scanner question (yet again)

[cobalt]

Hi.
I am interested in printing no larger than 16x20. Currently using a 4990 Epson, and wondering if it's worth upgrading, given the above. I had a website that listed used scanners, can't remember the address.

Anybody now where to get a good used flatbed for about 3 grand or so? Thinking about selling my MF scanner to finance. Oh, and I use a Mac. Just thinking...

[Daniel_Buck]

I assume you are scanning 4x5? Most things smaller than about 16x20, the 4990 should handle nicely, unless you are doing cropping on the negative. I regularly print 8x10 and 11x14 from 4990 4x5 scans with no problems at all, and 16x20 on occasion. I've found that 16x20 is about the point where I would rather switch over to a drum scan (or higher quality flatbed, I suppose) if possible. I had a few negatives drum scanned, for print comparison. Some subjects I would be fine printing 16x20 from a 4990 4x5 scan (like portraits) but landscapes with fine details in grass areas or other small details, a drum scan would start to shine at around 16x20+. At least, from what I've seen.

[Ken Lee]

If you don't crop a 4x5 image, this means you need around 4X enlargement to make a 16x20 print. A little more than 4, since the actual negative size is a bit smaller.

If you print on an Epson printer, you want to send 360 dpi to printer.

The Epson 4990 - which I use and like - delivers around 2100 samples per inch. (If you scan at 3200 spi, you just get a larger file).

2100 divided by 360 equals 5.83 - This suggests that whatever you scan, you can enlarge it by 5.8 X, and get an excellent result.

If you plan to reach towards the resolution limit of the scanner, do yourself a favor and get a film holder from BetterScanning (http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/vb_advantage.html).

[cobalt]

Thanks. Actually, I an concerned more with 5x7 and 8x10. I am OK with 11x14, but was wondering if there was a difference w/ better scanners. Guess you answered it.

[Walter Calahan]

Why not simply test you're 4990 scan by making a 16x20 print? If you like it, you've saved yourself 2K.

[Brian Ellis]

I don't think you'll see enough of a difference with prints 16x20 or smaller to make spending $3000 worthwhile. While attending a workshop at Palm Beach Photographic Workshops some years back I made some scans using their high-end Imacon (sorry, don't remember the model number). I then made some b&w prints from those scans, not quite 16x20 but about 13x17. I was very hard-pressed to see any difference between the Imacon prints and those made from the scanner I used at the time, which was one of the then-current Epson desk tops. More recently I've made many prints in the 13x17 range from 4x5 and 8x10 negatives with my 4990 and been happy with the results.

[cobalt]

Thanksm Brian. It is as I suspected. I can't find much fault with the Epson 4990 at 16x20. I just read so much about drum scans and high end flatbeds and such... it makes one wonder.

[ignatiusjk]

I have a Epson V700 anad scan 4x5 negs and make 16x20's with no problem. A V700 will cost you about $500. Three grand seems really high for a scanner.

[D. Bryant]

I don't think you'll see enough of a difference with prints 16x20 or smaller to make spending $3000 worthwhile. While attending a workshop at Palm Beach Photographic Workshops some years back I made some scans using their high-end Imacon (sorry, don't remember the model number). I then made some b&w prints from those scans, not quite 16x20 but about 13x17. I was very hard-pressed to see any difference between the Imacon prints and those made from the scanner I used at the time, which was one of the then-current Epson desk tops. More recently I've made many prints in the 13x17 range from 4x5 and 8x10 negatives with my 4990 and been happy with the results.

Brian,

For me I can see a hell of a lot of differece between 4x5 neg. drum scaned and one done on a 4990 when printed. No comparison really. As for the Imacon I would think it would out perform a flat bed scanner such as an Epson 4990.

Don Bryant

[Ken Lee]

I should point out that the Epson will work fine for "normal" negatives - especially b&w - which don't need much "rescue".

In addition to providing higher resolution, higher-end scanners will do better at digging data out of the extremes of the brightness scale, and with lower noise. They will also do better with rendering color.

Whether the increase in price is commensurate with increase in quality, at a given degree of enlargement, is another matter, which only you can decide.

[Bruce Watson]

I can't find much fault with the Epson 4990 at 16x20. I just read so much about drum scans and high end flatbeds and such... it makes one wonder.

It's a matter of magnification, or enlargement level. When you enlarge, either in the darkroom or with a scanner, you enlarge everything. You enlarge sharp detail as well as out of focus areas. You enlarge dust. You enlarge scanning artifacts. You enlarge everything.

Your consumer flatbed should produce prints at 4x enlargement that most people will find perfectly acceptable. You can improve on its out-of-the-box performance by finding and fixing any scanner focus problems, and with fluid mounting.

What you get with high end scanners is better sharpness, more optical resolution (not simply more pixels, but more pixels that can resolve detail from the film), better color rendition, and better smoothness and tonality.

As you go up in enlargement size, these differences become ever more visible in the final prints. There are definite improvements as you move from a consumer flatbed to a pro flatbed to a drum scanner. The improvements are real. But you are the only one who can decide if the improvements are of sufficient value to you that you are willing to pay the costs.

And there is no need to wonder -- you can find out easily enough. Just get the same film scanned on a consumer flatbed, a professional flatbed, and a drum scanner. Make prints. Compare prints. Comparing scan files on a computer monitor won't tell you enough -- really, compare prints. Make your choice. Why wonder when you can know?

[3312easy]

Why not simply test you're 4990 scan by making a 16x20 print? If you like it, you've saved yourself 2K.

think so