Thanks for that info, Bill - very interesting results.
95% of my MF shooting is B&W film, and I develop it to be fairly low contrast, preserving as much shadow and highlight detail as possible. The rest of my shooting is primarily color negative film - so D-Max is not so much of an issue.
I just picked up my 20 x 24 images from the lab. Overall, I'm really happy with the degree of detail and sharpness in these images - definately on par or even superior to 35mm shots blown up to 11 x 17. Overall, the scans from the Epson 3200 seem to be more than adequate for the job. The lab did pump up the contrast and saturation a bit, so I'm a bit iffy on some of the results, particularly in regards to contrast. I often print with no true black or white in the image, but to a lot of eyes that makes for a dull print. FWIW - here are the images that were came back as large prints:
http://www.markcassino.com/temp/prints/
But those are not images of the prints themselves.
I picked these shots because they really don't work at smaller sizes. For example, I displayed the first image as a 12x18 print in a gallery last month, and people kept asking me what the white circle at the bottom left third point was. It's a spider web. At 12 x 18 the web is under an inch in size - if you look closely you can see what it is, but a lot of folks don't look closely. At 20 x 24 the individual strands on this spider web are fairly clear, though I think the print needs to be a bit larger to make it obvious.
Similarly, the broken wine bottle in the lower left of the Oak Savannah shot is not apparent, even at 20 x 24, and is completely invisible in these itty bitty internet images.
(As a side note - I think it's worthy to note that when one looks at an internet image, the amount of detail presented is virtually nil. I used to spend a lot of time on internet critique sites, until I realized that the critique was looking at only the most rough and coarse aspects of the composition. So - even as I post images onto the internet - attempting to asses those images via a web display is ultimately a futile process. Well, that's a side note...)
After paying the bill for the four 20 x24 prints, I'm seriously thinking of just sticking with the Epson 3200 and rolling all my money towards a good large format printer. I'd probably have to take the couch out of my studio to fit it in. Not a major problem for a nature photographer (if I worked with models I might have second thoughts.)
Thanks again for you comments.
- MCC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 12:01 PM
Subject: Re:scanner comparison
The resolution numbers of Epson flatbed scanners are suspect. Nevertheless they a good value for medium format scans. I had an Epson 1600, then an Epson 3200. I have scanned many 645, 6X6, 6X7 , and 6X9 negs and transparencies. I usually get 16X20 lightjet prints made.
Last summer I had a chance to use top end scanners at The Santa Fe Workshops. I scanned 645 Provia 100 images on an expensive Imacon scanner and made some great pronts. The Nikon 8000 scanner was unusable because the film holder was a very bad design. When I got home I scanned the same film on my 3200. I was surprised that the sharpness of both scanners was the same. The difference was that the Imacon outperformed the Epson in shadow detail (D-max). But not, IMO, enough for me to spend an additional $14,000!
Another surprise was that when I examined some old prints from the 1600 I couldn't te;; the difference between the i600 and 3200 in 16X20 prints.
I decided not to upgrade to the Epson 4800.
Bill Lawlor
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI www.markcassino.com
