Ellis Veners review of 750

[Kirk Gittings]

In case you haven't seen Ellis' excellent review of the Epson 750 scanner:


http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200701_epsonperfv750m.pdf

[Ralph Barker]

Thanks for the link, Kirk. I always enjoy Ellis' observations as well as his writing style.

To be honest, though, I'm hesitant to read the V750 review, lest I discover I shouldn't have purchased one. ;)

[stompyq]

Very intresting. However the major point of annoyance for me is rasied again b/c the reviewer keeps talking about medium format negatives. I wish there was a review that talks specifically about scanning 4x5 slides.

[neil poulsen]

Very intresting. However the major point of annoyance for me is rasied again b/c the reviewer keeps talking about medium format negatives. I wish there was a review that talks specifically about scanning 4x5 slides.

It seems like medium format provides a more demanding test, because it's subject to a greater enlargements. Ellis's article addresses fluid mounting. In that particular case, everything that applies to medium format would also apply to 4x5.

Is there some other aspect of 4x5 scanning about which you want to know?

[stompyq]

Well i've been intrested in this scanner for a while now but have been put off by the prospect of doing fluid mounting. So much so that i have been waiting for microteks latest offerings and see how they compair. I guess it didn't occur to me that medium format will provide a more sterner test for the scanner. I am just curious to know if i can get away with doing a regular dry scan for prints about 16x20 using 4x5 transperencies.

[Kirk Gittings]

I am just curious to know if i can get away with doing a regular dry scan for prints about 16x20 using 4x5 transperencies.

That depends on your expertise and expectations. For me no.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Hi guys,

According to this comparison done by Aztec products, the wet mounted scans with the 750 are actually sharper done directly on the glass than on the fluid mountin bed:

http://www.aztek.com/Products/EPSON%20KAMI%20Direction%20V750%20PRO.pdf

Any comments on this? I'm planning on doing wet mounts with my 4990, and based on this, was going to do them directly on the glass, but I was concerned about it not being the optimal plane of focus.

[Kirk Gittings]

I was concerned about it not being the optimal plane of focus.

Sandy King have discussed this quite a bit. While there is an optiml plane of focus, given the lens design, there should be huge D of F. Yet the difference of a couple of mm seems to make a big difference. The larger the film size of course, the less difference this optimal plane matters in the real world of a final print.

[Ted Harris]

There are all sorts of fluid mounting and several different commercially available mounting fluids. There are two main purposes for fluid mounting: 1) to maintain the flatness of the film and keep it flat during the scan and 2) to 'fill in' scratches or other flaws on the film. Any of the commercial fluids will take care of 1, OTOH if you also need to deal with a lot of scratches then you need a heavier fluid. For most of my scans I find that the lightest, easiest to apply fluid from Prazio, their 'anti newton ring' spray is all taht is needed ... it is easy to use and maintains perfect adherence and is dead simple and quick to clean up.

[Ed Richards]

Ted,

Do you need to sandwich the film, or do you just stick it down to the glass with the Prazio spray? I have been curious whether sandwiching is necessary for flatbeds, as it is for drums.

[Henry Ambrose]

Well i've been intrested in this scanner for a while now but have been put off by the prospect of doing fluid mounting. So much so that i have been waiting for microteks latest offerings and see how they compair. I guess it didn't occur to me that medium format will provide a more sterner test for the scanner. I am just curious to know if i can get away with doing a regular dry scan for prints about 16x20 using 4x5 transperencies.

The answer is yes you can do dry scanning and be happy with it. There is always something better to buy, but you might just want to start somewhere. If all you do is print four foot wide from 4x5 film then the V750 is not enough. But for most folks it'll be fine for most work. When you need bigger and better order up a drum scan and pay for it.

Generally, there is no difference scanning 35mm film, MF flim, 4x5 film or 8x10 film on a square inch basis. Its all just film. The difference is how big a reproduction you can make. Bigger film lets you make bigger prints given the same scanner and technique.

The general consensus seems to be that somewhere around 4x magnification range with reasonable technique and good film most folks can make nice prints from scanners in this range. That works out to about a 16x20 from 4x5. My experience tells me this is an obtainable goal and I've made bigger prints that are excellent.

You can't buy many drum scans for what these flatbeds cost. Again, if you only print great big prints they won't make you happy. But up to about 4x repro size they're great to have and way cheaper than paying for scanning.

[Ted Harris]

The simple answer is that if you are goingto scan LF film and don't want to spend many thousands of $$ you can choose between the several 'prosumer scanners' that range in price from ~ 300 to ~ 700. Without going into the used market there are no other options without making a quantum leap forward in cost ($10K).

[mdd99]

A tip o' the cap to those who have the time, patience, and work space to have to use wet mounting to get a good scan. In fact, I'm envious. For critical work, I just let the pros do it. Prices are so much more reasonable for professional scanning work now.