I started a 35mm B&W darkroom forum

In article ,
Frank Pittel wrote:

A 16x20 print of a 35mm frame is going to look like crap and I'll
bet a 16x20 print from my digial p&s will look just as bad. Also if you
think that a print from a modern inkjet printer on "photo" grade paper is
smeared you might want to get you eyes checked out. (no offense intended)

Actually its a fact and Tom is correct, its one of the benefits
for me in doing portraiture and retouching. It in part is a result
of scan depth, sharpening and just the nature of digital output in my
experience,.....I have done comparisons so I know what tom is saying
some people just don't look that close to imagery.


I've looked at the prints from a number of inkjet printers made by Epson
and Canon under a 20x lupe and the "dots" are clearly visible as dots and
there is no "smearing".

Part depends on the paper, the sharpening used etc etc etc.

If you haven't seen the output from a modern higher
end inkjet like the Epson 2200 on "photo" paper you may want to take a look.
You may be pleasantly surprised.

What I want is for the LF 7600 to catch up with the current crop before
I spend,... I figure it will happen about the time I break down and buy
the 7600.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article ,
Frank Pittel wrote:

A 16x20 print of a 35mm frame is going to look like crap and I'll
bet a 16x20 print from my digial p&s will look just as bad. Also if you
think that a print from a modern inkjet printer on "photo" grade paper is
smeared you might want to get you eyes checked out. (no offense intended)

Actually its a fact and Tom is correct, its one of the benefits
for me in doing portraiture and retouching. It in part is a result
of scan depth, sharpening and just the nature of digital output in my
experience,.....I have done comparisons so I know what tom is saying
some people just don't look that close to imagery.


I've looked at the prints from a number of inkjet printers made by Epson
and Canon under a 20x lupe and the "dots" are clearly visible as dots and
there is no "smearing".

Part depends on the paper, the sharpening used etc etc etc.

If you haven't seen the output from a modern higher
end inkjet like the Epson 2200 on "photo" paper you may want to take a look.
You may be pleasantly surprised.

What I want is for the LF 7600 to catch up with the current crop before
I spend,... I figure it will happen about the time I break down and buy
the 7600.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Frank Pittel wrote:

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:

: Gregory Blank wrote:
:
: In article ,
: Tom Phillips wrote:
:
: A smart choice. I'm not familiar with the Epson
: film scanners, though. So I couldn't say if that's
: a good choice or not.
:
: Probably the best choice for the money,

: It's always a choice between $$$ and scan quality
: If I need a scan, I get a high end or other appropriate
: one from a service bureau, since _my_ optically enlarged
: prints are far better than any desktop inkjet both in
: image detail (resolution) and range of tonality and/or
: color (gamut.) Can't speak for frank's printing skills

I've been told that I do a good job printing. I don't know how printing skill
is going to increase the amount of detail in a print though. With an enlarger
you can't create detail.

I don't know. I don't know what you're doing,
what/how you're shooting or what your films
look like resolution wise. So, I can't speak
to it.

: I have a 2450 which was
: a few generations ago....it produces "nice" scans. I have actually done
: scans with it, which have been successfully used for four color offset
: printing with the 2450. Part of the process is understanding how to use
: the software.

: Certainly you have to know how to get the best scan
: for the purpose. But it also depends on the quality/
: final output (end reproduction) of the scan.

: My experience with Espon is their claimed specs don't
: match real world s/n ratio tests results of those specs.
: Which isn't to say Epson doesn't make halfway decent
: consumer scanners. I have a 1600 pro flat bed. The 4870
: is an inexpensive flat bed ($500-600.) Epson marketing
: claims "What if the quality and enhancement capabilities
: of a powerful, dedicated film scanner were available
: without the premium price?"

That's called marketing. Everyone including Kodak streches the
truth about their products to the point of lying.

: Fact: the _price_ of a film scanner reflects the quality
: of the components. In otherwords, cheaper scanners must
: sacrifice some high end components in order to keep the
: cost down. It's the difference between buying a Mustang
: and Jaguar. Both will get you down the road and perform
: well but the Jaguar will always outperform the Mustang
: when high end performance really counts. That's why
: Jaguars cost what they do. In other words Espon claims
: a 3.8 D-max for this combination flat bed/film scanner,
: which is close to what you could get with a high end
: scan. Reality is for that price it's not going to happen.

