Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 100

Thread: Noob question... scanner for 4 x 5...

  1. #21

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    53

    Re: Noob question... scanner for 4 x 5...

    Quote Originally Posted by sanking View Post
    I am looking at the crops you uploaded, on the monitor of my 24" iMac. Yes, I clicked on the crops. The Epson crop is a lot softer than the Cezanne to my eye. Neither of the two texts are legible on my monitor all the way to the end, but the crop of the Cezanne is legible many more lines down than the crop from the 4990. The Cezanne crop is clearly superior to my eye.

    But no matter. This is not a good methodology for comparing these two scanners, IMO.

    Sandy King
    Okay, so I just got finished printing all 4 crops on my *gasp* Epson printer and just as I thought, any differences are so tiny as to be insignificant. Not surprising because each crop measures only 1 x 1.5 inches in size @ 300 dpi output. I tried 360 dpi as well but the crops became (obviously) smaller and it was getting useless. Funny, but the printed crops are not showing any more detail as a few of you indicated they would; in fact they're showing slightly less. Still in all, I can read the text on both printed crops easily.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    8,476

    Re: Noob question... scanner for 4 x 5...

    Van Camper, your points are well-taken. I stand corrected. Thank you.

    I too would love a better scanner, and might make bigger prints too, if the opportunity were more affordable.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Plymouth, MA, USA
    Posts
    161

    Re: Noob question... scanner for 4 x 5...

    When a newcomer to scanning asks about using a scanner to make enlargements of a 4 X 5, what's the point of putting him down by saying it's impossible to do a decent job with "just" a consumer flatbed? The 24 X 36+ prints I exhibit in some rather prestigious galleries are noted for their "exquisite detail" and "gorgeous colors," yet are made with a dry scan on a Microtek ScanMaker 1000XL that cost only around $2K and printed on an Epson 7800 from a 360ppi file @2880dpi. To suggest that no more than a 4X enlargement of any quality can be obtained is absurd!

    Pictures are made to be viewed from a normal distance, so what's the point of subjecting them to an 8X loupe exam? There are far more important factors in the success of an image than its appearance under those unrealistic circumstances.

    When someone asks for advice, it seems a bit cruel to so archly proclaim he can't possibly succeed with the tools he'll most likely be able to afford: a wiser and kinder approach would be to counsel him as to how he could do the best possible job with what may be available, than to be so discouraging because he can't have all the fancy toys in your professional tool box.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,505

    Re: Noob question... scanner for 4 x 5...

    [QUOTE=Dick Hilker;328064]When a newcomer to scanning asks about using a scanner to make enlargements of a 4 X 5, what's the point of putting him down by saying it's impossible to do a decent job with "just" a consumer flatbed? The 24 X 36+ prints I exhibit in some rather prestigious galleries are noted for their "exquisite detail" and "gorgeous colors," yet are made with a dry scan on a Microtek ScanMaker 1000XL that cost only around $2K and printed on an Epson 7800 from a 360ppi file @2880dpi. To suggest that no more than a 4X enlargement of any quality can be obtained is absurd!

    /QUOTE]

    Let's keep things in context. The OP identified himself as "experienced photographer with a mostly 35mm and latterly digital background but am working on a project that requires me to capture at the best possible quality." He noted he would be working with a 4X5 for this project, then he asked, "For prints to 24 x 36" can I get very high quality."

    A number of persons very experienced with scanning and the use of both consumer and high end scanning equipment answered this question correctly. No, you can not get very high quality from 6X magnifications from a consumer flatbed. For very high quality he should either have prints made in the darkroom, or plan to have scans made with a better scanner.

    If the question had been, can I make good prints from a scan of 4X5 on a consumer flatbed up to 24X26" the answer would have been perhaps, depending on what your subjective understanding of a good print happens to be.


    Sandy King

  5. #25

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    53

    Re: Noob question... scanner for 4 x 5...

    And again, we're told that you cannot get high quality results from 4x5 from a "consumer scanner" yet every time this phrase is repeated, NOBODY will provide any proof showing why. All that keeps getting repeated is the same old "some very experienced users here have said so" and "there's no way a consumer flatbed can equal the results from a multi-thousand dollar machine". I wonder, is this the same way a Canon DRebel cannot make prints as nice as a $30K 1.5MP Kodak DSLR from 14 years ago?

