hope this helps.

That's pretty ingeneous Terry. Sounds like something I would do to get an excuse...I mean

reason to not go out and shoot--I make it out maybe 3 or 4 times a year--very sad but

true.

 

My first camera was a used Toyo 45E I bought in a cardboard box with two horrible lenses

and 6 film holders. I didn't even know there was such a thing as a folding field camera--

just knew this was what I wanted to do. I used my minolta max. 9000 with 210mm lens as

a spot and coat as a dark cloth....now how to carry it? I got one of those large Zone VI

white monorail bags for Christmas the first year--great bag for the monorail but HORRIBLE

to carry around the trails. It did hold all my gear but was more suited to carry stuff from

the car to the studio than hiking. I went to the local Army Navy store and purchased a

light weight pack frame-the kind that has a folding shelf on the back. Strapped the bag

on with room for my tripod--Bogen 3057...what was I thinking? Ah...to be young and

dumb:)

 

The pack frame was perfect! Held the padded bag with all my gear, water, tripod and had

great packing support. It costs maybe $15 at the time. Although it worked like a champ I

don't regret getting a field camera many years later with real spot meter and get this... an

actual dark cloth with Readyloaders!!! Times are good!:) I do miss all the rock steady

movements of the monorail though.

I know it isn't the same but I have always viewed the difference between looking through the GG and some other camera as viewing a transparency vs a print. Both 2 dimensional but with the light coming through the transp. it gives it more life and a sense of 3-D.

 

Will, I don't think this will make you take worse pics--unlike 35mm you can't walk around looking through the ground glass hunting for an image. You have to find the image with your eyes and then recompose it on the GG. It definitely looks better through the GG than what I originally saw but you will get accustomed to this after some time--still a joy. The one aspect that a GG will help is in composition. Being forced to use a tripod and viewing the composition more of an abstract than an image (upside down and backwards) makes you see every corner of the frame and all the details that lets your image "work" -- being forced to slow down also helps.

If you are going to be doing streetscapes that usually means you don't need to be hiking or lugging heavy gear for great distances. When you get into wide lenses such as these I would always go for the faster lens. May be heavier but from experience, trying to focus a 90mm f/8 is not very fun. I vowed to never own anything under a 120mm that wasn't at least an f/5.6 again.

If it wasn't for the documentary I would still suggest LF for portrait, still life and figure work. LF would be a horrible choice for documentary IMO.

 

No, your Nikon lenses won't work on any LF or MF system--might take this into consideration. For good MF systems I would look at Hasselblad, Mamiya, or Rollei. Keep in mind that MF is the most expensive system to get into. The bodies are very expensive, the lenses are more expensive and the backs are outrageous! But, they can produce excellent quality images. You should be able to find most of this stuff in good condition on Ebay but it will still be pricey.

 

If it were me.....I would find a decent (inexpensive) body that works with your lenses to get comfortable with monochrome and a film/developer combination. You might even find you can get what you need from it. Shoot a fine grained film, learn its characteristics, shoot with a tripod and good glass, careful printing and you may be surprised at the quality you can get from a 35mm.

 

Good luck.

Mark- everyone here has given great advice so there isn't much I can say....but I will:) First, decide what type of photographs you will most likely take--high quality BW landscapes that you can print very large? Get a 4x5 or larger..period. portraits--studio/posed that can be printed large? medium format or larger. candids, action, wildlife....or anything else that won't be printed larger than a good 11x14 inch--any 35mm camera will work. The quality of optics (and that is what is important over the camera itself) today is very good and it is difficult to go wrong with any system be it Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Wisner, Canham, Shen Hao, Schnieder, Caltar, Rodenstock........you get the point.

 

I know, there are exceptions to all these rules but if you are truly interested in any of these categories--get the format that best fits it and will give you the best chance of getting great quality images. Keep in mind...MF is very expensive to get into--LF is actually fairly inexpensive (for the most part) but it limits you to the type of images you can capture and the amount of shooting you can do in a day.

 

The best advice I can give in making high quality bw images unless you are doing action is to USE A TRIPOD!! Always have it with you and never shoot without it. If that makes you sick at least get a monopod--not the best but better than handholding--this is strictly my opinion and religion:)

 

Film.....I use Tmax 100 shot at ISO 50 developed in Photoformulary BW-22 for 6:15 @ 68 degrees for normal. Is this the best--probably not. Will it work for you...maybe but I wouldn't trust it. I have seen great (quality) images from all the films. Find one you can get ahold of easily, get an appropriate developer--and learn it, and only this combination, until you have exhausted everything from it. Several manufactures make great bw film and developers--you just need to REALLY learn them. Don't go try one and after a few sessions decide it sucks and move on--you will never be happy. They will all work if you spend the time and they all need the time spent to work properly. Best advise I can give about film/developers....be consistant. You will never know if something is going wrong or if it does how to correct it if you are not consistant and deliberate with your shooting/development techniques.

 

Scanners....if you are going to shoot 35mm I would advise you to get a dedicated film scanner. I'm not an expert so I won't comment on which one. If you are going to use MF or LF then a good flatbed will work. I use the Epson 4870 and it works great (4x5 negs). I have attempted many times to get a good scan from a 35mm bw neg and this scanner and it was horrible. I won't go into whether you should scan or wetprint. I have done both and now favor scanning--I will say you can get high quality bw images by using a scanner and inkjet. Decide what you like the most--if you like the darkroom and cringe at sitting behind a computer then stick with the wetlab. If you don't mind sitting behind a computer--go for it, you won't lack any quality if done correctly.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Slade

I would agree--I shoot my Tmax 100 at 50 all the time. What do you normally shoot it at? I would either develop normally or decrease your development time by 12%--I bet they will be just fine.

Good luck.

Epson's native printer resolution has been 720 but any multiple will work (360,180..etc.) HP's are 300...

I actually attempted this once and am sure it can be done with some patients. The problem I had was getting two "identical" scans as far as placement. The file size was enormous! I think it would be easier to take both images--bring the two together and use a mask to merge them into one image from my experience. If you try it and get it to work let us know.

I appreciate your comment about my site. You bring up a point that sort of goes with this

discussion. When I first started LF I was VERY exact--thought I needed to be. I had my EI

worked for each lens, different developers, my N+.25 time worked out, what EI I needed if

I were to develop at N+.5....etc. I was nuts! The more I do LF the more I find it isn't

necessary to be like that. I totally believe in consistancy and I am be no means out there

shooting and developing on a whim but I get better images now that I have calmed down

and decided it was ok to have one developer and one paper and not need a N-.37

development time.

 

Most of what you see shot at an EI 64 instead of my usual EI 50 either had an N+2

development (compensating for the increase in film speed during a longer development

time) or, more than likely it was an older lens I had and a different developer I was using.

EI 64 use to be my normal number for most of my lenses--I did own a really crappy 90mm

that required an EI of 32 and could only be used at 1" or bulb--hated that lens!

 

To answer a simple question in this agonizing reply--yes, you can see some difference but

no--not enough to worry about. I would favor the EI 50 and if you find yourself having to

burn down your darker zones more than you think you should.....move it to an EI 64 or

80--not going to kill an image--keep sneeking up on it and you will know when it is just

right.