Epson 3200 question

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by C, Jan 22, 2004.

  1. C

    C Guest

    What's the quality of 4x5 neg scans from the Epson 3200?
    C, Jan 22, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. C wrote:

    > What's the quality of 4x5 neg scans from the Epson 3200?


    Must be pretty good - the thing can do a great job on 35mm!

    Gary Eickmeier
    Gary Eickmeier, Jan 22, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. C

    BCampbell Guest

    It may do a great job on 35mm for web posting or for small prints but for
    prints 8x10 and up from 35mm film it's not much of a scanner. However, that
    isn't what it was intended to be used for. For prints in the 8x10 and up
    range the 3200 should be used only with medium and large format films. It's
    excellent with 4x5 negatives if you're printing 8x10 to maybe 16x20.

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:Y2IPb.85576$...
    >
    >
    > C wrote:
    >
    > > What's the quality of 4x5 neg scans from the Epson 3200?

    >
    > Must be pretty good - the thing can do a great job on 35mm!
    >
    > Gary Eickmeier
    >
    BCampbell, Jan 22, 2004
    #3
  4. C

    LLutton Guest

    A lot of people talk down using a desktop scanner for 35mm. I realize a
    dedicated film scanner is the way to go if you can spend the money and have the
    room, but I have the Epson 2400 desktop scanner and have printed 8"x10" prints
    that exceeded same size prints from a lab made from the same 35mm slide.
    Therefore, I take issue with those who say they are only good for web posting.
    I usually scan at 16 bits/color channel and if the slide is too contrasty, I've
    scanned twice, once for the highlights and once for the shadows, and combined
    the two scans in Photoshop.
    I imagine the 3200 scanner is even better, but, if you can afford a dedicated
    scanner that can scan at least 3200 ppi, I agree you would be better off.
    Lynn
    LLutton, Jan 23, 2004
    #4
  5. C <> wrote in
    news:p:
    > What's the quality of 4x5 neg scans from the Epson 3200?


    I have an Epson 3170, which I believe is quite similar to the 3200
    (only cheaper). Maybe someone can point out the differences.

    Anyways, I think it's doing a great job with 35mm and 6cmx6cm slides
    and negatives. The results sure look good to me, especially
    considering the $200 price tag.

    Last week, I put up this page that shows an example of the
    difference between a scan I had done for me by digitalley.com using
    a Nikon LS4000ED and my 3170:
    http://www.mindspring.com/~lorqvonray/Epson3170vsNikonLS400ED.html

    Of course, the Nikon image is better, but the Epson does very well
    IMO. It looks like the biggest downside to the Epson is its
    inability to capture much detail from the shadows.
    Tony Whitaker, Jan 23, 2004
    #5
  6. Tony Whitaker wrote:
    > C <> wrote in
    > news:p:
    >
    >>What's the quality of 4x5 neg scans from the Epson 3200?

    >
    >
    > I have an Epson 3170, which I believe is quite similar to the 3200
    > (only cheaper). Maybe someone can point out the differences.
    >
    > Anyways, I think it's doing a great job with 35mm and 6cmx6cm slides
    > and negatives. The results sure look good to me, especially
    > considering the $200 price tag.
    >
    > Last week, I put up this page that shows an example of the
    > difference between a scan I had done for me by digitalley.com using
    > a Nikon LS4000ED and my 3170:
    > http://www.mindspring.com/~lorqvonray/Epson3170vsNikonLS400ED.html
    >
    > Of course, the Nikon image is better, but the Epson does very well
    > IMO. It looks like the biggest downside to the Epson is its
    > inability to capture much detail from the shadows.


    Thanks - examples like this put the lie to the naysayers. I'm not saying
    there is no perceptible difference from a dedicated slide/neg scanner,
    but the difference isn't as great as they say.

    Gary Eickmeier
    Gary Eickmeier, Jan 23, 2004
    #6
  7. In article <>,
    says...
    > A lot of people talk down using a desktop scanner for 35mm. I realize a
    > dedicated film scanner is the way to go if you can spend the money and have the
    > room, but I have the Epson 2400 desktop scanner and have printed 8"x10" prints
    > that exceeded same size prints from a lab made from the same 35mm slide.
    > Therefore, I take issue with those who say they are only good for web posting.
    > I usually scan at 16 bits/color channel and if the slide is too contrasty, I've
    > scanned twice, once for the highlights and once for the shadows, and combined
    > the two scans in Photoshop.
    > I imagine the 3200 scanner is even better, but, if you can afford a dedicated
    > scanner that can scan at least 3200 ppi, I agree you would be better off.
    > Lynn
    >

    The epson 3200 is being replaced by the 4870 which will have a nominal
    4800 dpi resolution. This may make the difference between flat bed and
    film scanners unimportant for enlargements of 10x or less.
    --
    Robert D Feinman

    Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramas and Photoshop Tips
    http://robertdfeinman.com
    Robert Feinman, Jan 23, 2004
    #7
  8. In article <Xns947960D4B0ADlettonyin@207.69.154.206>,
    says...
    > C <> wrote in
    > news:p:
    > > What's the quality of 4x5 neg scans from the Epson 3200?

    >
    > I have an Epson 3170, which I believe is quite similar to the 3200
    > (only cheaper). Maybe someone can point out the differences.
    >
    > Anyways, I think it's doing a great job with 35mm and 6cmx6cm slides
    > and negatives. The results sure look good to me, especially
    > considering the $200 price tag.
    >
    > Last week, I put up this page that shows an example of the
    > difference between a scan I had done for me by digitalley.com using
    > a Nikon LS4000ED and my 3170:
    > http://www.mindspring.com/~lorqvonray/Epson3170vsNikonLS400ED.html
    >
    > Of course, the Nikon image is better, but the Epson does very well
    > IMO. It looks like the biggest downside to the Epson is its
    > inability to capture much detail from the shadows.
    >

    It's hard to tell from your choice of image. The only place that
    seems to have fine detail is in the brick siding on the building.
    Satisfaction with scans has a lot to do with the quality expectations
    of the viewer, choice of subject matter, output media and degree of
    enlargement.
    Personally I am finding that scans made with the new Minolta 5400 reveal
    a degree of detail which is greater than I used to expect with
    conventional enlargements.
    I have some scanning tips on my web site..
    --
    Robert D Feinman

    Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramas and Photoshop Tips
    http://robertdfeinman.com
    Robert Feinman, Jan 23, 2004
    #8
  9. I have scanned 2 1/4x 2 1/4 with the 3200 and obtained excellent
    results. By the time you get down to 35 mm the results are, IMHO,
    marginal. I have compared scans done with the 3200 with those those
    obtained from the HP Photosmart S20 film scanner. This scanner is not
    great, scans only at 2400, has aliasing problems, etc. However, even
    at 8x10 the film scanner visably outperfporms the 3200.

    Jim

    Tony Whitaker <> wrote in message news:<Xns947960D4B0ADlettonyin@207.69.154.206>...
    > C <> wrote in
    > news:p:
    > > What's the quality of 4x5 neg scans from the Epson 3200?

    >
    > I have an Epson 3170, which I believe is quite similar to the 3200
    > (only cheaper). Maybe someone can point out the differences.
    >
    > Anyways, I think it's doing a great job with 35mm and 6cmx6cm slides
    > and negatives. The results sure look good to me, especially
    > considering the $200 price tag.
    >
    > Last week, I put up this page that shows an example of the
    > difference between a scan I had done for me by digitalley.com using
    > a Nikon LS4000ED and my 3170:
    > http://www.mindspring.com/~lorqvonray/Epson3170vsNikonLS400ED.html
    >
    > Of course, the Nikon image is better, but the Epson does very well
    > IMO. It looks like the biggest downside to the Epson is its
    > inability to capture much detail from the shadows.
    James Cassatt, Jan 23, 2004
    #9
  10. Gary Eickmeier <> wrote in
    news:O89Qb.43953$:

    > Thanks - examples like this put the lie to the naysayers. I'm not
    > saying there is no perceptible difference from a dedicated
    > slide/neg scanner, but the difference isn't as great as they say.


    I agree. Certainly, it's ridiculous to say that the 3200dpi Epson
    3170 scans of 35mm slides and negatives are inadequate for 8"x10"
    enlargements. You can get superb 8"x10" enlargements from 3170
    scans. You should be able to get poster size enlargements better
    than almost any digital camera if you use a slide film like Velvia
    or Kodachrome (this is not an anti-digital statement - just a fact -
    if you've read my posts before, you know I am a digicam enthusiast -
    but film does still have 1 advantage - really big enlargements).

    And, of course, you have to ask if the difference between the Nikon
    LS4000ED and the Epson 3170 is worth $1,100. I don't think so.
    Tony Whitaker, Jan 24, 2004
    #10
  11. Robert Feinman <> wrote in
    news::

    > It's hard to tell from your choice of image. The only place that
    > seems to have fine detail is in the brick siding on the building.
    >


    "No fine detail"? What the HELL are you talking about? You do
    realize that you aren't looking at the entire slide, don't you?
    You're looking at a a portion of the slide that's only about 0.2"
    wide by 0.14" high.

    "No fine detail"? What about the weeds growing up against the side
    of the cinder block wall? What about the slender rods in the stair
    railings at the first and second landings of the staircase? What
    about the leafy weed behind the cinder block? What about the grille
    on the front of the Ford Ranger truck? What about the window sticker
    on the windshield of the Ranger? What about the overahanging wires
    that cross the scene in a few places? What about the leafy bushes?
    What about the company logo on the side of the red F-150 pickup?
    Jesus Christ, there's even a license plate in there. You can't see
    the numbers on the license plate because that's detail so fine you
    can't see it on the slide through a microscope.

    "No fine detail"? Ha!!! You're outta your mind. Here's a page that
    may clarify what you're looking at:
    http://www.mindspring.com/~lorqvonray/Sticker-5mp-Velvia.html
    Tony Whitaker, Jan 24, 2004
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. contrex
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,397
  2. Max Perl

    Epson 3200?

    Max Perl, Nov 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    412
  3. Ray White

    3200 Epson Scanner

    Ray White, Nov 25, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    434
    Ray White
    Nov 29, 2003
  4. epson 3200 for negs?

    , Dec 1, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    597
    David J. Littleboy
    Dec 2, 2003
  5. FocaIPoint
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    589
    FocaIPoint
    Jan 3, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page