Epson scanner 4990 vs the V700 and V750

[Ken Lee]

To make a 16x20 from a 6x7 negative, you need to enlarge from 2.5 to 20: a factor of roughly 8. That assumes no cropping.

To get an 8X enlargement and print at 300 dpi, you need at least 2400 spi. While some have gotten close to that figure, I can't help noticing that the contrast at the high end of the resolution scale, is quite low. Some might be able to distinguish bars on a USAF target, but I'm more comfortable with my 700, when considering an upper limit of 1600 spi. I don't want to spend the time scanning at 6400 spi to squeeze the extra data out, if there is any.

1600 spi allows a 5x enlargement: enough for an 11x14, but not beyond.

If you shoot clouds or other soft subjects, then you might be able to get better results, but if you're shooting brick walls or other demanding subjects, you'll be WAY happier with a dedicated film scanner. They are scarce, but that's another matter.

I got a 700 after using a 4990, and have not seen a dramatic improvement.

[Matus Kalisky]

My personal experience with Microtek F1 (in the same class as V750) is pretty much the same - enlargements up to 4 - 5x look very good (when my scanner gets the focus right ), but beyond things get mushy.

With large format there is an advantage - once you make a 5x (20 x 24") print it gets so large that mostly one would not look at it at arm's length and even you will go for even larger print the viewing distance will usually increase so the final photograph may look nice (or, should I say .. OK).

The next step in scanning quality for 4x5 are Imacon scans (max. resolution 2040 spi) and if you need more than that you will spend serious money for scanning (drum or pro-flatbeds)

Ken, didn't you (at lest partially) move to 5x7 to get prints you wanted while using the V700?

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

Hi Ken, thanks for the quick response. I will probably wait until I have accumulated a few 6X7 transparencies that I want printed large to make a decision.

[Brian Ellis]

Ken,

I don't think thats correct. Ted told me there was no measurable difference in the epson scanners we are talking about and that any difference would be laid at the feet of the film holders, adjustable feet, that is!!

The sensor chip and likely the lens are the same for both the 4990 and 700/750 scanners.

I had a PERFECTLY adjusted 4990 and it really acquited itself quite well in a scan around with myself, Scott Rosenberg, Ted and a few others done a few years back. It was the budget machine in a flock of Cezannes, Creo's, Leaf's, and Polaroid's.

We were all amazed.

I'd say save the money and get a 4990 with the aftermarket film holder.

bob

Ted's published review of the 700/750 said the same thing about the lack of significant resolution difference between it and the 4990.

I've used the 4990 for years and I think it does very well with 4x5 film. I've never tried it with 35mm but I'd guess it might do o.k. for web posting with that small a negative but probably not for prints, at least not anything 8x10 or larger. But that's just a guess based on the scans I got with 6x7 film which I didn't think were good enough to make acceptable (to me) prints larger than about 8x10.

I also can't compare it to the 700/750 since I've never used those scanners. All I can say is I've never considered replacing the 4990 with a 700/750 because I've been very happy with the 4990 for 4x5 film.

I've never

[Frank Petronio]

You can scan anything and print any size, there is no rule and sometimes the roughness of something "over the edge" is a beautiful quality.

But for myself, having scanned some 120 with a 4990, it will work fine. I have a 20x20 print from an Epson scan hanging in the house.

The problem occurs when you go an get that same film scanned from a better scanner - an Imacon or Nikon Coolscan 9000 or real drum scanner. Once you compare all your Epson scans will suck. If you get a good drum scan, then the Imacon scans will suck too.

From a practical POV, I don't like 35mm scanned on the Epson, I prefer a cheap dedicated film scanner like the old Minolta DualScan IV. Medium format film is iffy, 4x5 is pretty OK. Certainly for small prints and online, it is the way to go, especially at first before you make millions from your photography ;-p

For best results, these scanners need to be cleaned from their off-gassing and you need to experiment with finding the optimal height for the film holder (or third party holder).

[Ben Syverson]

Frank is right... the Epson will scan 120 well enough for pretty good sized prints, and the only downside is the nagging feeling that you're not getting the most out of your negatives.

It's mostly mental, because if you ever do need to go large with 120, the cost of a drum scan is not much compared to the cost of the print. But that feeling of "eh, this is good enough for now" is depressing when you're spending a lot of time scanning. With 35mm on a film scanner, at least I can close the book on those negatives and know I'll never need to scan them again.

[Ken Lee]

Ken, didn't you (at lest partially) move to 5x7 to get prints you wanted while using the V700?

Yes. Depending on the aspect ratio of the final image, 5x7 can give us a substantial boost: we can use X% crummier lenses, or make images X% larger, smoother, or what-have-you.

That being said I shoot 4x5 too - for variety as much as anything else.

[Frank Petronio]

I think as long as you're using an Epson, you resign yourself to the fact that for your best images, if you ever were going to print big or have them in a show, anything more critical than a ~11x14, you need to get a better scan, preferably a drum or at least a higher-end CCD (like a Creo or at least an Imacon).

It's not just the cost but the time in Photoshop re-editing. So you pick carefully and only do your finest images. That kind of editing is the most pure and effective anyway so I think it's a net gain actually... We have fine resources, I'd gladly send my stuff to someone like Lenny Eiger http://www.eigerphoto.com/pricing_policy_ep.php for professional drum scans.

I considering getting my own drum scanner for 48 hours a while back, I figured I'd have to open a service to justify it. I simple don't have enough of my own work to scan (unless I got really bored and scanned the gazillion mediocre shots I've done).

Personally I rather be out shooting than driving myself crazy over the last iota of resolution or sharpness or tonal range. So I'll accept the compromises of using an Epson... but at least I know what they are. I like the 11x14 images fine, they look good on Baryta paper in a portfolio or in the prevailing overmat/rectangular frame tradition.

And when I get something good, I'll have Bob Carnie http://www.elevatordigital.ca/ make me some Lambda prints from film processed at Edgar's http://www.4photolab.com/ shot using lenses from Eddie http://eddiegunks.com/

No they do not pay me hahaha

[Ben Syverson]

I considering getting my own drum scanner for 48 hours a while back, I figured I'd have to open a service to justify it. I simple don't have enough of my own work to scan (unless I got really bored and scanned the gazillion mediocre shots I've done).

I think I've posted this before, but I know two or three photographers who bought drum scanners, and they pretty much shoot digital now. The scanning process just got to be too much of a PITA... Sometimes the "best" way to do something is totally unsustainable.

[drittner]

Hello, I understand that the 4990 is good for making scans of glass plate negs of 8x10. Does anyone know if this is true and I would assume the V750 might do the same?
Thanks.
don

Apologies if this is an old topic, but I am thinking about getting myself a scanner to cover 35mm, medium and large format negatives (up to 5x7 size). Here in the UK the 4990 seems to go (second hand) for around £200 or a bit more depending on condition, while the V700 and V750 are around £450 and £650 new, and of course probably a bit less than that second hand.

Is is worth paying out the extra for the current models, or do people think that for normal amateur usage and black and white negs that the 4990 is sufficient? I don't think that I am being mean, but I would rather not pay out more if I am not going to be able to tell the difference.