My $500 Polaroid Sprintscan 45i still blows any consumer flatbed out of the water! And it was a lot cheaper than the $7000 the original owner paid for it!
My $500 Polaroid Sprintscan 45i still blows any consumer flatbed out of the water! And it was a lot cheaper than the $7000 the original owner paid for it!
Correct me if I am wrong (I am not a digital guy), but its is my impression wet mounting hides dust and imperfection of the film along with increasing Dmax. I have adapted wet mounting technology to work with my 8x10 enlarger. It has been extremely beneficial for doing big 60" prints. The dust goes away. The colors are brighter and richer. And the deep shadows and extreme highlights have more detail (increased Dmax).
From all the reading I have done if you get half what Epson claims then your doing good. I would divide their specs by two and that would probably be very close to the truth.
John,
I'm glad you are so proud of yourself for owning the Polaroid. Its true that the Polaroids were good scanners, but there are not enough of them available to even scratch the surface of the demand that is out there for decent affordable scanners. So the rest of us must deal with what is available or coming down the road. These new releases and our testing of them is vitally important to our work.
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"
"Correct me if I am wrong (I am not a digital guy), but its is my impression wet mounting hides dust and imperfection of the film along with increasing Dmax. "
Those are definitely some of the claims made about it. I've been wet mounting black and white 4x5 film on a flatbed scanner for the last year, and can't say that I notice most of these benefits. It may hide dust on the emulsion side of the film ... but not the new dust that gets on the wet mount assembly. It probably hides scratches, although I haven't been working with scratched negs. I don't see the d-max or tonal improvements (but I also haven't looked for them in any scientific way).
The reasons I do it are film flatness, ability to find the point of best focus, and ability to do all this without fear of newton's rings. Pretty pedestrian, but all good enough reasons for me to go through the hassle.
I also upgraded to the 4990 just 10 days ago. Sigh. I guess in the near future I may own two scanners..... I would be very interested in a review, and whether it is a significant advance compared to the 4990 in scanning of 4x5.
Mike
Kirk wrote:
"John, I'm glad you are so proud of yourself for owning the Polaroid."
Watch out John - Kirk sounds jealous of your scanner!
; >)
I upgraded my 4870 to a Howtek a few weeks ago and am delighted. Be interseting to see if these numbers are real or regular Epson hype.
RichieV
Just getting to an honest 2400 would be a terrific step. Added to a non-Rube Goldberg wet mount system, and it might let us make a nice 5x print.
Ed Richards
http://www.epr-art.com
My $1800 Screen 1030ai drum scanner blows any consumer flatbed out of the water! And it was a lot cheaper than the $40,000 the original owner paid for it!
(Of course, it is no longer supported and parts/service will be prohibitively expensive, and it only communicates with Mac OS9, but as long as it keeps functioning life is good.)
:-)
This is excellent news. I was just about ready to break down and order a 4990 Pro or 1800f depending on what I could get the best deal on. Looks like I ought to wait just a little bit longer.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks