Bob Croxford wrote:
>I don't think you can compare the look of Epson prints with Cibachromes as a
>guide to how good a scanner is.
hi Bob
I didn't actually print the comparison images - the quality of my scan
from Polaroid 4000 compared to a drum scan was just judged by comparison
on screen - in terms of sharpness (where drum scan was only marginally
sharper - drum scan requested unsharpened in any way, own scan not
sharpened), colour (drum scan much better colour but was able to achieve
similar with own scan with a little tweaking), highlight detail, and
shadow detail (P4000 scanner compared very favourably)
>
>I did a test of some RGB to CMYK conversions and at the same time between
>some cheap one-shot scans and Crosfield drum scans. Using an Epson printer I
>was able to get very acceptable prints even from the cheap scans. This was
>when a local bureau still did Fuji proofs. I then got the files output to
>litho film at 175 line screen and proofed. I naturally assumed that if A4
>Epson prints looked good a litho print at A5 would show no difference between
>the files. Amazingly the limitations of the one shot scans made them quite
>unuseable for litho print.
I bow to your greater knowledge of all things repro!
My only experience with repro has been indirect, such as sending the
transparencies off to the printer/publisher (never seen a proof..), and
up until recently my only experience with 'quality' photo prints has
been Cibas (or prints via internegs) - whilst Cibas can be stunning, to
me the prints produced via Epson 1290 (and from my own P4000 scans, and
with a relatively inexperienced operator/Photoshopper) have shown the
exciting potential of inkjet printing and shown up the limitations of
Cibas in terms of sharpness, contrast control, and colour. As a like-
for-like 'photo print' Ciba versus inkjet, the comparison is valid and,
for me, the inkjet wins on everything except longevity (and, at the
moment, size available) - I just go by what I see!
>
>There seems to be something about Epson printers which improves the
>appearance of files.
>
>I know that others have experienced this.
Not sure what you mean.... I can see that scans due for output to inkjet
printer may well require different treatment/adjustment to those for
repro (CMYK is still a bit of mystery for this colour management
newbie....!)
cheers
Geoff
--
Geoff Dore Photography
Nature - Landscape - Travel
Mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/Fax: 07041 514133
Website: http://www.geoffdore.com or: 01202 315326
===============================================================
GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
