Calling all Epson user's

[Eric Brody]

I also have been using a 3800 essentially since it became available. I print mostly black and white but lately have been doing some color as well. I print mostly at 11x14. The quality is impressive in my view with Hahnemuhle fine art pearl in both color and monochrome. Unless you really need rolls, or wider than 17" prints, it is hard to beat for the money.

When I retired my old Epson 2450 scanner, I replaced it with a Microtek 1800f based to a certain extent on information in this forum. I tested and was impressed with the Epson 700/750. When it does not misbehave, it produces great 4x5 scans. If I knew then what I know now, I might have gone with the Epson 750.

You're considering two excellent pieces of hardware.

Eric

[davidb]

So the v750 can't produce 16x20 scans that are "gallery" ready?

[Ted Harris]

I'll stick by the "not even close" statement. I will qualify it though, and I believe I did the same in the referenced thread.

1) If you aren't printing larger than 8x10 you aren't likely to see the differences unless you are a "print sniffer" and most of us here are. Even then the differences will be subtle and small.

2) One you start to print larger the differences become more obvious and more visible ... however at 11x14 and even 15x20 sometimes the differences are neither so large nor so profound that the print from the prosumer scan will be found anything other than excellent when viewed by itself. Especially true if you are a skilled printer. Brian, btw, is a very skilled printer. I've seen his work and it is excellent. He also ha a very good eye.

3) OTOH, once you see a print from a high end scan next to the same print from a consumer scan the differences will, I believe, compel anyone looking to choose the print from the high end scan ..... here I am assuming 16x20 or larger and perhaps 11x14.

4) None of this should imply that prints made from a prosumer scan are unworthy of exhibition, just that you can get better. IMO, to answer David's post above, no but that is my standard and not necessarily someone else's. For my most recent show I rescanned all the transparencies that had been originally scanned with anything other than a drum or high-end flatbed scanner and to my eye the results were superior. Now, in fairness, two of the five rescanned images have sold a few times from the original 1800f scans. Will the new scans make a difference? Only time will tell but I definitely see the difference.

Lenny - where do you get the "the 1000 ppi I think the Epson is capable of with a 4x5?" I ask because Michael Mutmansky and I have tested the 4800, 4990 and V700/750 using an industry standard AIG T20 test target and consistently gotten results in the range of 2000-2200. These results are consistent with those obtained by others in the industry.

To all - a small commercial - if you want to see the differences for yourself come to my studio where you can compare two high-end scanners v. two of the best prosumer scanners. Or, sign-up for the workshop Kirk and I are giving in Ft. Collins, CO for three days before the foto3 Conference. During the workshop you will have the opportunity to scan with an ICG 365 (arguably one of the best drum scanners), a Kodak/Creo IQsmart 3 (arguably one of the best high-end flatbeds), a Nikon Colscan 9000 (the best dedicated film scanner for 35mm and MF), one of the Epsons and a Microtek M1. Print out to a variety of wide format printers and/or a Chromira and make your own decisions.

[Kirk Gittings]

David, Call me if you want to discus this more in depth.

As per your question, it depends on your demands. IME, if I want a 16x20 who's sharpness approaches a first rate enlarged 16x20 silver print, I get at least a recent Imacon scan and (these days) preferably a proflatbed or drum scan. I can tell the difference, a primo scan from a good negative requires allot less sharpening that those from a 750, it just has a better "look" even at 16x20, but I look at all my prints with my nose on the print.

David, I have exhibited 16x20 prints from an Epson 4990 and a Microtek 1800fA at museums. But.......a few years ago to maximize my output for a show, I was working with/supervisiing a local art printer on the color prints which he was drum scanning in house, while I was working on the B&W prints scanned from a Microtek 1800f (which had ever so slightly better resolution than my 4990 or current 750). All prints were maximum 16x20. Even with a couple of years (and hundreds of scans under my belt), I could not come close, with the 1800f, to his scans which to me was obvious in the 16x20 output. I then backed up flew to Chicago where I have free access to the current Imacons and rescanned all my b&w for the show on a 949 Imacon, which at least gave me the resolution I was looking for. These days, I am more prepared and get proflatbed or drum scans of the good images as I go using the 750 for small prints, proofing, Digital Ice, magazine work etc. That leaves, after serious editing, maybe only 10-15 pro scans a year that I need.

****************************************************************************
Ted pointed out something profound in that other thread, that there are allot of crappy enlarged silver print 16x20's out there too that are not very sharp. My orthopedic surgeons office in Santa Fe is full of them that he bought and another collector friend of mine who owns some high end car dealerships in SF and ABQ.

So Brian I would say yes in my experience that there are allot of people (successful professionals included) out there who are satisfied with less than the best whether printing digitally or traditionally. I have never seen your work. So I cannot comment. Do your 16x20 digital prints approach the sharpness, gradation etc of your best 16x20 silver prints? They can. I know with a pro scan that I can get a digital print that holds all of the resolution and subtlety of the original negative. I could never quite get there with anything but a first rate pro scan.

But also resolution etc. is not everything. I saw some really really beautiful PT/PL prints the other day from stitched 5D files and digital negatives. Have you ever seen Strands Photogravure work? Stunningly beautiful but not nearly as sharp as his contact prints from the same negatives. For my work, I like sharpness and depth of field, but there are other ways of seeing, but that should be a conscious choice if possible financially rather than a function of lesser equipment.

[Lenny Eiger]

Lenny - where do you get the "the 1000 ppi I think the Epson is capable of with a 4x5?" I ask because Michael Mutmansky and I have tested the 4800, 4990 and V700/750 using an industry standard AIG T20 test target and consistently gotten results in the range of 2000-2200. These results are consistent with those obtained by others in the industry.

Ted, this was definitely unscientific. I was just shocked when I used one - at just how bad it was. I do a lot of scans at 2000 ppi for the 8x10's. They are sharp as a razor. How can you compare them with the stuff from a 750? You just can't. Night and day....
Lenny