Does the scanner matter for Fine Art printing?

The whole frame (V700 version), for reference

2i27xoj.jpg
 
chikne said:
The problem with what you are showing is that to see a difference in print this very picture would have to be printed, what maybe 10 metres long?
Click to expand...

Are you kidding?
6400 ppi from a 645 original give a 75x100 cm print (25" x 40"). Hardly enormous.
6400 ppi from a 24x36 original give a 40x60 cm print (18" x 24").

So yes, you see the difference in print, and no, you don't have to stay at 10 meters to look at a 40x60cm print (or a 75x100 for that matter).
 
Fernando2 said:
Well, unfortunately it doesn't show.
Many, many, too many Fuji 690s have issues with precise focusing. Ever tried a focus chart (one appropriately set up for a rangefinder, of course)?
Click to expand...

I did my best :) Focus at infinity f/8-11. Will try focus chart.
 
Ranchu said:
I'm just mentioning, put sharpening on low in epsonscan, rather than off.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?!? It's the second time you post this "advice".
FYI, the scan is already carefully sharpened on the L channel. Epson's "sharpening" is total crap.
 
jzagaja said:
I did my best :) Focus at infinity f/8-11. Will try focus chart.
Click to expand...

I played with two Fuji 690 time ago.
One had focus issues; the other had a film pressure plate issue, so film was not at the right distance. As a result, the camera did not focus at infinity, whatever you tried.
Too bad because it's a very interesting camera, and I like the format. :(

Fernando
 
I don't remember, sorry!
A friend of mine had those 2 cameras and was willing to sell me one; so I tried both for a few days. But it was like 4-5 years ago.
I remember that the film pressure plate on the second one was not only generally off (too little pressure) but not parallel, as well. A real PITA. :(
Of course I hope it's not your case!

Fernando
 
Not only you're totally off track: you apparently can't properly read BIG BOLD RED TEXT since I wrote everything on the crops I posted.

Goodbye.

Fernando
 
Sorry, I jumped at you in a inappropriate way.

Maybe you are mislead by the resolution: those V700 scans were at 6400 ppi.
I don't know if you have a V700; but at 6400, the scans are very, very soft (actual resolving power of V700 is like 2400x3000, and that's with special Betterscanning holders and height calibration).

I sharpened on the L channel (Lab mode) using "smart sharpen" (a variant of Richardson-Lucy iterative deconvolution) to get the most out of that softness, without introducing sharpening artifacts.
With more aggressive and less refined sharpening (like Epson's own), I wouldn't be able to extract more details anyway, plus I would have introduced artifacts: halos, jaggies, etc.

A final note: the crops I post are automatically resized by the forum stylesheet (too bad, since many details get lost this way).
To view the original image and better appreciate the comparison, you should click on in it and then click again on the image showed within that Tinypic's page.

Fernando
 
It's cool. I'm not trying to detract from your exceptional contribution here, you should know. There is a fair amount of artifacting with epsonscan's sharpening, but it seems to me that there is a lot lost that's hard to get back if it's not used. I just wanted to put it out there as an option, I think it works.
 
chikne said:
A good scan of a bad photo will still be a bad photo, whereas a bad scan of a good photo, well you get the idea...
Click to expand...

How about a good scan of a good photo?

I can't help but notice that a true PMT drum scanner will be the obvious first choice for those professional photographer who shoot film and exhibit their works in art galleries and all.

https://www.facebook.com/MartinScho...54586.107455.132556520104432/795343290492415/

A top-notch CCD scanner will be a reasonable second choice..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom