I have just purchased a medium format film camera, which I'll be using with black and white film (enthusiastic amateur use only). I'll want to have the negatives scanned (having been developed by a lab)to digital format and prints (up to A3) made of selected shots. What are the opinions about buying for eg an Epson V750 and a high quality photo printer (totaling around £1000) vs having the scanning and the printing done through a professional lab?
Thanks
I have been looking at the Epson V750 or V700 as I am about to bring my Bronica SQA out of retirement. In the tests and reviews I have seen, the Epsons look to be almost as good as the Nikon LS9000, at about a quarter of the price, and as such I think that is the way to go.
I know there are a number of V750 users here and I would expect we will here from them soon.
Apart from anything else I think you may get more satisfaction by doing as much as possible yourself. Also I doubt you really need to spend a grand to get optimum prints.
Roger is right that the in house approach is very satisfying and fills up the long winter evenings. I have even gone back to developing my own B&W films, it's easy enough if you have the facilities. I don't bother with the colour as minilabs do such a quick and economical job.
Do be aware that not all ink jet printers are equal when it comes to B&W. Many give an impure black and white print with a variable colour cast.
What in your experience would suffice i.t.o. scanner and printer to get optimum results?
Thanks
I believe the Epson R2400 is highly regarded. Can't comment on others, though a search of this forum may bring up some info.
I have the 4990 scanner, the predecessor to the V700 and am very satisfied with the results. I'd have thought the V750 and R2400 would be just about the dream combination for A3.What in your experience would suffice i.t.o. scanner and printer to get optimum results?
Thanks
I have an old Epson 3170 with all the 35mm and MF holders. I use this and a Canon 9500 and the results have been superb.
If you are willing to spend the time/expense calibrating your monitor and also be willing to waste some paper getting your image right (just like in the wet lab), the results at home are much better than most automatic labs.
tvl
I use an Epson 750 to scan medium format negatives. There is a knack at getting the negative flat however with a little practice you can get fantastic results. I make any manipulations is PS3 before re-sizing for printing which I get done by a pro. I am flirting with the idea of buying a printer, but I would want an A3 which seem expensive to run with respect to ink costs.
Chris
I have an Epson 4990 and it's OK for medium format film, although, as has been pointed out, it is sometimes difficult to hold the film flat. This is particularly the case with old negatives, (1960s) where the film width is slightly larger than the Epson film holder.
I have got around this by making a simple 1mm thick replacement film holder using black plastic card. I cut out a 6x6 square in the centre. You can tension the negative across this gap using tape on the edges, thus maintaining good flatness. It does take an age to to though, and, for general use, I just use the standard film holder.
Another approach is to use thin ground (to avoid Newton's rings) glass onto which the negs are taped. I have not tried this, but have seen good scans made this way.
Finally, the difference between a good professional scan of 35mm film and that which can be achieved with the Epson, is very large. It is not really satisfactory for 35mm scanning, other than for web use.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote