ira_wunder

Sounds like the transparency adaptor needs a lamp or repair. You already reloaded updated software. It's a good scanner, I'm sorry you are having problems with it.

It is true that you can not put multyble sheets in the 7800, but you can get a 18x24 out of it and have to do no cutting of yuor own on a roll. You could use Epson enhanced mat and since it is a poster print at 720 for speed and conservation of ink. Paper is pretty cheap at a little over .40 a sq foot and your ink should be about 3/4 cents a sg inch and maybe a little cheaper. I'm sure you can find a cheaper paper then the enhanced mat as well. Test your time to see how many you can do an hour before you set your price.

I use Mitsubishi Diamond Pro's

Hi Helen;

What ink-set are you using with what canvas?

I as well do scanning and printing as a living and doubt that the scan operator is trying to get out of work. The bigger the file, generaly the higher the price. We sell scans by the size. The larger the better.

 

As far as scanning goes I take a different view then what has been mentioned. First off let me say that whatever quality chip or sensor you have in the scanner dosen't change nor do you have control of how much pixils the sensor is going to control. Meaning that a 4000 ppi or a 8000 ppi chip always performs the same, in that you do not limit it's performance with sotware. What you can control is the size of file, bit depth, error checking, dust removal, interperlation and such. You can look at size in PPI or print size, but that chip is going to perform the same.

 

A rule of thumb for highest quality is scan @ 16 bit for the print size you want or largest print size you think you will need at the ppi your system is optimized at. Most is 300 and the more proffesional systems are at 360. The reason is that more then this the printer dumps the excess and smaller then this means pixels have to be made up because it's not there.

 

Now lets compare scans. Take a scan of a 1x1" origanal at 4000 because that's the most your scanner is rated for. If you resize without resampling to 2x2 you are now at 2000 ppi, if you go to 4x4 your are at 1000 ppi, going to 8x8 you are at 500 pp1, and if you go to 16x16 you are now at 250 ppi which is under the optimum file size. So you could look at it as being under about a third for 360dpi systems at that size. Without doing the math your about 14" at optimum. All these files are the same size, a 1x1 at 4000 is the same as a file 8x8 at 500. The chip has done nothing different in quality.

 

My point is I rather look at scanning by the size of the print and my optimum dpi because I always no where I am with quality. For archive scans it is best to say how big the largest size print you will need and scan at that size at 300 or 360 @ 16 bits for future repurposing from that size down.

 

Four years ago when I got my imacon I scanned some 35mm to small print size at 8000 because I thought that was the best quality then tried to print it. It produced terrible results. So bad I thought the scanner was broken. The fact is that if you go to the printer with way way to much it has a negative effect.

 

Last of all, as been said here many times. After all the hardware and software talk, and one does need good equipment. It's the scan operator that will make the difference with pro equipment.

In leu of not having a wet film holder, and having a Microtek with the film scanning draw (Dual Scan), why don't you try using Edwal No-Scratch on the neg just like we use to do it in the darkroom. I use it or a product like it called "Hide-A-Scratch" on negs that need it going into my Imacon.

Just another thought. When comparing the Ilford luster to the Epson, it had Epson beat on thiickness, cost, and handled the gloss differntial better. It did not have a better D-Max in the blacks. That was my disapointment with it. But generaly a good paper. There are many manufactures making papers in the same catagory to test.

I own a 848 and have used it for over 3 years. First I beleave the scanner is rated for 50 megs. I know the 949 is rated 100 megs, maybe the upgraded 848 can do 100 megs a minute. They changed the gear box because running that thing all day was burning out the old gear box. You know this highest setting thing is not the way you think about scanners doing their job. If you own a scanner that is an 8000 ppi machine like the 848 and lets say a Nikon coolscan at 4000 ppi. That's the inherent quality of the scanner. You dont't control or change the quality of the sensor in the scanner down or up. The sensor is the sensor. Now what you do change is the size of a file. So, you should be scanning at 300 or 360 ppi at 16 bit to the largest size you think you will need to make an archive scan, or just scan to size. doing a 5000 ppi scan or a 8000 ppi scan dose not give you any better quality scan, just a larger one. The 848 depending on what version of Flexcolor you are using will have three setting. speed, quality, and true resolution. True resolution dose not interperlate at all. Here we are talking interperlating within it's boundries as opposed to interperlating over a machines limitations of the sensor. Quality setting checks the scan as it goes and takes a lot longer then speed. We see that using speed we have a liitle more error in precise focusing with the auto focusing, so sometimes we have to do some scans over. There's a green cross that lets you know if the auto focus is right on. Anyway, to answer your question, you will need some time to adjust yourself to the software, but after that you should be able to knock out a scan every 6 minutes in speed setting (longer on quality)if you don't get stuck. Is it a good value? The 848 is a great machine that produses a great scan. Even at one scan at 10 minutes on the machine would still give you a great value compared with purchasing a scan from a vender. Watch your scnas and don't clip your highlight or shadow. Finish your work in PS.

