Changing from v700 to IQSmart2 for 8x10?

[Pere Casals]

Just added him to my ignore list. It's easy and it works. Highly recommend doing it.

Jim, this is not necessary, gentlemen can discuss with arguments, and arguments can be enlightened with logics, mathematics and links to science facts, today we can access by the net to a lot of knowledge, it's just taking some time to proof things.

Anyway sticking to the "to my eyes image is better", this is a poor argument. And get angry because it is not convincing, this is of low maturity and low ethics.

Regards.

[Pere Casals]

The stepper is a limitation (or was perhaps maybe the software has been reworked) as the length of the scan varied so much between passes that the software could not align the passes correctly in multipass and gave out of register results. And don't tell me about sample variation. I've tried it on 19 machines (where I teach that has 18 plus mine). This has been discussed much in the past. Pull your machine apart and look at the stepper and then compare it to an IQ or such and tell me that is a precision piece of machinery.

Also, I'd like to add that multipass has a problem, film heating may make it move, as illumination heats it the film expands a lot beyond pixel precission. For this reason blending images in PS with auto-align and stitching it can be a better choice.

Multipass may work worse with high densite negatives because they take more heat that well transparent ones that do retain less heat. Also different densities in the film leads to irregular heating. I don't know if better holders and wet mount would help.

[koraks]

Anyway sticking to the "to my eyes image is better", this is a poor argument.

When it comes to photography, judging by eye is in my opinion an excellent criterion, especially if you combine it with some knowledge of what you are seeing so you can interpret it.
When I'm looking at a photograph, I'm not admiring mathematics or physics. I'm seeing a picture. I have the impression throughout this thread that you're missing this crucial aspect of photography.

[Pere Casals]

When it comes to photography, judging by eye is in my opinion an excellent criterion, especially if you combine it with some knowledge of what you are seeing so you can interpret it.
When I'm looking at a photograph, I'm not admiring mathematics or physics. I'm seeing a picture. I have the impression throughout this thread that you're missing this crucial aspect of photography.

Hello Koraks,

I completely agree with you in the sense that at the end one have to judge by his eye what is good for him, and also from technical information to better know.


But... look, when we technically discuss Sironar-N vs Sironar-S saying "to my eyes image is better" this is a poor argument in front of what the MTF charts say in Lppmm, specially if you want to know at what enlargement the better negative sharpness will be noticed (by 100 sight scored people...).


There are much people there that can read this, beyond OP, and they perhaps would like to know if spending $6000 instead $500 will be noticed in a 1m BW print from an LF negative.


Then it's when it comes the controversy, even insulting language. I don't know why it has to be like this...


My proposition, beyond the also good opinions, is to go to scientific facts to state (or not) that a digital print from that Creo cannot be distingushed, even by his author, from a print made from a V750 in a given situation, for example Tri-X 4x5 2400dpi scan 1m print, and 8x10, 1200dpi scan 2m print.


Also I state that tonality can be the same, if we calibrate the V750 IT8 with EZMonaco (bundled Silverfast version don't do it) as we calibrate IT8 the IQSmart2. Or in any case both images can be sustracted in PS layers to find corresponding curve settings to make both match.

Then the "to my eye" becomes a poor argument, because we can scan USAF 1951 targets at 1200 dpi and see the difference.

If anybody want to discuss it technically, I'm well open to do it in a polite and constructive way. Everybody can be mistaken and everybody can learn from others. Also I'm open to discuss all my previous statements, they can be quoted. And I'd like to discuss about it without presonal "superiorities", searching truth from proactive technical dialog.

Best Regards.

[Pali K]

This is what Eversmart Pro can do in 10 minutes. Mind you, this is not even calibrated and the colors are pretty much accurate. Precision is on a different level - the scanner pretty much needs no calibration and I think that in itself speaks to it's ability and quality.

Quick Specs:
Eversmart Pro Scan
2000 DPI - 8 BIT Tiff - No Sharpness - Auto End Points

1st image has a slight adjustments in Photoshop (leveled horizon, quick dust spot removal, and levels for black point) to match the slide. The bottom two crops are straight from the scanner scans prior to these adjustments.







I did try to scan this on the Epson too and everything was just different and not for the better. The overall color tones were not only muted but also "mushed" with each other where orange became more red because of surrounding reds and etc. I also found that the Epson files don't edit the same way. Levels and other adjustments seem to behave more organically on the ES Scan vs. the Epson scan. I know most of this is subjective but it's the only way for me to describe it. Below is a comparison scan with the Epson AFTER I spent 15 minutes trying to make the Epson match the ES. The ES scan in this image is straight from the scanner.



I am sure the Epson file can be edited better but my main point here is that things just work with the ES and they look spectacular without any fuss. With color scanning workflow, it will be easier to post-process slides from Epson scan because you have a positive visual reference. In fairness to Epson, it seems to do much better with color for color negative scans vs Velvia and Provia slides. However, there is still a noticeable difference between the two and ES gets things to my final stage quicker.

DISCLAIMER: I was reluctant to post this information because of the potential deviation again but finally decided to post it. My hope is that this will provide additional reference information for those who read this thread and are interested in a basic comparison between the Epson and the higher-end flatbeds. I do not claim to be an expert in scanning for either scanner.

Regards,

Pali

[Peter De Smidt]

Thank you for posting, Pali.

[Jim Andrada]

Thanks Pali. Good information as always.

I certainly noticed the vastly better rendition in the sky as well as the openness of the shadows.

[Ari]

Thanks, Pali; I also like to highlight the ease of use of the ES Pro. It makes a huge difference for me in quality of scans and it helps keep the frustration level to a minimum.

[ryanmills]

Thanks Pali! Don't worry, I like most wont be bothering to respond to the other guy who will come to rant nonsense again. What you described is what I see in my Epson vs a friends IQSmart2, it just lacks the fine detail. I just wish it did not cost $6500 to get that fine detail


I also spent some time testing Silverfast 8 AI again over the weekend. Its exactly what I said before, multiple exposure is hype. At least on an epson v700. Not only is there zero difference when scaning as a full range digital transparency between ME and single pass mode. Its also forcing points. My raw Epson scans have a noticeable increase in shadow depth because of silver fast auto setting white and black points where the epson uses the true range. Further testing using the silverfast auto exposure and levels also resulted in an identical image that again had less range.

[Pali K]

You are welcome Peter, Jim, Ari and Ryan!