If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Medium format slides and the Epson V750
I just got an Epson V750 and it's a great thing to finally be able to
bring my slides and negatives into the digital world. I was able to play with the scanner last night for a little bit. The online reviews and opinions about setting the negative and slide carriers to a height of 3.5mm was really on the money. It made a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE when it came to sharpness. That said, I did the usual unsharpening of an image once I scanned it in. I adjusted the contrast and such and everything looked great. When it was time to print I reduced my print down to 600dpi (my dye-sub printer's resolution) and printed it. The print looked fantastic, but for some reason it was missing something. I looked at the print, then the slide and I noticed what was missing was the usual "punch" that I was used to seeing with medium format prints. The color and contrast was right on target. The brightness and dynamic range was fine. I guess it was the sharpness and tonality that wasn't quite there. Granted the print looked sharp, but compared to the slide it was lacking. I'm assuming it might be the flatbed limitations I'm looking at. However, all that got me thinking. I took all this trouble to shoot medium format, expecting a very, very sharp image with exceptional tonality yet here I am scanning and printing it on my computer only to get images that are equal to a digital picture that could have been taken with a 6mp P/S camera. I'm wondering if it's even worth shooting medium anymore if digital scanning and printing will just drop it down to mere "mortal" levels? I know my optical printing will yield an exceptional photo, but that's cumbersome at times when my darkroom isn't set up. What do you guys think? Nathan |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Medium format slides and the Epson V750
On 16 Aug 2006 07:46:06 -0700, "nathantw"
wrote: was right on target. The brightness and dynamic range was fine. I guess it was the sharpness and tonality that wasn't quite there. Granted the print looked sharp, but compared to the slide it was lacking. I'm assuming it might be the flatbed limitations I'm looking at. No print is ever going to compare to a transparency. Ever. Transparencies on a light table are viewed by transmitted light. Prints are viewed from reflected light. What's captured on the slide, what your eye sees, what the scanner captures, and what the printer produces are all different color spaces. It's impossible for one to look exactly like the other. Transparencies are the pure image - right from the film to your eye. Prints are influenced by the enlarging method (whether optical or scanned), printing method (printer vs. photochemical, halftoning vs. continuous tone, dye ink vs. pigment ink), and the paper (glossy, matte, paper color and reflectivity). A slide through a loupe fills the ocular viewfield, yet is a relatively low magnification factor. A print is several times that, at least. The experiences are totally different. And, honestly, at 8x10 sizes, you're not going to see a lot of difference between a good digital capture and a scanned piece of film. What medium format gives you is a tremendous freedom to crop and still produce excellent enlargements, and to produce sharp enlargements well beyond where 35mm and standard digital capture start to fall apart. -- Central Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://www.cmpg.org Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://sgh.rnovak.net |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Medium format slides and the Epson V750
Thanks for the great reply. Of course it all makes sense. I think what
I'm used to seeing is something that just tosses me back and say "wow, that's definitely medium format." Instead the reaction I got was "huh, it looks like another picture." I might be expecting too much, but I just have this feeling that the Nikon 9000ED would give me a sharper image. The V750 gave a lot of sharpness and detail, even with 35mm, but as with a lot of things I'm not sure how it compares with the 9000ED. It's the ol' "the grass is always greener" syndrome. Rob Novak wrote: On 16 Aug 2006 07:46:06 -0700, "nathantw" wrote: was right on target. The brightness and dynamic range was fine. I guess it was the sharpness and tonality that wasn't quite there. Granted the print looked sharp, but compared to the slide it was lacking. I'm assuming it might be the flatbed limitations I'm looking at. No print is ever going to compare to a transparency. Ever. Transparencies on a light table are viewed by transmitted light. Prints are viewed from reflected light. What's captured on the slide, what your eye sees, what the scanner captures, and what the printer produces are all different color spaces. It's impossible for one to look exactly like the other. Transparencies are the pure image - right from the film to your eye. Prints are influenced by the enlarging method (whether optical or scanned), printing method (printer vs. photochemical, halftoning vs. continuous tone, dye ink vs. pigment ink), and the paper (glossy, matte, paper color and reflectivity). A slide through a loupe fills the ocular viewfield, yet is a relatively low magnification factor. A print is several times that, at least. The experiences are totally different. And, honestly, at 8x10 sizes, you're not going to see a lot of difference between a good digital capture and a scanned piece of film. What medium format gives you is a tremendous freedom to crop and still produce excellent enlargements, and to produce sharp enlargements well beyond where 35mm and standard digital capture start to fall apart. -- Central Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://www.cmpg.org Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://sgh.rnovak.net |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Medium format slides and the Epson V750
"nathantw" wrote in message ps.com... SNIP I might be expecting too much, but I just have this feeling that the Nikon 9000ED would give me a sharper image. The V750 gave a lot of sharpness and detail, even with 35mm, but as with a lot of things I'm not sure how it compares with the 9000ED. It's the ol' "the grass is always greener" syndrome. You can compare your output with some other scanners at: http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ -- Bart |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Medium format slides and the Epson V750
In article .com,
"nathantw" wrote: I just got an Epson V750 and it's a great thing to finally be able to bring my slides and negatives into the digital world. I was able to play with the scanner last night for a little bit. The online reviews and opinions about setting the negative and slide carriers to a height of 3.5mm was really on the money. It made a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE when it came to sharpness. That said, I did the usual unsharpening of an image once I scanned it in. I adjusted the contrast and such and everything looked great. When it was time to print I reduced my print down to 600dpi (my dye-sub printer's resolution) and printed it. The print looked fantastic, but for some reason it was missing something. I looked at the print, then the slide and I noticed what was missing was the usual "punch" that I was used to seeing with medium format prints. The color and contrast was right on target. The brightness and dynamic range was fine. I guess it was the sharpness and tonality that wasn't quite there. Granted the print looked sharp, but compared to the slide it was lacking. I'm assuming it might be the flatbed limitations I'm looking at. However, all that got me thinking. I took all this trouble to shoot medium format, expecting a very, very sharp image with exceptional tonality yet here I am scanning and printing it on my computer only to get images that are equal to a digital picture that could have been taken with a 6mp P/S camera. I'm wondering if it's even worth shooting medium anymore if digital scanning and printing will just drop it down to mere "mortal" levels? I know my optical printing will yield an exceptional photo, but that's cumbersome at times when my darkroom isn't set up. What do you guys think? Nathan Skill related issues aside- and format limitations aside: I think it could be your dye sub printer-maybe time to buy something new. I just output a 6x8 image grey scale on my new R1800 and it holds much of what was intended. That is: I was scanned a 4x5 on a much older 2450 Epson. I would be interested in this comparision if your up for it,....I'll scan and print a 6x6 then send to you the slide and you send a print back from your printer and the file on a Cd and original slide, back. -- Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Medium format slides and the Epson V750
I just printed a larger print of one negative I scanned and you know, I must
have been on drugs or something (more like lack of sleep). I wish I could post the full size file so you can see the details in the photo of the Alaskan glaciers. The print I made is as sharp as I could expect. The detail in the dark rock, the bright snow, and inbetween are nothing less than outstanding. I can see the individual tiny bits of ice as it falls off the cliff. I guess my original post was wrong in that the tonality and sharpness is definitely there. So, medium format and this scanner is great. I did scan a 35mm slide that I took at night and the scan came out really sharp. The completely black areas didn't have any digital noise which makes me happy. So overall this scanner gets a thumbs up. "Rob Novak" wrote in message ... On 16 Aug 2006 07:46:06 -0700, "nathantw" wrote: was right on target. The brightness and dynamic range was fine. I guess it was the sharpness and tonality that wasn't quite there. Granted the print looked sharp, but compared to the slide it was lacking. I'm assuming it might be the flatbed limitations I'm looking at. No print is ever going to compare to a transparency. Ever. Transparencies on a light table are viewed by transmitted light. Prints are viewed from reflected light. What's captured on the slide, what your eye sees, what the scanner captures, and what the printer produces are all different color spaces. It's impossible for one to look exactly like the other. Transparencies are the pure image - right from the film to your eye. Prints are influenced by the enlarging method (whether optical or scanned), printing method (printer vs. photochemical, halftoning vs. continuous tone, dye ink vs. pigment ink), and the paper (glossy, matte, paper color and reflectivity). A slide through a loupe fills the ocular viewfield, yet is a relatively low magnification factor. A print is several times that, at least. The experiences are totally different. And, honestly, at 8x10 sizes, you're not going to see a lot of difference between a good digital capture and a scanned piece of film. What medium format gives you is a tremendous freedom to crop and still produce excellent enlargements, and to produce sharp enlargements well beyond where 35mm and standard digital capture start to fall apart. -- Central Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://www.cmpg.org Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://sgh.rnovak.net |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Medium format slides and the Epson V750
See my most recent post in that I now agree that it's sharper. I agree that
