I own an Epson 3200 scanner , and i am happy with the results when compared to the previous scanner i had , an epson perfection 1640su . My question is this : if i were to scan 6 x 7 cm or 4 x 4 inch b/w negatives, (some of them sepia toned in PS), would i get a quality decent enough to submit the scanned images for publication, with the tearget size being 8 x 10 or possibly bigger? Thank you.
I use a 4870 and scan my own work sometimes for stock sales for magazine reproduction when I don't want to let go of an original transparency or print for whatever reason. I have had 0 complaints to date.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
I have an Epson 3200, as well, Domenico, and I'm pleased with it for 4x5. For medium format and 35mm, however, I use a Poaroid Sprintscan 120 (the product is now owned and sold by Mirotek under a different name). The difference in image quality is quite noticeable with the smaller films - both in terms of resolution/sharpness and D-Max. Whether a dedicated film scanner is worth the additional investment for you, however, is a question only you can answer.
Although I've never used an Epson 3200 scanner, I have friends who use theirs regularly to scan 4x5 B/W and color negs/trannies and print them.
I don't think the results would compare to the results from an Imacon if you're printing, say, 40"x50", but for small prints (and especially for B&W, where maximum density is less of an issue) I suspect you'd be hard pressed to see the difference.
If you use the Epson 3200 carefully, you can make professional, publication quality scans from medium and large format film. I know that sounds like an advertisement, but the simple fact is that I do it regularly, for books, magazines, and all sorts of ads printed up to 13 x 19 inches (offset) and larger (7600 and 9600 inkjets.)
The Imacon scanner that I use makes it EASIER to get a good scan from a difficult negative or chrome, because it can pull more detail from the shadow and highlights. And it appears sharper at the same "raw" resolution, before you apply Unsharp Masking to your Epson scans. But for many cases, the Epson will do at least as well as the Imacon, at least at realistic repro sizes (full pages, etc.)
Actually, scanning for commercial offset printing is more forgiving than scanning for inkjet printing; scanning for Lightjets and film output is the most demanding.
Well, I can easily see the differences in A3 prints (even A4) between an Imacon and an Epson 4870 - do the same image with both and you'll see the differencei in detail and three dimensionality...from 6 by 12cm film and 4 by 5 too. The epson just doesn't look properly crisp and detailed....it kind of has the look of being under cheap glass (I've tested two and own one).
For magazine reproduction the differences are no great drama, but for fine prints ... well, I guess it comes to individual preference as to what is good enough, but the differences are easily visible, even to non-photographers (although maybe not in a casual glance at only A3).
You have to sharpen the Epson scans more than the Imacons, which is probably a good indication of why the Epson is a few hundred dollars and the Imacon is many thousands. But, if you have film that isn't burnt out or plugged up; overscan and resample down; set up a full tonal range; and apply unsharp masking correctly, you can do amazing well with the lowly Epson, and well enough to print photos in offset litho that would make Ansel proud. Maybe you find a bit more midtone seperation, given the same parameters, with the Imacon, but you'd still be on subjective ground.
I'd also argue that people who can afford an Imacon probably have better training and experience, so they will always outscan the average prosumer Epson user. But the most important reasons I'd get an Imacon is for better productivity and the ease of handlling larger scans and more difficult originals - the slightly superior potential quality would be hard to justify.
i earn my living as a graphic designer producing illustrated books, magazines, reports etc... over the last few years everybody has started submiting "final artwork" on disc, this is a problem if the file submited has been scanned by the telephone operator on her 6 year old hp scanner.
what i am saying is that if you know only a little about what you are doing you'll probably do a better job than about 99% of the people out there.
2 good rules: check with the recipient first what their requirements are, you'll most likely be better off doing any cmyk conversions yourself to avoid any suprises. and send a proof.
adriantyler.net
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks