JC, The scanner is suppposed to be good for prints as well. As I said, I don't need a film scanner but I do have a friend who was in the same position as you (i.e. had no scanner) and was extremely happy with her Epson 2450.
I'm not sure if she prints from it though; she does have an HP but when she saw the prints I got from my older Epson 870 photo printer, she was impressed at the quality. The recent post I made asking about B&W printing from Epson printers suggests that the best way to print is full color RGB or duotone in full color RGB even if your image in Photoshop is Grayscale. I've done it in the past with good results but was wondering if anyone could get around the sort of "bluish" or "greenish" color cast that happens. It's not too bad, it's bearable and hardly noticeable until you hold up the same image in B&W as a real photo then you can see a difference. Behind a frame, I've got both real and "Epson-ized" prints and I've had people over (who are not photographers) who can't tell the difference. I'm starting to stray off topic here.. I'm usually not up at this time... nightmares and all :) Cheers, Dave -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 3:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Re[4]: Best flatbed scanner for B&W prints? Did you try scanning wise range B&W 8X10 prints? Curious... Because a 8X10 print at 2400 ppi would be a file 20,000 X 24,000 pixels large! Even a color 4X6 print would be 10,000 by 15,000. JCO > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton > Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 3:31 AM > To: J. C. O'Connell > Subject: Re[4]: Best flatbed scanner for B&W prints? > > > Compared to nothing, it is a great scanner! I thought it did quite > well with prints and reasonable with negatives. Not so hot with > slides, but that is nothing new to me. I have never been able to scan > slides to my satisfaction. For web work, the negative scanning is > probably adequate. For printing 8X10's, I thought it was lacking > sharpness. My 35mm film scans were looking sharper. I only tried > scanning 120 slides and negatives - never 35mm. > > > Bruce Dayton > > > > Friday, April 12, 2002, 12:25:14 AM, you wrote: > > JCOC> Well my intention was to use it as a BW print scanner. > JCOC> The film scanning is a bonus as I dont have a film > JCOC> scanner at all. If nothing else I can use it for > JCOC> web use for film and making contact sheets. If its really > JCOC> bad, I'll just return it like you did and get a print > JCOC> only scanner. BTW, did you find something better? > JCOC> JCO - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