I have no illusion that the 4870 can give the same quality that's
possible from a drum scanner. I have compared scans made by an ImaconSP?
and it can hold it's own.

Compared how? With s/n tests?

Once again you might want to give the current
generation of equipment a try. You may be pleasantly surprised. I know I
was. I was expecting the type of results you're describing and did much
better.

: Probably fine for Frank's inkjets, though, since no
: inkjet could reproduce the detail of a high end film
: scan anyway.

Very true. An inkjet can't print the detail I get from the scans from
my 4870!!

The scans cannot be better than the original
film images (inherently shadow detail is lost in
_all_ digital scans from film.). Thus your inkjets
also should not be able to "look better" detail
wise than an actual 8x10 photochemical enlargement.

Frank Pittel wrote:

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:

: Gregory Blank wrote:
:
: In article ,
: Tom Phillips wrote:
:
: A smart choice. I'm not familiar with the Epson
: film scanners, though. So I couldn't say if that's
: a good choice or not.
:
: Probably the best choice for the money,

: It's always a choice between $$$ and scan quality
: If I need a scan, I get a high end or other appropriate
: one from a service bureau, since _my_ optically enlarged
: prints are far better than any desktop inkjet both in
: image detail (resolution) and range of tonality and/or
: color (gamut.) Can't speak for frank's printing skills

I've been told that I do a good job printing. I don't know how printing skill
is going to increase the amount of detail in a print though. With an enlarger
you can't create detail.

I don't know. I don't know what you're doing,
what/how you're shooting or what your films
look like resolution wise. So, I can't speak
to it.

: I have a 2450 which was
: a few generations ago....it produces "nice" scans. I have actually done
: scans with it, which have been successfully used for four color offset
: printing with the 2450. Part of the process is understanding how to use
: the software.

: Certainly you have to know how to get the best scan
: for the purpose. But it also depends on the quality/
: final output (end reproduction) of the scan.

: My experience with Espon is their claimed specs don't
: match real world s/n ratio tests results of those specs.
: Which isn't to say Epson doesn't make halfway decent
: consumer scanners. I have a 1600 pro flat bed. The 4870
: is an inexpensive flat bed ($500-600.) Epson marketing
: claims "What if the quality and enhancement capabilities
: of a powerful, dedicated film scanner were available
: without the premium price?"

That's called marketing. Everyone including Kodak streches the
truth about their products to the point of lying.

: Fact: the _price_ of a film scanner reflects the quality
: of the components. In otherwords, cheaper scanners must
: sacrifice some high end components in order to keep the
: cost down. It's the difference between buying a Mustang
: and Jaguar. Both will get you down the road and perform
: well but the Jaguar will always outperform the Mustang
: when high end performance really counts. That's why
: Jaguars cost what they do. In other words Espon claims
: a 3.8 D-max for this combination flat bed/film scanner,
: which is close to what you could get with a high end
: scan. Reality is for that price it's not going to happen.

I have no illusion that the 4870 can give the same quality that's
possible from a drum scanner. I have compared scans made by an ImaconSP?
and it can hold it's own.

Compared how? With s/n tests?

Once again you might want to give the current
generation of equipment a try. You may be pleasantly surprised. I know I
was. I was expecting the type of results you're describing and did much
better.

: Probably fine for Frank's inkjets, though, since no
: inkjet could reproduce the detail of a high end film
: scan anyway.

Very true. An inkjet can't print the detail I get from the scans from
my 4870!!

The scans cannot be better than the original
film images (inherently shadow detail is lost in
_all_ digital scans from film.). Thus your inkjets
also should not be able to "look better" detail
wise than an actual 8x10 photochemical enlargement.

In article ,
Frank Pittel wrote:

I've been told that I do a good job printing. I don't know how printing skill
is going to increase the amount of detail in a print though. With an enlarger
you can't create detail.

No but it sure can throw it away using bad glass
and poor alignment, bad focus etc.

That's called marketing. Everyone including Kodak streches the
truth about their products to the point of lying.

