I am thinking of selling my Minolta Scan Dual IV and get a flatbed Epson or Canon. I am sick of the slow operation of the Minolta, got to scan films frame by frame.
My main purpose of scanning so far is for web posting, I am thinking that a good quality flatbed will help me do some faster batch scanning.
I know that Ed has the Canon 9950, James has Epson 4870. What do you think of them?
The 9950 is pretty good for batch scanning, since it has film holders for various sizes. The 35mm holder can take 30 frames if your roll is cut every 6 frames. The film is not pressed against the glass. 35mm frames will sit flat, for the most part, but larger films may not.
The software has some kind of border recognition technology, so you can scan in your xpan shots if you like. However, it currently has trouble recognising frames if they're underexposed.
You need a grunty computer to get the best speeds out of it. On my laptop (1ghz mobile p3), it takes about 5 minutes per 35mm frame to get an 8mpx equivalent image. For web sized images, it's pretty quick (~2m).
Dust isn't a big problem as long as you use the bulb blower on both the film and the scanner. The scanner has FARE, but I've never actually tried a scan with and without using it. FARE doesn't work for B&W shots.
If you look at my gallery, all of the recent B&W shots were scanned with the 9950. That's all I can think of right now...
Zane Yau wrote:
the other thing is my Minolta software is not very user-friendly (or is it just me...) How's the Canon software ?
It could be better, but on the whole I've got no complaints.
cannot judge based on Ed's standard. I am very different to Ed. Ed is a dot net expert and I am an IT and software idiot - that's why I stick around here
rwwlee wrote:
Does anyone have an A3 photo printer? Which one is good? Does the running cost justify me getting one, if i only print once a month?!? maybe less....
Yes I have the epson 1290 as for costs it prints approx 26 A4 prints from full ink tanks or $2.80-3.00 per page mainly at 1440dpi, plus paper. Dont use 2880 dpi as it slows the print speed down (uses more ink) and I can not see any real difference in print quality. Got mine for $325 on eBay I think they are about $899 at Harvey Normans.
Quite a big outlay if you are only going to print 6-12 copies for per year but then when you have the printer you tend to print more of your work anyway. I have 3 A3 frames that I currently change the prints in every month or so. Not sure but I think the epson is one of the few that take roll paper for panos ie 13inx44in
Also think that Maurie aka MOZZMANN has one but not sure, if not someone else that follows this thread has one
A review http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/1280.shtml https://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=259&sort=7&cat=51&page=1
Chris L
I don't mind the epson scanner. Like Ed I have a blower brush handy for the frame and the glass. The Epson Scan software is pretty good but I have been trying Vuescan out recently.
I think the 120 film holder could be better, but Doug is selling a replacement - I'm gonna try one of these one day.
The thing that drew me to it was scanning 120 for much much less than a dedicated MF film scanner. I can see how its far from perfect but I am pleased with the results. I'll forward you some tiffs straight out of the scanner if you like?
Richard,
I use a Canon i9100 with original BCI-6 inks. It prints nicely, although I believe there is some new model with 8 inks that is supposed to be better. Overall, the picture quality is very good and skin tones are very good. Picture quality seems better than my laser-printed ilfochromes in general when using Photo Paper Pro. Epson Glossy Paper works well too but many other papers I have tried don't work well. Semi-Gloss (Canon SG-101) looks good, depending on the subject.
I don't print a whole lot either. Probably a couple of sheets of A3+ a month. Mostly as one-offs. I do put up with the cost of printing on this printer as it gives me the final control over output.
Regarding the longevity issue - not as good as Epson but behind glass I have not seen any fade in prints 2 years old. I usually get my prints cold-laminated and mounted behind Acrylic glass to protect against UV. I think they should last substantially longer than the claimed 25 years when such measures are taken. However, I note that the newer Epson inks are out with new generation Ultrachrome that gives good results on glossy. Had this been out when I got my printer, I probably would have gone for Epson.
This thing costs about $1150 (internet store price), not cheap by any standard. The running cost for the ink is about $2 per A3 photo (based on epson's stated capacity of the ink), which is quite acceptable, on a high quality paper the cost for each A3 prints would be about $5-6, much cheaper than doing them outside. The initial investment is not cheap though.
?
", Ex)
!!!