You can buy it from Epson distributors and I think you have up to 11 months from purchase to do it. Why don't you check that out with the distributor you are planning to buy it from. This is what I have heard from my distributor "it Supplies" which I bought 2 9800's from. I didn't buy the extended warranty. I figure if something happens it will happen in the first 11 months. I've owned 5 machines and haven't needed any service calls from Epson. But, one never knows. I think the warranty for a 9800 was about $700. If your head goes it's about $1000 to replace with service call.

Hi;

I have been working on an 848 for over 3 years. There is no need to do multable passes. The imacon is a direct lens to film scanner that's noiseless and has the best dust removal I have seen on any scanner. Our's has three levels of scan quality. True resolution, quality, and speed. As far as controling brightness and contrast, it controls that and a lot more. You have curve control, lightness, contrast, shadow control, color correction. You have historgrams and everything else. When you open up the software open hit the curve icon and most of what you are talking about will show up. Check set-up before you start and make sure all the settings are right for your profile with sharpening and such. Good luck.

I am a custom and exhibition lab and we always do 16/48 bit scans for our clients on a drum scanner. There's a big difference in tonality. If your going to have drum scans, I think you would be wasting your time getting 8 bit scans. The difference between a 8 bit and 16 bit grayscale scan is 256 shades of grey for an 8 bit and something like 64,000 for a 16 bit. I know the numbers are outstanding and in fact you don't see a difference that those numbers suggest, but you do see a big difference. You could always reporpurse from the master scan down to an 8 bit if you need to. For all seriuos archive master scans, you shouold buy a 16/48 bit scan. And what has been said about scan operators and equipment is totaly true.

Hi;

I'm a lab owner for over 30 years doing custom and exhibition work. For 16 of those years I was married to a framer and we do framing now. It's definitly a humidity problem and effects different papers with different absorbtion rates of humidity. We press out the prints to perfection and if it's a humid setting the prints will start to have a curl in the egdes. I do recommend getting a Seal 200 series dry mount press. Also besides dense ink effecting these more absorbing rags, the dirrection of how the paper goes into the printer has effect as well. So, if you really can't stand it, you could elect to dry mount the photo with archival dry mount tissue. I know the collectors hate that, but I tell you it looks great in the frame. By the way didn't Andsel Adams dry mount a lot of his stuff thinking it would act as a protective barrier. Pic your posion.

We find all three major tools do a good job with monitor calibation. We like the Eye One the best, but most people go with the colorvision Spyder 2 because it's the cheapest if things haven't changed.

Are you asking if you can make a good print with your equipment or if a lab could?

 

1) If you have your own equipment you could try using a program like Genuine Fractiles for ressing up the image together with a noise reduction program like Noise Ninja to reduce noise if needed.

 

2) I feel pretty confident, considering a well constructed file, that my lab and therefore your neighborhood custom lab could make a deccent 8x10. The RIP programs we use with our printers along with other tools we use allow for really good ressing-up of these images.

 

Why don't you post one so we can see.

Try puting the image on a black canvass with the canvass 1/2" larger then the image. Resize to tweak.

If you are using a 9600 you should consider buuying a RIP program such as Colorbyte or Colorburst. It has many features you need in wide format printing and res's up images better then GF or PS.

Hi Michael;

Look on the panel and see what border size is set. It should be at 3mm to get you closer to having the correct paper size. I strongly suggest you buy a RIP such as Colorbyte or Colorburst. You can get the light versions to get you started and then upgrade to full package when you get the hang of it. These programs will produce exact sizes and much more for you.

