I have a cheap Epson 4490 that I bought refurbished from Epson's website about a year and half ago. I scan both print and negative, and get the better results with from the negative. In fact I get better tonal range scanning than I do printing - as I believe I posted once before, the scanner on its "auto expose" set to the highest level gives me results I can only get from prints that get the benefit of split grade exposure - unless it's an exceptionally good negative, of which I have very few (I'm still learning - or just not that luck yet). At 2400 ppi, I've scanned 135 negs that have a lot of information in them, and I can edit most of them to a great extent. I don't have a decent digital printer, so I don't know if what I'm seeing on screen is optimal. I've scanned some color negatives and printed them to 9x6 with very good results on a bottom of the line Epson C88 (under $90). I scan from a print only when the print itself is something I'm proud of, and want to share electronically, but I rarely get close to the quality of the print itself. And that's really why I print... there's really nothing like it. I often have to edit the scan of a print to make it look like the print (and never get all the way there). When you scan the print you're getting the relatively limited tonal range of the print instead of the very wide tonal range of the negative. Where my scanner has really come through for me is in the scanning of medium format negatives, both color negative and positive, and b&w. I once even scanned 4x5 negatives in two parts and stitched them together in photoshop (the 4490 can only scan a 2.5" wide area).
You're welcome to see the results on my flickr page at http:// www.flickr.com/photos/99071700@N00/
The Epson 4990 is a great scanner - fast and accurate. The V700 and 750 even better, and still half the price of the Nikon dedicated film scanners. But if you can still find a 4490 (less than $150), you can more than get by for posting on the web. What I don't like about the flat bed scanners is the film holders. My solution has been to tape my negatives face down on the flat bed (to avoid newton rings), and then flip them around in Photoshop. So far so good. That being said, if I had $2000, I'd buy a Nikon 9000.
Good luck, Elias On Dec 25, 2008, at 9:53 AM, Jeffrey Thorns wrote:
A question for those of you that have a web-presense for your silver images;Do you scan the original negatives (with a film scanner) or do you make prints first, then scan on a flatbed scanner?My early attempts (prints with a flatbed) some years back were less than stellar, my scanner has since broken, so I am faced with buying new. I have seen several websites that did a beautiful job of presenting silver images, and I have always assumed that people made the prints first, then scanned those.Do most of you scan the prints, rather than the negs?Anyone using the Epson V700? Do you like it? (sorry to be sliding OT...)====================================================================== ======================================= To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
============================================================================================================= To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
