Epson Expression 1680

[Clyde Rogers]

Hi all,

I have an Epson 1680 flatbed that I've used for LF/MF scans in the past. I tried out some of the later Epson scanners (something that did 3200 dpi, I don't recall the model) and thought the 1680 was better (both resolution and dynamic range). I eventually got a used Polaroid 120 for MF, and have not thought much about flatbeds since.

Now I'm looking at 6x17cm negatives. So does anyone know how the 1680 compares to the current crop of Epson scanners for 6x17cm negative scans?

Thanks,

Clyde Rogers

[Walter Calahan]

Hi Clyde

I own a 1680 (sitting idle), and the Epson 750. I think the 750 does a better job with my 8x10s then the 1680. But you're not going to see earth shaking differences. More subtle.

[Clyde Rogers]

Thanks for the response, Walter.

Do you think the 750 has a usable resolution advantage (what resolution do you use?), or can you get away with less sharpening, or is it capturing more subtle tonal variation?

Or is it one of those things you're just not sure about, you just know you like the 750 scans better?

Thanks,

Clyde

[Ted Harris]

The 750 definitely does a better job than the 1680 but the difference in resolution is incremental and neither gives you a great deal in the way of density range/Dmax. The 750 is aas good as it gets with prosumer flatbed scanners but that would still be far from my first choice for 6x17. I have a few 6x12's and 6x17's that I scanned with a Microtek 1800f and the results are acceptable up to around 4x (about 8x24) but, to me, that is pushing the outer limits. You could go bigger but if you did there would be a number of disappointed "print sniffers." If these numbers arae within your size range then you may want to consider the 750. If you print smaller then check out the results from the 1680. If you print larger then you will be better off sending your film out for professional high-end scans. Example, I just made some beautiful 22"x40" prints for a client. The prints were from a scan of a 6x9 original scanned on the Kodak IQSmart 3. The prosumer scanners just wouldn't be up to that sort of task.

If you do go with the 750, both it and the 1680 have a resolution in the 2000spi range. Your best setting for the e750 is 2400. You will likely have to sharpen about the same with either one.

[Walter Calahan]

Clyde

I'm waiting to get a new Macintosh with more RAM. Right now the 750 at high resolution is choking my system.

What Ted wrote is very helpful.

[Clyde Rogers]

My 1680 experience agrees with what you've stated, Ted---a four times enlargement was too much for it. At that size, a film scanner provides clearly better texture and tonality with far less sharpening (I much prefer the look of lightly sharpened scans). Your comment about sharpening for the 750 is helpful.

I guess I need to look into professional scanning, and see if I can find someplace local to do a scan or two on a 750, just to see if it enough better to warrant any investment.

Thanks, Ted and Walter.

--clyde