I don't know about that. I think not everyone takes the time to
call Kodak tech support and ask questions regarding materials.
My experience in general with Kodak is a good one.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article ,
Frank Pittel wrote:

I've been told that I do a good job printing. I don't know how printing skill
is going to increase the amount of detail in a print though. With an enlarger
you can't create detail.

No but it sure can throw it away using bad glass
and poor alignment, bad focus etc.

That's called marketing. Everyone including Kodak streches the
truth about their products to the point of lying.

I don't know about that. I think not everyone takes the time to
call Kodak tech support and ask questions regarding materials.
My experience in general with Kodak is a good one.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In rec.photo.darkroom Gregory Blank wrote:
: In article ,
: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: A 16x20 print of a 35mm frame is going to look like crap and I'll
: bet a 16x20 print from my digial p&s will look just as bad. Also if you
: think that a print from a modern inkjet printer on "photo" grade paper is
: smeared you might want to get you eyes checked out. (no offense intended)
:
: Actually its a fact and Tom is correct, its one of the benefits
: for me in doing portraiture and retouching. It in part is a result
: of scan depth, sharpening and just the nature of digital output in my
: experience,.....I have done comparisons so I know what tom is saying
: some people just don't look that close to imagery.

I may not be saying this right. I don't believe that a digital print will give results
as good as what's possible with traditional printing is capable of. I do think that
with modern printers, inks and papers the results that are possible are better then
what Tom is representing (or seems to be representing) them to be.


: I've looked at the prints from a number of inkjet printers made by Epson
: and Canon under a 20x lupe and the "dots" are clearly visible as dots and
: there is no "smearing".

: Part depends on the paper, the sharpening used etc etc etc.

The papers have differed but they've been "photo" grade paper. I agree that the
results from "copier" paper would leave a lot to be desired. :-)

: If you haven't seen the output from a modern higher
: end inkjet like the Epson 2200 on "photo" paper you may want to take a look.
: You may be pleasantly surprised.

: What I want is for the LF 7600 to catch up with the current crop before
: I spend,... I figure it will happen about the time I break down and buy
: the 7600.


I keep hearing rumors that Epson will be releasing a new generation of printers
some time in early '05. The rumor is that the new printers will be larger versions
of their 800 series printer.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

In rec.photo.darkroom Gregory Blank wrote:
: In article ,
: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: A 16x20 print of a 35mm frame is going to look like crap and I'll
: bet a 16x20 print from my digial p&s will look just as bad. Also if you
: think that a print from a modern inkjet printer on "photo" grade paper is
: smeared you might want to get you eyes checked out. (no offense intended)
:
: Actually its a fact and Tom is correct, its one of the benefits
: for me in doing portraiture and retouching. It in part is a result
: of scan depth, sharpening and just the nature of digital output in my
: experience,.....I have done comparisons so I know what tom is saying
: some people just don't look that close to imagery.

I may not be saying this right. I don't believe that a digital print will give results
as good as what's possible with traditional printing is capable of. I do think that
with modern printers, inks and papers the results that are possible are better then
what Tom is representing (or seems to be representing) them to be.


: I've looked at the prints from a number of inkjet printers made by Epson
: and Canon under a 20x lupe and the "dots" are clearly visible as dots and
: there is no "smearing".

: Part depends on the paper, the sharpening used etc etc etc.

The papers have differed but they've been "photo" grade paper. I agree that the
results from "copier" paper would leave a lot to be desired. :-)

: If you haven't seen the output from a modern higher
: end inkjet like the Epson 2200 on "photo" paper you may want to take a look.
: You may be pleasantly surprised.

: What I want is for the LF 7600 to catch up with the current crop before
: I spend,... I figure it will happen about the time I break down and buy
: the 7600.


I keep hearing rumors that Epson will be releasing a new generation of printers
some time in early '05. The rumor is that the new printers will be larger versions
of their 800 series printer.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:


: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:
:
: : Frank Pittel wrote:
: :
: : I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of grief here but last weekend I got an
: : Epson 2200 and made a print from an image I took with my long obsolete 4mp
: : digital P&S. All I can say is that the 8x10 prints
:
: : No grief, just not a true comparison. Inkjets are
: : sprayed ink which gives the impression of "continuous
: : tone" and detail, but in reality it's a bunch of dots
: : smeared across the paper at 300 dpi that lack true
: : detail. You also need to compare the _same_ subject
: : under the same output conditions for an honest side
: : by side qualitative comparison.
:
: A color print is made from dye clouds and isn't continuous either. The side by side
: comparison between my digital P&S and 35mm is far more work then I have any desire to do
: so I won't.

