Scan quality from Epsons?

[Terence Patrick]

So I've been reading a few threads regarding people's opinions of the various Epson scanners, particularly the 4990 and V700/V750. From what I gather, most consider those scanners to be good enough for 3-4x enlargements from 4x5 film, or basically a decent 16x20" print.

Conversely, I'm able to make a great looking 40x50" print from a 6x7 neg scan through my Nikon 9000. Are the Epsons that much poorer in quality that big enlargements aren't able to be produced by them or are there bigger differences in expectations among photographers here?

I'm curious because I'm looking into getting the V700 for my 4x5 work and I'm looking at quality factors such as shadow/highlight detail, noise, color rendition, and default sharpness. 30" is the largest I plan on printing, although that wouldn't be too often, 11x14 would be the default size for most prints. In summary, are the people who have the V700/750 happy with their purchase?

[Walter Calahan]

Terence

I own a Nikon 8000 and an Epson V750.

I think people are being very conservative when they say the V750 is good for a 4x enlargement. Using the proper tools in PhotoShop CS2 I know you'll be able to match the 40x50" prints you're making from the Nikon 9000.

I'm happy.

[Jack Flesher]

I think it depends on how we each define "great looking" print. Some will see slight image degradation after the 4x point while others won't be bothered by it until the 10x point. And most will probably be satisfied somewhere in the middle, like around 6x

I personally have made "great looking" 20x24" (5x) prints from my Epson 4990 and reasonable 40x50's, but the 40x50's won't tolerate "nose in the print" evaluation.

Lastly, you need to set your flatbed up properly to get a good enough scan to start with. FWIW, I personally went the route of using the full-area scan adapter and placing a piece of thin anti-glare glass on top of this -- anti-glare side up -- which I set the neg directly on. I then weight the corners down with quarters to hold the neg flat. By doing those two things, I probably increased the overall quality of the scan by a factor of 2 or 3 over using the standard holders. FWIW, this configuration is les convenient, but allows you to directly scan any negative up to 8x10 and hold it flatter than any of the Epson holders can.

Finally, I have found 1600 DPI to be the "sweet spot" on my Epson for sharpness, though up to 2400 remains very good. And scanning 4x5 at 2400 DPI will make a very nice 32x40 print at 300 PPI without having to do any interpolation.

Hope this helps,

[Roger Richards]

Jack and Walter,

from your experience, how do you think the V750 will do for 8x10 negatives? I know that it is subjective, but up to what size do you think that scanner can offer an excellent print?
Thanks.

[Ron Marshall]

Lastly, you need to set your flatbed up properly to get a good enough scan to start with. FWIW, I personally went the route of using the full-area scan adapter and placing a piece of thin anti-glare glass on top of this -- anti-glare side up -- which I set the neg directly on.
Hope this helps,

Jack, what is a full-area-scan-adapter?

[squiress]

Jack, what is a full-area-scan-adapter?

I'm not sure what Jack is referencing, but there are negative holders for 35mm, 120mm, and 4x5s. Then there is a flexible 8x10 sheet holder that you butt the 8x10 negative/positive against when you lay it down on the glass. This comes with the Epson scanners.

stew

[Jack Flesher]

I have posted my experiences testing the V750 a few times, but the short answer is my results concurred with those of Ted Harris in his View Camera article comparing these scanners.

To summarize, in Ted's test the V750 did a slightly better job on small negatives, yet a slightly poorer job with large negatives than the 4990. My test was only on a 4x5 tranny, but yielded the same result: a slightly softer scan from the V750. The differences were small and not overly significant, but they were notable.

As indicated above, I have improved my 4990 scanner results significantly and this was done after my original comparison, so my 4990 would have faired even better. (Though I assume similar improvements could be gained with the V750 using the same techniques.) Anyway, to put this improvement in perspective, it is my opinion that my 4990 set up per above now delivers results comparable or slightly superior to the Microtek 1800.


So with all of that clarified, I'll answer your question this way: It is MY OPINION that you can easily print an "excellent" quality 40x50 from a 4990/V750 8x10 scan -- and could probably go even bigger without too much difficulty. I have a 1600 DPI scan of a recent 8x10 tranny sitting on my office computer and if I have time I will post some crops tomorrow morning.

Cheers,

[PMahoney]

Jack-
OUt of curiousity, how thick is the glass you've been using on the 4990?
Peter

[neil poulsen]

To summarize, in Ted's test the V750 did a slightly better job on small negatives, yet a slightly poorer job with large negatives than the 4990. My test was only on a 4x5 tranny, but yielded the same result: a slightly softer scan from the V750.

How is this possible? It must have something to do with the thicker base mylar for 4x5, the difference in mounting 4x5 versus mounting a smaller format like medium format on the V750 or the 4990, or perhaps because resolution on 4x5 lenses isn't as great as resolution on a Hasselblad or some other medium format camera.

I ask, because logically every 4x5 negative contains within it a smaller format negative.

[Walter Calahan]

Roger

I mostly scan 8x10 color neg film on my Epson V750. I use a sheet of anti-Newton Ring glass to hold the film flat.

I've made beautiful prints on my Epson 9600 going to 42 inches on a 44" wide roll of paper.

I'm sure the Epson 4990 scanner will do the same.