Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 159

Thread: Changing from v700 to IQSmart2 for 8x10?

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tucson AZ
    Posts
    1,480

    Re: Changing from v700 to IQSmart2 for 8x10?

    Hi Pere

    I don't think it's about the number of pixels at all - more about the "quality" of the pixels. Hopefully I'll get my unit up and running in the next few weeks so I can talk more intelligently from actual experience, but I had a 5 x 7 that I scanned on the 750 (wet mount) and also had drum scanned by Lenny Eiger. The drum scan had a much better range of tonality and shadow detail. I don't expect the IQsmart to be quite as good as Lenny's Aztek Premier, but I do expect a significant improvement over the 750.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,230

    Re: Changing from v700 to IQSmart2 for 8x10?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Andrada View Post
    Hi Pere

    I don't think it's about the number of pixels at all - more about the "quality" of the pixels. Hopefully I'll get my unit up and running in the next few weeks so I can talk more intelligently from actual experience, but I had a 5 x 7 that I scanned on the 750 (wet mount) and also had drum scanned by Lenny Eiger. The drum scan had a much better range of tonality and shadow detail. I don't expect the IQsmart to be quite as good as Lenny's Aztek Premier, but I do expect a significant improvement over the 750.

    Hello Jim,

    I've a technical approchach to this concern, from my dayly work spectrometer in hand...

    Be careful with hype...

    My opinion is that there is absolutely no difference in BW tonality from a V700 Flatbed to a Drum. You have a IT8 calibration target with your V700,

    If you have some (strange) problem just calibrate it http://blog.silverfast.com/quicktip-...canner-part-i/ and obtain the ICC

    You know that each calibration target can be slightly different but there is a file for each individual target for the slight discrepance it can be, that file can be downloaded from the target serial number, for maximum dead on accuracy.

    I can bet you that if you scan the calibration target in the V700 and in a Drum you'll obtain same exact values.

    It can happen that proffesional scanning people do apply some image enhancing software, or they manually adjust a bit the curves for your image. Also expensive scaners apply some digital sharpening in hardware to justify a bit more the price, just sharpen a bit with PS the V700 and drum result until sharpening has done what it can do and compare... this even solves blur from negative, this is evident when the Drum scanner gets sharper digital images than it was in the negative...

    Nothing you cannot match with PS curves or your own image enhancing soft ("perfectly clear" like)


    Scanning is a difficult science, it is possible to confuse own skills with the hardware performance. I know people that has a V700 and a High-End Drum, and they use the drum only for a few certain difficult situations, (with Velvia with very deep shadows).

    Belive me, you have an extraordinary tool (the V700). I've you want a new scanner go for it, but it's like with the camera, shot will not depend on if it is from a CAMBO or an Ebony, it's you.

    This is my conclusion, an expensive Scanner makes a difference over V700 with Velvia deepest shadows and in 135. It looks you use film that can only reach 3.0D and also you shot king format, so it is very difficult that the scanner hardware makes a difference, I think you should focus in your knowlege of the digital chain. Yes, I know, for a LF photographer it is boring... I bet you enjoy when have a model in your GG more that when you are scanning : ) like other passioned LF artists like you... (I'm not... I'd like...)

    If you print at darkroom you have to master burn/dodging, if you print at inkjet or Ilford Lab Direct you have to master PS, ICC and soft proofing, this is the key: one uncompressed pixel for each dot and soft proofing. Ask Ilford Lab Direct for the profiles (Neil Hibbs), they have one for the Frontier machine (under 10" prints) and a different one for the LightJet beast (over 10"). Never print inkjet, this is for newspapers and for people not aware that Ilford prints in silver for people. (inkjet it's a sin, one can go hell when he dies : )

    And for digital display, just master PS...

    PD: Because your activity, perhaps you should obtain Silverfast Plus, that comes with the 750,

    http://www.silverfast.com/show/silve...plus-8/en.html

    It has multiexposure (shadow detail, specialy for provia/velvia), and other enhacements.

    $40 at ebay:


    http://www.ebay.es/itm/Epson-Perfect...gAAOSwPhdU74ci

    You can also go to the V800 ($500) or the V850, LED illumination, better holders, near calibration-free, no wait for heating, some practical benefits, same performance.

    Regards
    Last edited by Pere Casals; 24-Jul-2016 at 05:48.

  3. #13
    Peter De Smidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Fond du Lac, WI, USA
    Posts
    6,771

    Re: Changing from v700 to IQSmart2 for 8x10?

    It's true that an Epson flatbed can reach about 3.0D, but if you scan a step wedge, you'll see that difference between steps as you reach 3.0D trails way off with the Epson flatbed. For film that reaches close to 3.0D or higher, a pro flatbed, dslr scanner, or especially a drum scanner will do better. But as Pere says, bw negatives don't generally get that dense.
    “You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
    ― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing you don't already know

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,230

    Re: Changing from v700 to IQSmart2 for 8x10?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt View Post
    It's true that an Epson flatbed can reach about 3.0D
    The V550 can reach 3.4D but the V700 can reach DMax 4.0, way more the density than a BW negative can reach in strong saturated highlights, and TMax or Tri-X can reach 3.0D only. From 3.0D to 4.0D there is an entire world in the middle !!

    The V700 has no problem to squeeze any drop of shadow or highlight detail a BW negative can have.

    In the Velvia realm, there is a difference in some situation.

    This comes from datasheets and from true real experience. I've scanned/processed images for an artist, and I've sent some negatives/slides to a pro lab with last model Imacon and Hassy, I've seen very well the difference:

    1) For a 8x10 an enlargement beyond 3m can show a difference, perhaps, not always because it has to be a technically perfect shot with less than 0,01º shake, and observing the 3m image at reading distance.