: Wrong. It's a silver grain pattern that is replaced
: by dyes which mirrors the silver grains. Print grain
: is so fine as to be virtually "continuous" and
: undetectable. It's silver halide based, same as B&W
: paper.

??? The silver is removed and what's left is the dye cloud. Has the process changed?

: Inkjets are dots of ink nowhere near as fine. They
: are not continuous but in fact spread on the paper.
: It looks continuous, but isn't.

:
: : I made from it compare
: : very well with 8x10 prints I made from 35mm negatives and hours in a darkroom
: : with an enlarger!!
:
: : True, real world comparison:
:
: : Try a 16x20 print (_assuming_ you have a high quality
: : negative with fine grain and good detail), but this
: : time take it to a pro lab and get high end Lightjet
: : prints (photochemical output.) You don't need a lot
: : of pixel resolution to make a 8x10 smeared inkjet look
: : halfway "good" to the eye, but real photographic output
: : is different.
:
: A 16x20 print of a 35mm frame is going to look like crap

: O.K. Frank. Maybe your's do look like crap. I've been
: doing it for 25+ years and mine look fantasic.

If you say so.

: and I'll
: bet a 16x20 print from my digial p&s will look just as bad. Also if you
: think that a print from a modern inkjet printer on "photo" grade paper is
: smeared you might want to get you eyes checked out.

: Ink is absorbed by the paper. It inherently
: spreads (smears.) Better paper and printers
: help, but not prevent 100%

: (no offense intended)
: I've looked at the prints from a number of inkjet printers made by Epson
: and Canon under a 20x lupe and the "dots" are clearly visible as dots and
: there is no "smearing".

: it spreads.

That's different then smearing.

: If you haven't seen the output from a modern higher
: end inkjet like the Epson 2200 on "photo" paper you may want to take a look.
: You may be pleasantly surprised.

: Based on the consumer-type equipment you're buying,
: like your scanner, I doubt it's high end. High end
: output is what I'd typically get at my service bureau,
: where they spend tens of thousands of dollars (sometimes
: hundreds of thousands...) on "high end" equipment, not
: hundreds of dollars for printers and scanners at Office
: Max.

It's higher end consumer.

: : Photograph a subject with very fine detail (a product
: : type shot of a herringbone patterned sport coat.) Then
: : have your film scanned with a high end film scanner
: : like the Imacon (which is what my pro lab uses; for
: : most purposes it's almost as good as a more expensive
: : drum scan but far cheaper.) Again, assuming a high
: : resolving 35mm film, scan at 300 pixels per inch and
: : output to a 16x20. Then have them output the 4MP file
: : to the same 16x20. Or if you want, borrow a typical
: : prosumer 6 MP camera. Get a decent loupe and compare,
: : though I doubt you'll need the loupe.
:
: Again that's a lot more work then I ever plan on doing.

: Not the point. The point is your subjective comparisons
: are not professionally qualitative.

I'm not following you. I don't need to do a side by side comparison
to see that a print from my 4mp digital P&S looks good.

: I also know
: that at 16x20 both images are going to look like crap.

: sigh.. You're so ignorant about everything frank.
: Sorry to say but what's crap is your understanding of
: professional photography and the quality professionals
: I know are in fact able to obtain from 35mm enlargements.
: High quality enough to sell as artwork to major corporations
: across the country and at larger sizes than 16x20.

I've seen those prints and to my eyes they look like crap. It all depends
on a persons standards.

: But you must have more extensive "professional"
: experience than they?

A professional photographer isn't better or more capable by default.
In many cases they will generate work of lower quality. When printing
or for that matter while Out in the field composing the image they are
under time pressueres that I am not under. I am not under those pressures
to deliver product and can spend days getting the print to look they I want it to
without having to worry about what others may think. The again as a white collar
"professional" I'm not as impressed by the buzz words you like to use.

