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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.