    2) Densities beyond 3.5D are better rendered by a drum, because better micro contrast. Those densities are not present with TMax, Tri-X, Neopan, etc. And yes... it can be found in Velvia/Provia, also in Silvermax but only with special energic developer, not with D-76, Xtol, HC-110, Rodinal etc...


    Any lack of quality is more from personal skills than from the scanner. We do silly things with digital infomation, even there are people that save/load/edit/save/load the files in jpg. every time they do they loss quality, then the image reduction algorithms... working with 8 bits, the ICC profile...

    A pro lab don't do silly things, and they touch curves with wisdom, that's the difference, not the scanner, talking about 8x10 BW...

    For 135, yes... its easier to see it, but even in 135 usually shots have more shake than flatbed (V700 class) scanning generated blur.

    This is my second 8x10 shot, scanned in a V750, HP5+

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592...posted-public/

    There are some jpg artifacts in the darkness, not from the scanner, but because compression to make a light weight file.

    This is a crop of the original file:

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592...posted-public/

    You can see each hammer hit from the flintstone.

    At what hell of print magnification can those holes be seen ????

    From the tower's clock (+6) to the stairs (-2) there where 8 Zones !!! With HP5+ the clock was shot at an exposure suitable for an ISO 6 film, 6 stops overexposed: 400->200->100->50->25->12->6 , N-4 development

    Was the scanner a problem ?

  5. #15
    Unwitting Thread Killer Ari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    5,076

    Re: Changing from v700 to IQSmart2 for 8x10?

    After years of scanning with Epsons, my first scan on the Creo made me jump out of my seat, quite literally.
    The clarity and range were astounding.
    I'm inclined to think that on a consumer-grade scanner, priced below $1000, the lens is the difference-maker.
    I think I spent so much time futzing with the Epson because the images were inherently soft, and there wasn't much I could do about the lens.
    Scanning fluid and custom holders don't make much difference in the end if your hardware is less-than-optimal.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,230

    Re: Changing from v700 to IQSmart2 for 8x10?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ari View Post
    futzing with the Epson because the images were inherently soft,
    : )

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592...posted-public/

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592...posted-public/


    Soft ? look at the crop ! this is from an epson, second hand.

    Do you enlarge 135 to wall size ?

    From the crop, do you think this is a "soft" scan ?

    Please show me a sharp crop from the Creo... I'd like to know what sharpness is...

    PD: and now the V800 it's at $500 range, new.

  7. #17
    Guilherme Maranhão coisasdavida's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    São Paulo, Brazil
    Posts
    362

    Re: Changing from v700 to IQSmart2 for 8x10?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ari View Post
    Scanning fluid and custom holders don't make much difference in the end if your hardware is less-than-optimal.
    I have looked at their lenses and I see no problems.
    But them this is all guessing.
    My belief is the sensor from the 90's were something else. First they were made by the thousands and not the millions.
    And then the XY factor makes so much difference, being able to use the entire sensor every time and actually using the limit of the optical resolution.

  8. #18
    Guilherme Maranhão coisasdavida's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    São Paulo, Brazil
    Posts
    362

    Re: Changing from v700 to IQSmart2 for 8x10?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    Do you enlarge 135 to wall size ?
    I did these scans on a Cezanne for this friend, they are Superia 400 35mm.
    http://www.iarafreiberg.com/2014-Nenhum-Lugar

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,230

    Re: Changing from v700 to IQSmart2 for 8x10?

    Quote Originally Posted by coisasdavida View Post
    I did these scans on a Cezanne for this friend, they are Superia 400 35mm.
    http://www.iarafreiberg.com/2014-Nenhum-Lugar
    Nice scans, but the shown resolution is 1200 dots per inch scanning, a V700 can do much more than it is shown. Show a crop, please !!!

    Superia needs some good 3200 dpi to get most of possible sharpness. You only show me your skills to modify the common Superia color look to the shown one, with a color profile or a image enhancing software, or PS, I don't know.

    With the sharp Superia film the Cezane have a little edge over the V700 in detail sharpness, for enlargements beyond 40x60cm. With 8x10" negatives it will have an slight edge for print size beyond 4mx6m, and looking at reading distance.

    But then happens that the lens is less sharp than film, shake, etc and at the end no big difference.

    About colour, with Superia, V700 will perform like the Cezane, density 3.0D is not challenging at all for V700, and final look will depend on color profile or enhancing software.

    I can also take a V700 color scan, pass it throught "Perfectly Clear", as most of this people do with raws: https://www.flickr.com/explore and say that it is the scanner.

    Hype is hype...

    This is not Hype:

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592...posted-public/

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592...posted-public/

    This is a crop of 2% of the image surface, Need more sharpness?

  10. #20
    Unwitting Thread Killer Ari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    5,076

    Re: Changing from v700 to IQSmart2 for 8x10?

    I won't get into a peeing contest here, suffice it to say I owned a v750, a 4870 and a 4990 and they were adequate, I'm not slamming any of them (ok, maybe the 4870 a little).
    Once I saw the first scan from the Creo, it was like a veil had been lifted, literally; the sharpness of the film grain was in plain evidence, the colours were excellent, and the scanned image looked like the image I had made in my camera.
    There was a huge difference for me in the quality of the scan; whether I make a 1:1 scan or enlarge for murals, the quality of the Creo is plain to see...for me.

Similar Threads

  1. iQsmart2-settings for color negative
    By Gregory Gilbert in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 26-Aug-2011, 15:40
  2. iQsmart2
    By LF_rookie_to_be in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 6-May-2011, 17:41
  3. New owner of iQSmart2
    By B.S.Kumar in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 23-Apr-2009, 22:02

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
  •