My wife wants digital need 4x5 scanner options

[Jim Chinn]

My wife has decided to enter the realm of digital imaging. This is bad news. F irst, it will drain financial resources away from my wet darkroom endeavors, sec ond my 6 year old daughter who has shown a great interest in photography over th e last two years may be seduced by the digital side. Alas I see this as an inev itable phase for my wife who has become "dazzled" by her sisters' digital output with their point and shoot digital cameras.

I have decided to outflank my wife by convincing her to keep using my 35mm gear and invest in a scanner and phtoshop to get that "professional quality". I know next to nothing about scanners but would like to at least get a flatbed that ca n produce decent files from my 4x5 negs ($1000 or less). I have also convinced her that eventually we will need a printer capable of using dedicated ink sets l ike John Cone's or MIS quadtones. She is going to love what she (I) can do with this set up.

Thanks in advance for your input.

[Frank Lahorgue]

The new Epson 2450 scanner looks interesting to me and sells for around $400 locally. It can scan LF negatives (to 5x7 I think) and chromes as well as reflective stuff. Good question, I hope folks will chime in on this.

[Fred De Van]

I have an Acer ScanPrimo ST and I highly recommend it. It is definately the sleeper of flatbeds. It will scan up to 8x10 transparencies and Negs, 8.5x14 reflected. A very nice set of format masks are supplied for most major formats from 35mm to 8x10. It has a new 48 bit driver (not in the specs), and a nice software package including Monaco calibration software. Dynamic range 3.3, SCSI interface included.

I have had mine for about a year. Cost under $500 New, on Ubid. ACER is in the process of changing the name of its imaging products to Benq, ACER branded productes should be nicely priced.

[Rob Pietri]

I have an Epson 1640SU which comes with a Transparency adapter that scans transparencies and negatives as well as prints. However, let me relate a story I heard about a White House photographer who still uses film vs digital by his competition. He said that during the Lewinski-Clinton scandel he saw the famous shot of the two embracing. It sparked his memory and he went out and hired a researcher to go through his slides. Sure enough, he had another shot of the two enbracing stached in a slide box. The image was used on a cover of time magazine.

He said that he watched other photographers edit their digital images, deleting unwanted ones on the spot so to make room on their storge discs. But since he was shooting film, that image was not lost and it was later used on an important magazine cover.

[Matt_1193]

Dollar for Dollar, there is nothing on the market (or the horizon) that can touch the Epson 1680 Pro. Nada.

[James Phillips]

Hi James,



The best source I have found for helping me to understand scanners and the digital darkroom has been at <a href="http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints.html" target="_blank"> He does a wonderful job of explaining to us newcomers the "ins and outs" of scanning and why we would choose one model over another. Take a look and see what you think.



Regards,



&nbsp;

[Wayne Campbell]

EPSON 1240U 'R US

[neil poulsen]

I'm wondering, who's been outflanked?

[Fred De Van]

Rob...

Just to keep your story correct and to keep it from becoming an urban legend, It was not a White House Photographer who had this experiance, it was my friend, Time Magazine's own, Dirck Halstead. He also edits this site. http://digitaljournalist.org/contents.html

Fred

[Joshua L. Slocum]

James: Just what in the world is your wife dazzled by? I know for a fact that whatever camera her sister is using does NOT produce 35mm quality prints, unless it takes 12 megapixel images. What does she see? Is it just the cool factor? It's weird - I find it frustrating that people are beginning to look at digital photographs in which I can clearly see artifacts, blocked color, or that ugly electronic edge enhancment that people mistake for "sharpness and resolution" and say "wow!" just because they hear the word "digital." About what? I mean, it makes no logical sense when you can clearly put it next to a good film print and show that the digital usually doesn't stack up.Do people really think that digital MEANS professional? Probably. Although 90 percent of the world's photos are shot on film, I meet people every damned day that think nearly all "professional quality" photos are digital. I wish I had as much success marketing truth as Sony does with hype.

Good luck James!