Calling all Epson user's

[ignatiusjk]

Calling all Epson users. Who has or used a Epson V750 scanner and a Epson 3800 printer lately and what did you think. I shoot 4x5 landscapes and don't want a cheap scanner/printer combo but I also don't want to buy more than what I need. let me here from you. The price doesn't seem to bad 700.00 for the scanner 1200.00 for the printer.

[davidb]

I'm thinking the same thing so I too look forward to the responses.

[Norm Buchanan]

I just bought a 3800 a couple of weeks ago and I am very happy with it. I bought it to print 16x20 B&W prints and it does a great job. I also have an R2400 which is a good printer as well - and cheaper, if you neglect ink - but only prints 13" wide. Depending upon what you want you may look into Canon or HP printers as well, for instance the 3800 does not take roll papers. What size do you want to print? How many prints do you anticipate making? These are things to consider when choosing a printer. If you will be making MANY prints and want to print without standing over the printer you might want to consider something that handles rolls.

I am using the epson 4900 scanner which I have had very good success with. I have not used the V750 and I am not sure how it compares to the 4900 but I am sure others here can answer that.

[Brian Ellis]

I think that with both scanners and printers a lot depends on how large you plan to print. I've been using the 3800 printer for about 10 months. It's a great printer, no problems (except one I created). But then I thought the 2200 was a great printer too and used or refurbished it costs a lot less than the 3800. The only reason I replaced the 2200 with the 3800 is that the 3800 can print 17" wide whereas the 2200 is limited to 13". I haven't used the V750 but I own its immediate predecessor, the 4990. It does an excellent job as well as long as you don't print larger than about 16x20 give or take and inch or two. If you're going to make prints larger than 16x20 or thereabouts then I think you should look at higher end scanners or letting a lab make drum scans for you (and of course get a printer that will print wider than 17").

[Greg Lockrey]

For the money it's an excellent combination. Since the percieved real limit for scanning negatives is 3:1 to 4:1 magnification with the 750V would put your printing needs limit to about 12x15" to 16x20" even by the most deserning eye. The 3800 is an excellent printer that is capable of 17x34" prints. You can get better scanners but you will pay twice as much for very little improvement. To go to the next level of improvement would cost around $5K for a used Howtek, but if you aren't going past 16x20" you won't see the differenvce unless you plan to crop a great deal. If you want to spend $40K for 8000 actual dpi, then the Aztec is the way to go. The "real" dpi for the 750V has proven to be around 2040 dpi. The 3800 is capable of 2880 dpi well above the 240 limit that the eye can detect. It would be very difficult to get a better printer. FWIW, I print with 9600, 4800 and the 3800 in my daily use and average 200 sqft per day production. While the 9600 is an excellent printer, the 3800 is better for its size and it's more versitle to switch from matte to gloss with a mere push of the button. I also scan with the Epson 750V for film and an Epson 10000XL for reflective media. The !0000XL is capable to do film also but I can't see any difference with 4x5 film and this scanner cost $3K. The 750V is better with the smaller 35mm film because it does have better scanning software to improve the noise, etc.

[Kirk Gittings]

What are your goals? Hobbyist? Showing? I basically agree with Greg and Brian above. It is an excellent combo, but I would definitely not push it above 16x20 (actually these days for that size and all serious work that I will definitely exhibit, I get professional scans, which is why I bought a Scitex Eversmart. A professional scanner will also extract more detail out of deep shadows etc.). But for all but the most critical work, it is a great combination.

[Sam]

I use the 4990 and output to the 3800 and the combo is great, alowing you to print to 16x20 with no problem.

[Ted Harris]

See the last couple of posts Kirk and I made in this thread http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=31109

[Brian Ellis]

See the last couple of posts Kirk and I made in this thread http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=31109

I skimmed the above thread and was kind of nodding my head in agreement until I came across this statement from Ted: "All any of this is really telling us is that you get what you pay for and the fact is that you get a helluva lot for your money today. What you don't get is performance that comes even close to that of the high-end scanners but then you don't pay anywhere near the price."

I think the second sentence is a little extreme. "Not even close?" Do you really think that all of the people here who are happy with the prints made from scans with their 4990s and 700/750s have such little ability to know a good print when they see one that they fail to realize their prints "aren't even close" to what they would be getting if they had used a "high end scanner?" IMHO we're getting prints that are virtually identical to what we would get from a "high end scanner." Why? Because we aren't making prints big enough for the qualities of the "high end scanner" to make a significant or noticeable difference.

Rather than telling everybody who uses a prosumer scanner that their scans "aren't even close" to what they would be getting from a "high end scanner" (thereby relegating those of us who don't have the financial resources/time /inclination to buy and learn how to use a drum scanner to its best advantage to the garbage pits of print quality), I think it would be more accurate if a statement along the following lines was made: "If you're enlarging beyond about 3x-4x then you should use a high end scanner or have scans made by someone who does. But if you're not making prints larger than that then it makes little difference, the prints you'll make at those sizes will be fine using one of the Epson [or whatever] prosumer scanners. And you should always remember that the talent of the person operating the equipment is at least as important as the equipment itself."

Of course if you don't think that statement is accurate that's your right but in my opinion it's more accurate than the second sentence of the statement that I quoted above.

[Lenny Eiger]

I skimmed the above thread and was kind of nodding my head in agreement until I came across this statement from Ted: "All any of this is really telling us is that you get what you pay for and the fact is that you get a helluva lot for your money today. What you don't get is performance that comes even close to that of the high-end scanners but then you don't pay anywhere near the price."

I think the second sentence is a little extreme. "Not even close?".

Brian,

I'm sorry. But I would second the not even close. The low end flatbeds are very blurry, they lack all sorts of detail and a lot of sharpening is needed to make the scans look even remotely normal. If I had to use a scanner like this I probably wouldn't bother, I would just go digital, save myself a lot of time developing film. A 22 megapixel would do nicely. That's a max resolution of 5,600 pixels along a single edge. It matches the 1000 ppi I think the Epson is capable of with a 4x5. But I digress, digital isn't the issue.

Your comment of why bother when a printer can't tell the difference is the thing I want to contend with. If one only has poor materials to work with, that are not capable of great prints, how will they ever make one?

Now I am sure there are lots of amateurs who want to make 8x10 images. That's great, they can use any scanner they want - or a digital camera. However, when you talk of producing professional images, such as one which should be sold in a gallery, that's another matter. A professional ought to use the best tools they can get their hands on, not settle just because the gallery-goers can't tell the difference. That's a commercial thought - and not an artistic one. An artist educates themselves every day, learns the History of what went before and infuses new images with their own spirit. It's an exercise in doing something exquisite. If their aesthetic includes great printing (and not everyones' does), then they ought to do things with good materials and good tools.

Finally, those same good tools and good materials teach you to see.

Lenny
EigerStudios