Re: Scanners

[petermarshall@xxxxxxxxx (Peter Marshall)]

I use an Epson 1200 for scanning medium format. It isn't perfect but does 
a reasonable job for the money.

You can certainly make some pretty detailed and sharp looking prints up to 
around 12x10 inches with scans from it - though I've only done this using 
a lab that prints onto Fuji Crystal Archive.

Peter Marshall
Photography Guide at About          http://photography.about.com/
email: photography.guide@xxxxxxxxx
_________________________________________________________________
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
Also on Fixing Shadows:       http://www.people.virginia.edu/~ds8s
and elsewhere......
> 
> I would warn against the Epson 1200, especially if you are used to 
> the output from a Coolscan. I have a 1200 and have tested this and 
> two other 1200s (non-consecutive serial nos.) against a Nikon 
> LS2000 and an Afga Duoscan T2500. I used the same combination 
> of 35mm Velvia trans and Royal Gold 25 neg on each scanner at 
> the nearest non-interpolated resolution to the native 1200ppi of the 
> Epson, all USM etc. was disabled.
> The scans from all three 1200's were very soft, roughly similar to 
> interpolated output from a sharp 600ppi scanner. I tested the 1200 
> vs. the Agfa on reflective scans, same result. I also tried scanning 
> film on, and at different heights above the glass on the 1200, in 
> case the unsharpness was a focus issue, I could not get any 
> improvement in output.
> For those interested, the Nikon was slightly sharper than the Agfa, 
> and had better shadow detail on trans, plus the Silverfast software 
> is much better than Agfa Fotolook.
> I have not tested the Epson 1600, but I have heard rumours that it 
> is sharper than the 1200, and it certainly has an improved D range.
> If you have gone to the trouble of using MF, it seems a shame to 
> lose the quality in the scanning stage.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> Keith Davison
> 
>