    Please, tell me why anyone would believe these statements without proof? I at least provided sample scans and I even printed the crops because I was told that this was the only real way to see differences. What else am I to do to see this so-called difference? At this size, I'm beginning to think this is some metaphysical difference that can only be seen by some very privileged individuals.

    Again, the high-end scanner market has all but dried up and it's obvious why; 99% of people just cannot see the difference and even if they could, they don't care. Many are printing images from 12 MP DSLR files bigger than many here are printing their LF images and they're happy and so are the clients they're selling to.

    All I know is that I'm normally extremely picky to the point of being anal but when I was in the market for a LF scanner, I looked at plenty of comparisons and decided that the difference just wasn't enough to justify wasting my time and money on a used scanner. I simply don't care enough. For $480, I got a new scanner with full warranty, handles everything from 35mm to 8x10, makes great contact sheets, has digital ICE for scanning those old family photos and makes wonderful prints from 4x5. I guess you could say I'm more than pleased. If it dies in a few years, who cares.

    Seeing as how everyone else is throwing around unsubstantiated statements, I just printed an 8 x 10 crop of my cemetery image that would approximate a 20 x 24 and it printed with loads of detail that held up to extremely close scrutiny and I could easily make out the writing on the headstones. At this size, it's obvious the scanner isn't the limiting factor here, it's the printer and the paper. This shouldn't be any real surprise, the print has always been a limiting factor and now with digital prints we're hardware limited to pretty much 300 dpi. That and most humans can't differentiate detail beyond this anyway.

    Again, my point is that the 3-4X rule is extremely conservative. You need to print way beyond this? Fine, knock yourself out and spring for a used drum or "pro" flatbed but please stop telling everyone within earshot that an Epson or Microtek is not even good enough for a 16 x 20.

    I really hate to be the one to say it but one thing I've noticed with photography is equipment snobbery and this 3-4X rule certainly smacks of that.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Plymouth, MA, USA
    Posts
    161

    Re: Noob question... scanner for 4 x 5...

    Let's keep things in context. The OP identified himself as "experienced photographer with a mostly 35mm and latterly digital background but am working on a project that requires me to capture at the best possible quality." He noted he would be working with a 4X5 for this project, then he asked, "For prints to 24 x 36" can I get very high quality."

    A number of persons very experienced with scanning and the use of both consumer and high end scanning equipment answered this question correctly. No, you can not get very high quality from 6X magnifications from a consumer flatbed. For very high quality he should either have prints made in the darkroom, or plan to have scans made with a better scanner.

    If the question had been, can I make good prints from a scan of 4X5 on a consumer flatbed up to 24X26" the answer would have been perhaps, depending on what your subjective understanding of a good print happens to be.


    Sandy King[/QUOTE]

    Of course, the line between "good" and "very high quality" is a subjective one and subject to many interpretations. My observation, and that of the galleries and customers who evaluate my work is that it is of very high quality and, yes, it also happens to be a 6X enlargement. Not to be a real smartass, but did you note that those experienced members you cite also are in the business of selling high-end scanning services and education?

    For an example, the bouquet of crabapple blossoms is a 24 X 30 print and the single blossom is a 16 X 16 print. Even the single blossom holds the detail well for such an enlargement, doesn't it?

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Plymouth, MA, USA
    Posts
    161

    Re: Noob question... scanner for 4 x 5...

    I'll try again to upload the shot of the single blossom.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,505

    Re: Noob question... scanner for 4 x 5...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dick Hilker View Post

    Not to be a real smartass, but did you note that those experienced members you cite also are in the business of selling high-end scanning services and education?
    You are not only a smart ass, you are also out of line. Kirk Gitting, who is one of the persons I was thinking about, does not offer high-end scanning services, Nor do I. I don't know about some of the others, but to suggest that people are giving advice here for personal interest is offensive.

    Sandy King

  9. #29

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    53

    Re: Noob question... scanner for 4 x 5...