: : BTW, for typical consumer digital cameras (the p&s
: : most people buy) 4MP isn't really "obsolete." Still
: : very common. Most don't spend $7,000 on a prosumer
: : digital camera with 10-11 MP. The Sinar digital cameras
: : I've used provide about 25MP, about equivalent to 35mm
: : film, and having shot Kodachrome for years and seen
: : 30x40 prints from such, I'm just not impressed with less.
:
: The camrea I got a number of years ago is no longer being made. It
: was discontinued when the new latest and greatest camera was released.
: Fortunatly it still works and does what I got it to do so I've never found
: a reason to get a new one.
:
: : Now, if you want a real world LF test do the same but
: : enlarge to 50, 60, or even 120 inches.
:
: Even more work then making a 16x20 from 35mm.

: Yes. Good professional quality photography
: takes a lot of knowledge, time, and work.

It also requires the proper materials. a 16x20 print from a 35mm negative is going to
look like crap irregardelss of how much time and work is put into it. Of course a person
with the proper amount of knowledge will know his and not waste time trying to do what can't
be done.

: : I also just got home a little while ago with an Epson 4870
: : scanner. Tomorrow I start scanning the hundreds of 4x5 negatives I have.
: :
: : Tom will be happy to read that I still intend to do the image capture with
: : my 4x5 and will keep the negatives for archival purposes. :-) :-) :-)
:
: : A smart choice. I'm not familiar with the Epson
: : film scanners, though. So I couldn't say if that's
: : a good choice or not.
:
: It's a good scanner.

: Perhaps a decent consumer scanner. Professionally
: it's a cheap flatbed desktop scanner. A "good"
: professional film scanner costs way more than $600.
: Tell me, Frank, have you done a signal to noise test
: to determine the actual Dmax (optical density?)

Nobody here has claimed that it's anything but a consumer grade scanner.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:


: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:
:
: : Frank Pittel wrote:
: :
: : I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of grief here but last weekend I got an
: : Epson 2200 and made a print from an image I took with my long obsolete 4mp
: : digital P&S. All I can say is that the 8x10 prints
:
: : No grief, just not a true comparison. Inkjets are
: : sprayed ink which gives the impression of "continuous
: : tone" and detail, but in reality it's a bunch of dots
: : smeared across the paper at 300 dpi that lack true
: : detail. You also need to compare the _same_ subject
: : under the same output conditions for an honest side
: : by side qualitative comparison.
:
: A color print is made from dye clouds and isn't continuous either. The side by side
: comparison between my digital P&S and 35mm is far more work then I have any desire to do
: so I won't.

: Wrong. It's a silver grain pattern that is replaced
: by dyes which mirrors the silver grains. Print grain
: is so fine as to be virtually "continuous" and
: undetectable. It's silver halide based, same as B&W
: paper.

??? The silver is removed and what's left is the dye cloud. Has the process changed?

: Inkjets are dots of ink nowhere near as fine. They
: are not continuous but in fact spread on the paper.
: It looks continuous, but isn't.

:
: : I made from it compare
: : very well with 8x10 prints I made from 35mm negatives and hours in a darkroom
: : with an enlarger!!
:
: : True, real world comparison:
:
: : Try a 16x20 print (_assuming_ you have a high quality
: : negative with fine grain and good detail), but this
: : time take it to a pro lab and get high end Lightjet
: : prints (photochemical output.) You don't need a lot
: : of pixel resolution to make a 8x10 smeared inkjet look
: : halfway "good" to the eye, but real photographic output
: : is different.
:
: A 16x20 print of a 35mm frame is going to look like crap

: O.K. Frank. Maybe your's do look like crap. I've been
: doing it for 25+ years and mine look fantasic.

If you say so.

: and I'll
: bet a 16x20 print from my digial p&s will look just as bad. Also if you
: think that a print from a modern inkjet printer on "photo" grade paper is
: smeared you might want to get you eyes checked out.

: Ink is absorbed by the paper. It inherently
: spreads (smears.) Better paper and printers
: help, but not prevent 100%

: (no offense intended)
: I've looked at the prints from a number of inkjet printers made by Epson
: and Canon under a 20x lupe and the "dots" are clearly visible as dots and
: there is no "smearing".