my printer may be a bit long in the tooth, but it's still a dye-sub printer and is really sharp, though I wouldn't mind getting a newer printer that prints larger sizes. I think what my plan, though, is to just put the files onto a memory card and bring it to photo lab to get a Lightjet or even Costco and have them print them out. That way I can use my dye-sub for "proofing." I think it could be your dye sub printer-maybe time to buy something new. I just output a 6x8 image grey scale on my new R1800 and it holds much of what was intended. That is: I was scanned a 4x5 on a much older 2450 Epson. I would be interested in this comparision if your up for it,....I'll scan and print a 6x6 then send to you the slide and you send a print back from your printer and the file on a Cd and original slide, back. I might be up for your idea. Send me an email to the address listed on my posts and we'll make arrangements. Nathan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Medium format slides and the Epson V750
On 16 Aug 2006 07:46:06 -0700, "nathantw"
wrote: However, all that got me thinking. I took all this trouble to shoot medium format, expecting a very, very sharp image with exceptional tonality yet here I am scanning and printing it on my computer only to get images that are equal to a digital picture that could have been taken with a 6mp P/S camera. I'm wondering if it's even worth shooting medium anymore if digital scanning and printing will just drop it down to mere "mortal" levels? I know my optical printing will yield an exceptional photo, but that's cumbersome at times when my darkroom isn't set up. What do you guys think? With the Epson 750 on MF film, it's a hard choice. With a Nikon scanner on MF, film gets an edge. You should be able to beat a 6-8 Mpixel capture (from an APS- sized sensor or smaller) with MF film, even with the Epson 750. Whether the quality difference matters to you or is worth the effort -- only you can decide. There's no question a shiny new Nikon LS-9000 would impress you in terms of the extra detail you'd see. Whether it's worth the extra cost is another matter. It's not "4x" sharper but the Nikon scanner will be 30-50% sharper. The Epsons give a good bang for the buck, but the Nikons are pretty much as good as it gets for a CCD scanner. (Imacon can't really match it on MF, and Scitex is $15K new, or ~$5K used.) I've yet to see anyone measure MTF of the 700, 750 or even the Epson 4990. In 2004, in this scanner "bake-off" http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html the best Epson was the Epson 4870, and it came in with an MTF-50 of 15.4. The "winning" scanner's MTF-50 was 27.85. The best MF-capable scanner (a Nikon LS-8000) measured 26.92. There is a direct V700 to LS-8000 comparison he http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ about 2/3 of the way down the page. One thing the Epson lacks (that a real filmscanner has) is a true focus control. So Epsons are finicky about focus. Any time you're trying to get 4000 dpi resolution out of film, focus is critical. If you go with film scanning, you will be dealing with that... a lot. Regardless of which scanner. Film scanning is a lot of work, though it's probably no harder than properly using an enlarger. No bout adoubt it, digital capture saves a lot of work.. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Medium format slides and the Epson V750
I've yet to see anyone measure MTF of the 700, 750 or even
the Epson 4990. In 2004, in this scanner "bake-off" http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html the best Epson was the Epson 4870, and it came in with an MTF-50 of 15.4. The "winning" scanner's MTF-50 was 27.85. The best MF-capable scanner (a Nikon LS-8000) measured 26.92. Thank you for your great reply. I never saw that scan test before and it's really eye opening. Looking at the larger photo I printed I could see individual ice particles falling so I know my scan was relatively sharp. I just look at the slide and KNOW that it could be sharper though. I'm going to try wet mounting a different slide where a tripod was used to take the picture and see how sharp it is. Film scanning is a lot of work, though it's probably no harder than properly using an enlarger. No bout adoubt it, digital capture saves a lot of work.. It really is a lot of work to scan slides and make it look good. However, the results can be much better than even Ilfochrome with a contrast mask. What I think I got obsessed about before printing was enlarging the image so much that I saw individual ice rocks falling and how sharp they were. In the big scheme of things, though, those objects were so tiny that they were insignificant. I lost sight of the big picture, so to speak. I'll see what I can post so everyone will know what I'm talking about. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Medium format slides and the Epson V750
Greg "_" wrote: I think it could be your dye sub printer-maybe time to buy something new. I was looking over the glacier picture I printed to 4"x4" with my printer. There's one blue ice-rock that's falling in the photo that couldn't have been more than a couple pinheads in size. If you look closely enough you can see the bottom part of the rock was blue (the correct shade too) and the top was white. Now that's what I call sharp resolution. I remember printing stickers that were 1.25"x.75" and even though it was so small I could see every single detail that's normally in a larger print. A dye-sub printer doesn't need a LOT of dpi like ink-jet printers which is why they're mainly 300-600dpi. The pictures are continuous tone and not made up of ink dots therefore they don't need 5700dpi. So, my printer may be old, but it's still capable. Unfortunately it also displays band-lines and sometimes there's staining. For example, If a large area is a consistent color, such as the sky, then the banding and "staining" get really bad. Overall, though, 600dpi for a dye-sub is really awesome. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|