I thought I was pretty clear. But one more time put a little differently. I have owned now 11 or 13? I can't remember prosumer scanners and scanned hundreds of 4x5 and 6x9 films for my business and art work using them dry and wet, with adjustable height holders, on the glass, you name it. I also have access to and use regularly the latest Imacons. I cannot get a scan from a 4x5 to print a 16x20 on any of the prosumer flatbeds that meet my expectations of resolution and low noise. I can get a decent 16x20 from a 4x5 from the newer Imacons, but they are not quite as good as the scans I get from professional flatbeds or drum scans. I put too much effort into a file for fine art prints to waste my time anymore on anything but a great scan. Therefore after years of testing the prosumer flatbeds (I also teach scanning at a University BTW), I have gone back to paying for professional scans for my FA prints until I can afford a decent professional flatbed. The difference is substantial enough for me to pay for the scans. I wish this were not so. Believe me. I will continue to use my Epson 750 for proofing, magazine assignments and small prints, but not when I need a file that will make a 16x20 from a 4x5 worthy of selling to collectors.So 16X20 is "exactly" alike the better scanners? This would correlate to Sandy's point of 4X enlarging maximum. Are there "any" differences at 4X enlargement, 3X, 2X???
If I have an 8X10 sheet being scanned, can I use the 4X theory and get a 36X40 print that looks as good as one that was scanned on these high end scanners?
I have never scanned 8x10 and I no longer shoot it. 8x10 has its own idiosyncrasies with the prosumer flabeds like film plane height that must be considered to achieve maximum sharpness.
Bookmarks