: it spreads.

That's different then smearing.

: If you haven't seen the output from a modern higher
: end inkjet like the Epson 2200 on "photo" paper you may want to take a look.
: You may be pleasantly surprised.

: Based on the consumer-type equipment you're buying,
: like your scanner, I doubt it's high end. High end
: output is what I'd typically get at my service bureau,
: where they spend tens of thousands of dollars (sometimes
: hundreds of thousands...) on "high end" equipment, not
: hundreds of dollars for printers and scanners at Office
: Max.

It's higher end consumer.

: : Photograph a subject with very fine detail (a product
: : type shot of a herringbone patterned sport coat.) Then
: : have your film scanned with a high end film scanner
: : like the Imacon (which is what my pro lab uses; for
: : most purposes it's almost as good as a more expensive
: : drum scan but far cheaper.) Again, assuming a high
: : resolving 35mm film, scan at 300 pixels per inch and
: : output to a 16x20. Then have them output the 4MP file
: : to the same 16x20. Or if you want, borrow a typical
: : prosumer 6 MP camera. Get a decent loupe and compare,
: : though I doubt you'll need the loupe.
:
: Again that's a lot more work then I ever plan on doing.

: Not the point. The point is your subjective comparisons
: are not professionally qualitative.

I'm not following you. I don't need to do a side by side comparison
to see that a print from my 4mp digital P&S looks good.

: I also know
: that at 16x20 both images are going to look like crap.

: sigh.. You're so ignorant about everything frank.
: Sorry to say but what's crap is your understanding of
: professional photography and the quality professionals
: I know are in fact able to obtain from 35mm enlargements.
: High quality enough to sell as artwork to major corporations
: across the country and at larger sizes than 16x20.

I've seen those prints and to my eyes they look like crap. It all depends
on a persons standards.

: But you must have more extensive "professional"
: experience than they?

A professional photographer isn't better or more capable by default.
In many cases they will generate work of lower quality. When printing
or for that matter while Out in the field composing the image they are
under time pressueres that I am not under. I am not under those pressures
to deliver product and can spend days getting the print to look they I want it to
without having to worry about what others may think. The again as a white collar
"professional" I'm not as impressed by the buzz words you like to use.

: : BTW, for typical consumer digital cameras (the p&s
: : most people buy) 4MP isn't really "obsolete." Still
: : very common. Most don't spend $7,000 on a prosumer
: : digital camera with 10-11 MP. The Sinar digital cameras
: : I've used provide about 25MP, about equivalent to 35mm
: : film, and having shot Kodachrome for years and seen
: : 30x40 prints from such, I'm just not impressed with less.
:
: The camrea I got a number of years ago is no longer being made. It
: was discontinued when the new latest and greatest camera was released.
: Fortunatly it still works and does what I got it to do so I've never found
: a reason to get a new one.
:
: : Now, if you want a real world LF test do the same but
: : enlarge to 50, 60, or even 120 inches.
:
: Even more work then making a 16x20 from 35mm.

: Yes. Good professional quality photography
: takes a lot of knowledge, time, and work.

It also requires the proper materials. a 16x20 print from a 35mm negative is going to
look like crap irregardelss of how much time and work is put into it. Of course a person
with the proper amount of knowledge will know his and not waste time trying to do what can't
be done.

: : I also just got home a little while ago with an Epson 4870
: : scanner. Tomorrow I start scanning the hundreds of 4x5 negatives I have.
: :
: : Tom will be happy to read that I still intend to do the image capture with
: : my 4x5 and will keep the negatives for archival purposes. :-) :-) :-)
:
: : A smart choice. I'm not familiar with the Epson
: : film scanners, though. So I couldn't say if that's
: : a good choice or not.
:
: It's a good scanner.

: Perhaps a decent consumer scanner. Professionally
: it's a cheap flatbed desktop scanner. A "good"
: professional film scanner costs way more than $600.
: Tell me, Frank, have you done a signal to noise test
: to determine the actual Dmax (optical density?)

Nobody here has claimed that it's anything but a consumer grade scanner.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------