    Quote Originally Posted by Van Camper View Post
    Rob, you can run a 600 meg file on your screen at 1900x1200. When viewing the full image your seeing the image at 1900x1200 pixels across the screen. When you zoom in 10x closer your still seeing 1900x1200 pixels across the screen for the area zoomed in.
    Okay, so that's stating the obvious.
    So 1900/22 inch horizontally (say it is a 24 inch screen) gives you 86 pixels per inch. I used the old std 72ppi, but it can vary somewhat.
    Now, this is where you're getting off track, why are you dividing by the size of your monitor? Does the monitor know how big it is? The 72 dpi thing came about years ago and is in regards to working with text on a computer screen, it has nothing to do with images or even text these days. Again, all that matters is the pixel dimensions of the file; when it's on your monitor, there are no "inches"! Ever notice how the Photoshop image size dialogue box is divided into 2 zones? The top is for the image dimensions (no inches or any other unit there) and the lower box shows you output dimensions when you're sizing for print.
    However, in no case will you see a image on screen at 300ppi (1440dpi in print). That would be 300x22inch= 6600ppi across. Over and over people on the web tell you that the print looks better then the image on the screen.
    What are you talking about? If you're viewing an image on your screen, it has no physical dimensions. And again, I did print the crops as your suggested.
    You ask for samples, but the samples you or I provide will always never be as good as the print. Believe us or not, it doesn't matter.
    As I stated previously, I printed the crops as you told me to and you know what, at 100% on screen, they look pretty much exactly as they do when printed. If they didn't, what use would a monitor be as a proofing tool? How would you possibly judge image detail before sending to print? How would you judge the amount of sharpening to apply?
    This conversation is old, read up the thousands of articles in here about scanners.
    You said it. I've read the articles but have tested my machine for my use with 4x5 and it suits my needs just fine. I guess that’s one less sale of a "high-end" scanner this year.
    Excuse me, but I think the people at Ryerson university, Sheridan College (Ontario) are buying Imacons for a reason.
    That's too funny considering most experts feel that Imacons are way overpriced and are not worth even a fraction of their cost. Good to see college funds being put to good use.
    The consumer flatbed is great for smaller prints, but for anything over 16x20 and far beyond fugetaboutit. You obviously have not seen the differences at large print sizes.
    You know what, neither can most of the human population which is why everybody shoots digital and why practically nobody pays for high-end scanners anymore. Again, nobody cares except for a few purists like yourselves. There's more to an image than resolution and detail BTW.
    If an epson is so good, then why do graphic companies all have cezannes/creos when they could be running 20 cheap epsons and speed up production?
    Most of these companies have their machines because they were bought many years ago and they're now paid for. How many of these companies would be willing to buy these machines again (if they even could)? How many companies even offer professional scanning services anymore? How many corporate clients are even shooting film these days to require said professional scans?

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,505

    Re: Noob question... scanner for 4 x 5...

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Landry View Post
    And again, we're told that you cannot get high quality results from 4x5 from a "consumer scanner" yet every time this phrase is repeated, NOBODY will provide any proof showing why.

    You want some proof?

    Have a look at this.

    Two scans, one from my Epson 4990, adjusted for best focus, another from the Scitex/Creo EverSmart Pro. The Epson scan made at 4800 spi, the EverSmart at 3175 spi, and then rezed up to 4800 spi. I made ever effort to adjust contrast and density to provide a fair and realistic evaluaion of the two scanners based on my experience with both of them.

    See the difference? No unsharp on either of the scans, by the way. These targets show that the EverSmart, scanning at 3175 spi, is delivering real resolution of about 60 lp/mm, the Epson 4990, scanning at 4800, delivers resolution of about 30 lp/mm. But beyond pure resolution, there is a crispness and separation in the EverSmart scan that is lacking in the scan from the 4990.

    I hate having to waste my time to show the obvious, but there it is.

    And to put things in perspective, the EverSmart Pro is a last generation scanner that sells today for about $3K - $5K. A current generation Creo EverSmart Supreme II or IQSmart3 would do quite a bit better in this test.

    Sandy King

Similar Threads

  1. Flatbed scanner reliability: what's your experience?
    By Oren Grad in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 7-Feb-2007, 14:31
  2. Scanner comparison: Epson 4990 scanner added
    By Leigh Perry in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 28-Aug-2006, 05:35
  3. Recommend a scanner
    By Justin F. Knotzke in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 9-May-2005, 11:43
  4. Enlarger or scanner?
    By Ed Eubanks in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 6-Jan-2004, 18:33
  5. Drum scanner: lines appeared
    By Paul Schilliger in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 3-Sep-2000, 12:49

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •