Drum Scan vs DSLR vs Epson Scan (From Nick Carver's Youtube Channel)

[Pere Casals]

I'm also not surprised to see that he prefers the Epson scan. Epsons do well with larger formats, and he's both wet scanning it, and taking advantage of iSRD. Dust is a huge problem with ultra high res scanning, and one I'm still trying to deal with. (Particularly with 8x10!)

Not a surprise, very, very skilled people having a drum and an Epson prefers the Epson 95% of the times for MF and up. Probably 5% of the times the drum is needed. For LF it's really difficult to substantially beat the EPSON.

The Epson has been attacked by people having commercial interests because the Epson was a very hard competition, and many people prone to hype had been lured to buy expensive gear when just an Epson scan can match the result with a few mouse clicks.


The Epson requires some edition skills to digitally optimize the image in the way Pro machines do automaticly, so people lacking basics on Ps edition skills were easily misslead, some buying expesive/big/problematic pre-press gear to have absolutely no advantage for LF.



Every day a fool is born, it's just a matter of finding him to make a good business. (Citing Juan March, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_March_Ordinas)

[Alan Klein]

Not a surprise, very, very skilled people having a drum and an Epson prefers the Epson 95% of the times for MF and up. Probably 5% of the times the drum is needed. For LF it's really difficult to substantially beat the EPSON.

The Epson has been attacked by people having commercial interests because the Epson was a very hard competition, and many people prone to hype had been lured to buy expensive gear when just an Epson scan can match the result with a few mouse clicks.


The Epson requires some edition skills to digitally optimize the image in the way Pro machines do automaticly, so people lacking basics on Ps edition skills were easily misslead, some buying expesive/big/problematic pre-press gear to have absolutely no advantage for LF.



Every day a fool is born, it's just a matter of finding him to make a good business. (Citing Juan March, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_March_Ordinas)

What edits in PS for the Epson are you referring too?

[Peter De Smidt]

"Not a surprise, very, very skilled people having a drum and an Epson prefers the Epson 95% of the times for MF and up." Kinda hard to support that, isn't it? And if you look at this site, one where many people have drum scanners, including those who don't scan for money, you'll not find people agreeing with Pere. I've been here a long time. I pay attention to scanner threads, and I don't own a drum scanner or do scans for money. Made-up statistics are not a good sign of reliability. Epistemology, by the way, is my area of professional expertise.

[Jim Andrada]

I don't even have a drum scanner - just a Lowly IQsmart 2. And I don't prefer the Epson 750/850. I have one, but haven't seen a need to use it since I got the Creo/Kodak. Which is what I actually prefer because It's A Better Scanner.

None of the folks that bought prints I made with the Epson were unhappy with them. But I slowly started to feel that I could do better. I don't so much feel that way anymore. Of course I can always do better, but the emphasis is on the "I" not the tool I'm using.

[Pere Casals]

What edits in PS for the Epson are you referring too?

Hello Alan,

First, let me say that everytime a serious side by side has been made the Epson has shown impressive excellence in LF.

See this, the Epson equals a "modern" Creo and and a 11000 Drum, while surpassing an older Creo:

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1479178

It only required 2.5pix 50% sharpening radius and a little touch in the curves shaping a bit in S to totally match the drum sample.


The challenge you will face with the V850 is Sharpening and "resolution management". Sharpening is always complex. Also you have to save a Hires image (4800 or 6400) in TIFF, 16 bits/channel and taking all histogram to get a dull image then sharpen, reduce image size with "bicubic, ideal for reductions" choice in the image size dialog, bend curves to fit the monitor/paper dynamic range, edit, save a Hires file copy, resize to the distribution size, make a final pixel level sharpening (also bicubic for reductions), then convert to 8bit per channel, and save that file in TIFF and in jpeg.

That workflow sequence is important... you may vary something but really not much. Pro scanners may do internally well digital sharpening and resolution managent, but with the Epson you have to edit like Professionals do make a perfect job.


If you search "Epson" and "Crap" in this forum you will find many results, those are absolute lies. If you know how to edit an image Professionally then you'll get absolutely Professional results with the Epson.



Do something, if you want... order a Pro drum scan of challenging negative, then try to match it with the Epson, if you have any missmatch then PM with dropbox and I'll guide you to nail a perfect match.


99% of complains about the EPSON for LF are in fact shorcommings in the edition skills or pure lies from people that had dirty commercial interests, just this: if for LF you can't match a drum job then just PM and I'll show you how to do it, I won't fail.

____

Disclaimer, it is true that for LF sometimes (5%) a drum ca do a better job. For example for a mural print from 4x5 where grain depiction is to be important a 8000dpi drum scan will show a way better grain structure, but not much difference will be there compared with a 4000dpi drum scan.

For very underexopsed Velvia use Multi-exposure in silverfast. For crazy underexposed Velvia a drum may be required.

[Louis Pacilla]

Hello Alan,

First, let me say that everytime a serious side by side has been made the Epson has shown impressive excellence in LF.

See this, the Epson equals a "modern" Creo and and a 11000 Drum, while surpassing an older Creo:

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1479178

It only required 2.5pix 50% sharpening radius and a little touch in the curves shaping a bit in S to totally match the drum sample.


The challenge you will face with the V850 is Sharpening and "resolution management". Sharpening is always complex. Also you have to save a Hires image (4800 or 6400) in TIFF, 16 bits/channel and taking all histogram to get a dull image then sharpen, reduce image size with "bicubic, ideal for reductions" choice in the image size dialog, bend curves to fit the monitor/paper dynamic range, edit, save a Hires file copy, resize to the distribution size, make a final pixel level sharpening (also bicubic for reductions), then convert to 8bit per channel, and save that file in TIFF and in jpeg.

That workflow sequence is important... you may vary something but really not much. Pro scanners may do internally well digital sharpening and resolution managent, but with the Epson you have to edit like Professionals do make a perfect job.


If you search "Epson" and "Crap" in this forum you will find many results, those are absolute lies. If you know how to edit an image Professionally then you'll get absolutely Professional results with the Epson.



Do something, if you want... order a Pro drum scan of challenging negative, then try to match it with the Epson, if you have any missmatch then PM with dropbox and I'll guide you to nail a perfect match.


99% of complains about the EPSON for LF are in fact shorcommings in the edition skills or pure lies from people that had dirty commercial interests, just this: if for LF you can't match a drum job then just PM and I'll show you how to do it, I won't fail.

____

Disclaimer, it is true that for LF sometimes (5%) a drum ca do a better job. For example for a mural print from 4x5 where grain depiction is to be important a 8000dpi drum scan will show a way better grain structure, but not much difference will be there compared with a 4000dpi drum scan.

For very underexopsed Velvia use Multi-exposure in silverfast. For crazy underexposed Velvia a drum may be required.

Man oh man here we go AGAIN! I didn't miss your absence.

[Corran]

Man oh man here we go AGAIN! I didn't miss your absence.

+1

As has been stated a zillion times by many members, any sharpening done on an Epson scan can be done on a better scan too, and therefore is a poor argument. And there is a difference between resolution and oversharpened noise.

[Kiwi7475]

Why is this topic so controversial and brings so much animosity since it was first brought up years ago?

[Louis Pacilla]

Why is this topic so controversial and brings so much animosity since it was first brought up years ago?

It's people (mostly one) trying against ALL evidence to convince all others that the Epson flatbed scanner 700-750-800-850 match or OUTPERFORM a quality drum scan. Simple BS and most of the BS comes from this one member. Mentioned above.

Now whether or not the Epson flat bed is not good enough for most of us is a personal thing. Trying to convince others the Epson V700/800 is as good or better then a quality drum scan is some serious hubris.

[sperdynamite]

Man oh man here we go AGAIN! I didn't miss your absence.

This is how you do it.