Another added note. I would suggest that you look into RIPS for your 7800. Colorburst or Colorbyte, they a do a much better job then printing throught PS with the Epson drivers. To boil down all the info you have recieved. Your file should be either 300 or 360 ppi (depending on how your system is optomized) at the final print size going to the printer unless you are using a RIP which will res it up beter then PS and print at 1440 or 2880 DPI on the printer. We see a little more smoothness in tonality at 2880 if doing a side by side comparison. I don't believe humans can see better then 2880. In truth we find printing 2880 with it's slightly better tonal rederation not worth the extra ink and time to print it. But the concept is, if you send a file to the printer larger then 300 or 360 at the finished size the printer dumps the additional info, if you are going there with less you have info that has to be made up by interpolation.

As a proffesional custom and exhibiton lab owner who can't spell, I have some questions and advise. Question, is your file 8.2 megs or are you asking if your camera having a 8.2 meg chip is capable of an enlargement that size. I believe the camera produces a 27 meg file which is certainly good enough. If you have a 24" wide printer or larger and are doing it yourself and do not have a RIP program for it, then use a program as stated like Geniune Fractiles. If you are going to a pro lab there is no reason to res it up to size unless your are going to use a econo lab that specifies you do all the work. The RIP systems that pro labs use can res the image up directly to the printer and does a much better job then PS or the software mentioned. Just a note, a pro lab that will charge more then $22 for a 20x30 but will do much more work on the print, such as noise reduction, zonal changes, spoting if needed. Meaning they will work on it as opposed to just sending it to the printer. Take note that for best results shoot RAW and keep the file in 16 bit, 300 ppi at an un-interpolated size. The other thing I will say for the deep discounted print is make sure the output is at least 1440 DPI.

You need to contact the major framing suppliers in your area that provide free truck delivery. Here in the suburbs of NYC. We have M&M, Dacor, United and several others. You will have to buy a case and these cases come in most standard sizes. These suppliers who supply your framers can also supply you with other framing supplies and equipment such as frames and mat board.

If you are really interested in correct color you should not use your eyes and minimaly buy the Colorvision spider w/ software for $149.95. You could use it to balance out your friends monitor as well.

Just a thought, why don't you consider a CRT like a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro. for about 700 if you have the space on your desk? The most important thing is to have the most resolution as possible. Use this as a starting point to compare other LCD's. If you go to sites like Nextag.com and do a search on 20" LCD monitors they will show you all and where you can order them at the lowest price.

MI,

I think Steve is more on target and has explained the reasons OK. It's our expierence at the lab that bronzing is an issue with hybird pigmented ink sets on any glossy stock ink jet paper. Example: Ultra-Chrome which I think most people would classify as a pigment rather then dye ink set, exhibits plenty of bronzing. For us it was more of an issue with grayscale printing then with RGB. The bronzing with RGB was always kinda hidden because of the colors, but Grayscale we lost a bunch of biz because 1/2 of our customers couldn't get past the bronzing and gloss diferential problem. I'm glad to report that on the new K3 Ultra-Chrome 98% of these problems have been cured. We haven't had any of our customers who rejected the old ink set reject the new. As far as dye goes, because it penetrates the surface fully, we find that there is no bronzing problem but matamerism (where a print can look different in different lighting. Daylight to tungsten) was a big issue. By the way we found a lot of matamerism with the old Ultra-Chrome ink set, specialy when you did RGB sepia tones. And keep in mind that bronzing is not an issue with mat or "Art Papers" because the ink penetrates more fully and is not sitting on a glossy surface. The other interesting thing to note is that we have found that the more the glossy surface's bite the more bronzing and gloss differential you have. Meaning more on a Luster or pearl, less on a glossy or smoother surface like semi-mat.

The Imageprint RIP using Autoprint does this very nicely. We use it all the time on our 44" printers. It might be costly but worth every penny. It saves a lot of production time. One thing that you may want to consider, and you should check it out, I may be wrong, is that the 4800 only hadles only 2" cores. There's trouble with curling on a 3" roll with some papers, but a lot more with a 2" roll, specialy when you near the end. On the positive side you will find paper bought in rolls to be cheaper per square foot then sheets.

Hi Alfred,

I have a little differnt slant on this. First of all I think some of this you should be asking the Lab tech. As a custom and exhibition lab owner I would advise you to use tiffs and do not go larger then the origanal file if it is not a scan. keep it to 300 or 360 DPI whichever your lab works better with. This is because whatever machine it will be printed on the labs RIP can do a better job then Photoshop or Genuine Fractiles in ressing up the image directly to the printer. If it is a scan you are doing it's always better to have 300 DPI at the finished print size in 16 bit. If that will produce too large an file to handle, ask your lab what size in megs they are comfortable with to go up to the finished sized print you want. The lab techs no their equipment better then us.