4x5: LF Print quality from epson V750 scans

[Kburg928]

I've been kicking around the idea of picking up an Epson V750 scanner and I was wondering how good the scans are off of this scanner? I print using an Epson 7800 with normal print sizes of 16x20 and 24x30 but I plan on picking up the Epson 9900 and would be making prints up to 40x50.

I guess my question is, what is the largest gallery quality print I can make from an epson V750 scanner?

Thanks for the help
Keith

[Brian Ellis]

I have the Epson 4990, the predecessor to the 700/750 scanners. Unless the 750 greatly exceeds the quality of the 4990, and I don't think it does based on the tests I read when the 700/750s first came on the market, it wouldn't do the job to my satisfaction at least with a 40x50 print.

The largest print size that's acceptable to me with the 4990 and an Epson 3800 printer is about 17x25 and that's pushing it for exhibit where most people won't be putting their noses on the print. For my own use I stop at about 13x18. But different people have different standards. If your large prints are going to be viewed from a distance commensurate with the size of the prints things might be different but I kind of doubt it. I just don't think these Epson prosumer scanners are made with 40x50 prints in mind.

[Richard M. Coda]

I had some (color) 16x20s made from 4x5 scans (1800 dpi on V750 PRO) and they were not as sharp as the 16x20s I had made from drum scans. I would be hesitant to go that large from a desktop scanner. There are plenty of places to get reasonably priced drum scans, but then again, if you want the best quality you will have to pay for it (I would recommend West Coast Imaging).

[Ken Lee]

Most reports here, convey that the recent crop of Epson scanners deliver somewhere around 2100 spi at best. (Even when you set them for 2400 spi and beyond, all you get is bigger files - but no more actual detail).

If you intend to print at 300 dpi, this suggests you can make a 7X enlargement, and get whatever data was present. If you plan to print at 360 dpi, then you can make a 5.8X enlargement.

If you are among those who rate their scanner more rigorously, then perhaps you get 1800 spi from it, and can make correspondingly smaller enlargements, like 5X or 6X maximum. This has been my experience. Besides, Large Format Lenses, after that much enlargement, start to lose their "luster" you might say.

Numbers aside, all of this is ultimately a matter of personal taste, so you should compare real results, to see what *you* want.

[kaiyen]

Richard - did you just seriously compare the V750 to a drum scan?

They are not the same, no question. When I want a scan for exhibits - which...isn't that often :-( - I get a drum scan. But for $500 (or whatever the 750 sells for now), which is a lot cheaper than, say the Howtek 3500 for sale here recently, I'm pretty darn happy with it.

[sanking]

Most reports here, convey that the recent crop of Epson scanners deliver somewhere around 2100 spi at best. (Even when you set them for 2400 spi and beyond, all you get is bigger files - but no more actual detail).

If you intend to print at 300 dpi, this suggests you can make a 7X enlargement, and get whatever data was present. If you plan to print at 360 dpi, then you can make a 5.8X enlargement.

Another consideration is that it is very unlikely that your LF film will have more than 2400 dpi of real information. So if you assume the very best resolution of 2400 dpi from the Epson V750 that will only get you a print of 32X40" at 300 dpi.

Anything beyond that and you are in the realm of genuine fractals.

Also, bear in mind that whether you scan with a drum scanner or with an Epson V750 a lot of the ultimate print quality depneds on the skill of the scanner operator and on post processing of the image file. Some people make beautiufl prints with real detail as low as 200 dpi that others can not equal with two or three times that much detail.

Sandy King

[Ron Marshall]

With most of the images I scanned on the Epson 4990 I was only happy with 13x16. I did several comparisons to drum scans.

[nonuniform]

Perhaps the question of whether the v750 produces an image that can be printed larger than 17x25 is subjective. I've used the v750 wet mount option and produced prints from those scans at 24x30 that I really love. Then again, the images were shot handheld with a press camera, so the expectation of sharpness is very different!

[rdenney]

I own a 20x40 color print that the photographer made from a 6x12 negative on an Epson 4990. The print quality is excellent--comparable in resolution to a 16x20 Cibachrome print from 4x5 Velvia made by another well-known photographer. Both stand up to close scrutiny.

That doesn't mean that it would compare favorably to a similarly sized print from a drum scan. There is always something better out there that I can't afford, or that makes life too difficult. Thus, every choice we make presents a compromise.

If the 20x40" print shows compromise, it's not in the resolution. It may be in a subtle loss of tonality.

I have only made one scan from my V750 so far (just having set it up last week). I made that scan at 2400 spi, and when viewed actual pixels in Photohop, it did show a bit of softness. Basic corrective sharpening required a radius of 1 pixel, which indicates quite good detail in the scan. The actual-pixel display is not overwhelmingly unlike the actual-pixel display from my Canon 5D with images made using very good prime lenses. And, of course, there are many, many, many more of those actual pixels. (Ten times as many.) Again, if there is a difference, I would expect it to be in tonality rather than resolution.

The actual-pixel display on my monitor represents an image of 96x124 inches. Maybe a third of that would sample out that bit of softness I see on the monitor, and yield a 32x40" print. That 20x40" print from 6x12 seems to bear that out. So, I'm expecting decent results at 8x.

I haven't compared it to my Nikon film scanner as of yet. That will tell a different tale.

So, 40x50 will really be stretching it, but 32x40 will be good enough for many applications.

I know people who make prints that big from digital SLR's and think them good enough. I've already two planets away from them just starting with large-format film.

In this image, I can just about read the label on the beer bottle floating in the water in the background in the original scan, which was made at 2400 on a V750. That bottle is soft at full view, but it's about the softness I would expect from the lens (an Ilex Paragon at f/22) as much as anything. Again, actual pixels on the display represents about a 24x enlargement.



I haven't attempted a print yet.

Rick "not expecting it to look like [fill-in-the-blank] more expensive alternative" Denney

[Lenny Eiger]

I didn't do these, but they are credible examples, IMO, of the difference.

750 is on the left, 4500 on the right.

Lenny