pendevour Posted January 31, 2007 Share #1 Posted January 31, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Can anyone comment on the scan quality obtained using an Epson 4990 to scan negs/slides 35mm and 120. Any info would be welcome as I intend buying one. Would you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Hi pendevour, Take a look here Epson 4990 scanner. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest flatfour Posted January 31, 2007 Share #2 Posted January 31, 2007 I tried the Epson 4990 before deciding to get a Canon 9950F. They both offer very similar quality and my only reason for buying the Canon was that I had a Canon previously and I thought the film holders were stronger on the Canon.They both scan 120 and 35mm film very well. I have compared my scans with a Nikon Coolscan and I think the Nikons are contrastier - almost hard. I am very happy with the Canon so I think the Epson should prove acceptable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted January 31, 2007 Share #3 Posted January 31, 2007 How big are you going to go? I've had a little experience with a friends Epson...I do own an Agfa Duo-Scan...high end graphics scanner, using the same twin plate technology in the Epson. I find that up to an 8x10 the scans from 35 are acceptable, but beyond that they do not compare well to traditional print or a scan from a Nikon 5000ED. Scans from medium format and 4x5 however are very good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdb Posted January 31, 2007 Share #4 Posted January 31, 2007 How about the new HP G4050? Gérard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pendevour Posted January 31, 2007 Author Share #5 Posted January 31, 2007 Thanks to you both for info. Most of my prints will be no larger than A4. If I need to go larger I suppose I could use Genuine fractals to enlarge with minimal loss of quality. I'll look at the Canon option. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicamann Posted January 31, 2007 Share #6 Posted January 31, 2007 I own the Epson 4990 Photo Scanner, for its price, for a flatbed its one of the better ones out there. Its fast and gets great resolution. Espon is one of the few companies that has made an effort as well to keep current drivers , ie Windows XP64 and Windows Vista. These scans cannot compare to the quality you get from a dedicated film scanner, so if your not trying to scan Kodachrome , B&W film or Scala...then its not fine it just doesn't have the dynamic range.. If you have lots of Kodachrome, forget it. You need minimum an Artixscan 4000tf, Nikon Coolscann 5000 ED or up higher the 8000 or the 9000. But for scanning B&W prints, color negs and , Fuji slides..its very good..if you want I can post some examples. Remember that my monitor is also color calibrated, so the colors wll be a little more accurate as well. Regards, Leicamann Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 31, 2007 Share #7 Posted January 31, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have the Epson 4870 which I think is the previous model. I'm very happy with the results so far, I've used it to scan 35mm, MF and prints. I've printed 35mm scans to A4 and they look good to me. I scanned the original photos which formed the basis of my recent exhibition on the Epson, and many of them were enlarged to A3 and cropped as well, with excellent results. I'm sure a dedicated 35mm scanner would be better if you only intend using it for 35mm film, but if you need the versatility of the Epson for MF and docs, then definately go for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pendevour Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share #8 Posted February 1, 2007 Thanks to all for your valued opinions - much appreciated. Because most scans will be from 35mm negs I may have to reconsider and look at dedicated film scanners to get the best quality. Thanks again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted February 2, 2007 Share #9 Posted February 2, 2007 Arfon. I think if the only thing you scan is 35mm film then you are probably right. But I scan other things apart from the ocasional 6x6 or 6x9 negative. For example I have just scanned using the Canon OCR programme a book typed by my granfather 60 years ago on an old typewriter. I also scan documents for colour copies etc. I used to have a Polaroid film scanner and it gave superb results but just didn't cover the range of things I wanted, indeed needed, to scan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted February 2, 2007 Share #10 Posted February 2, 2007 Sorry Anthony, but I disagree with your reasoning. All too common now-adays...why purchase a couple of things that do an excellent job for which they were intended when I can buy one thing that does everything half-a**ed? Your right...I've never been a fan of the Swiss-Army knife concept. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted February 2, 2007 Share #11 Posted February 2, 2007 Bob - \Of course if you can afford two types of scanner that is fine. However the modern flatbed has very good resolution and for my purposes - up to 12x16s - is fine. I found it difficult to use Coolscan scans without much work in at that time Corel Draw. Now I can use a Canon 4800 scan almost without attention. It's just progress. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted February 2, 2007 Share #12 Posted February 2, 2007 Sorry Anthony but this is a sore point with me. Whatever happened to wanting to put out the best product you can. You said it yourself...the flatbed scans are good 'for my purposes' up to 12x16. I have an Afga Duoscan which I paid over $7000 for...it's one of the 'standards' of the graphics and publishing industry. Yup...I can get a 'pretty good' result with it (in 35mm). Thing is I don't want to be known (at least as far as my photographs are concerned) as 'pretty good'. I use it primarily to scan flat copies...for my B&W I make a traditional print then need to scan that and half-tone it. Probably everyone here at one time or another complains about poorly made products they've purchased (poor quality control), or poor service. Heck...look at all the people here who over the last year or so have complained that the 'M6 ain't no M3'. I know I'm sounding like a priss...but why do something if you're not going to do your best? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
science Posted February 4, 2007 Share #13 Posted February 4, 2007 I own this scanner ONLY to make contact sheets--the B & W negative scans from the 4990 are garbage. Scanning flatbed items--it is great. Scanning negatives is a different story. After buying my MINOLTA DIMAGE 5400 II and comparing the two--the Epson had captured about 20% of the grain and detail...it really was not even half as good. Of course it is understandable that a dedicated film scanner is far superior--but I just cannot emphasize enough that using the 4990 makes using Leica Lenses quite pointless as the character of the film will be completely lost. Get a dedicated film scanner and save yourself the frustration of looking back and see how much time you wasted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted February 4, 2007 Share #14 Posted February 4, 2007 Bob - If price was no object then I would not hesitate to have a dedicated 35mm scanner. However I wish only to print up to 12x16 for selling, exhibitions, and competitions etc. the quality from the latest flatbeds is exceptional although as you say not the best. The price/reward curve turns dramatically upwards after the top flatbed price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted99 Posted February 4, 2007 Share #15 Posted February 4, 2007 Epsom - Imacon, The result is that Epson is not up to it. The Imacon is like the picture in original. Jämförelse Epson flatbädd Imacon /Ted Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted February 4, 2007 Share #16 Posted February 4, 2007 Bob - If price was no object then I would not hesitate to have a dedicated 35mm scanner. However I wish only to print up to 12x16 for selling, exhibitions, and competitions etc. the quality from the latest flatbeds is exceptional although as you say not the best. The price/reward curve turns dramatically upwards after the top flatbed price. Not for a used dedicated scanner. Scans of 35mm on a flatbed are not what I'd call exceptional ... or excellent, or even very good. The 35mm quality curve turns dramatically down from a dedicated scanner to the top Flat-bed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.