Michael I.
Well-known
how good is it with color\slide\BW in 35 and med format?
with the latest 79$ price tag it glides into my price range
with the latest 79$ price tag it glides into my price range
lubitel
Well-known
We have a 4990 at work and I think its quite good with med format, but the results from 35mm are not so satisfying, i think. but may be enough for a 4x6 print. or may be I am doing something wrong.
here is a section of 35mm neg. scanned at 1800 dpi
here is a section of 35mm neg. scanned at 1800 dpi
lubitel
Well-known
and here is a sample of MF, but shot with a holga so not that sharp in the first place.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
IMHO, the 3170 is okay for 35mm for the web, and maybe for 4x6. I don't think even the latter, personally, but some would disagree. Even with sharpening, I've never gotten enough detail out of that scan engine in the 3200 in 35mm.
In MF, it's pretty darn good. Many would say that you can get roughly the equivalent results out of MF on a flatbed as one would with 35m in a dedicated scanner. I'd agree with that, except that grain is lower with MF, so you can sharpen and therefore enlarge more.
I have a 4'x3' print up here at work as a "demo" of what our Epson 9600 can do. I wish I could show it to folks here on RFF
allan
In MF, it's pretty darn good. Many would say that you can get roughly the equivalent results out of MF on a flatbed as one would with 35m in a dedicated scanner. I'd agree with that, except that grain is lower with MF, so you can sharpen and therefore enlarge more.
I have a 4'x3' print up here at work as a "demo" of what our Epson 9600 can do. I wish I could show it to folks here on RFF
allan
tetrisattack
Maximum Creativity!
I have a 4180, which from what I understand, is hardly different from the 3170. With the 4180, I can scan at 2000, 1800, 1600 DPI and the results all look the same.
In other words, pathetic for printing from 35mm, not even really 1600 DPI. Perfectly adequate for the internet, though, and for 120, maybe a small, 8x10'ish print from a 645 negative.
The epson software sucks at color-correcting color negative film, so prepare to work it over in photoshop. It does a better job at getting the right color balance for slide films but transparencies scan VERY soft. Almost not even good enough for web posting. Transparency softness is a problem no matter whether the slide is mounted or in the film strip carrier, either emulsion side up or down.
B&W is really what the epson flatbed scanners do best. The software tends to overexpose my negatives, so I often have to correct the white point to give myself a little more headroom, but I've been getting along okay.
Everything in my gallery was scanned with my 4180, if you want to see what it can do for web-sized images.
In other words, pathetic for printing from 35mm, not even really 1600 DPI. Perfectly adequate for the internet, though, and for 120, maybe a small, 8x10'ish print from a 645 negative.
The epson software sucks at color-correcting color negative film, so prepare to work it over in photoshop. It does a better job at getting the right color balance for slide films but transparencies scan VERY soft. Almost not even good enough for web posting. Transparency softness is a problem no matter whether the slide is mounted or in the film strip carrier, either emulsion side up or down.
B&W is really what the epson flatbed scanners do best. The software tends to overexpose my negatives, so I often have to correct the white point to give myself a little more headroom, but I've been getting along okay.
Everything in my gallery was scanned with my 4180, if you want to see what it can do for web-sized images.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I'm always afraid to repond to posts like this one. They make me wonder if I'm not just so bad at all of this that I don't know what complete crap I'm putting out.
I picked up a 3170 refurbed from Epson and I've used it to scan a couple of rolls of film. I can't say I'm blown away or anything, and perhaps I am simply far less discriminating than others are, but it seems to do a fair job.
I've not printed from the files yet, but comparing them to files I've gotten from various digital cameras, I think they would print pretty well.
There are a number of images here that I took with a Retina IIa and scanned on the 3170.
I've attributed their limitations to my skill with the camera (I've only shot a few rolls through it) or to the limitations of the camera itself.
http://www.pbase.com/dazedgonebye/retina
I picked up a 3170 refurbed from Epson and I've used it to scan a couple of rolls of film. I can't say I'm blown away or anything, and perhaps I am simply far less discriminating than others are, but it seems to do a fair job.
I've not printed from the files yet, but comparing them to files I've gotten from various digital cameras, I think they would print pretty well.
There are a number of images here that I took with a Retina IIa and scanned on the 3170.
I've attributed their limitations to my skill with the camera (I've only shot a few rolls through it) or to the limitations of the camera itself.
http://www.pbase.com/dazedgonebye/retina
lubitel
Well-known
Dazed,
that looks alot sharper than anything I've scanned on epson! What's the trick? May be I am doing something wrong?
that looks alot sharper than anything I've scanned on epson! What's the trick? May be I am doing something wrong?
dazedgonebye
Veteran
lubitel said:
Honestly, I've got so little experience at scanning that my results, good or bad, can only be considered accidental. Like most guys, I received the scanner, threw away the directions, hooked it up and started using it.
The film holders seem sort of fool proof. The software is not very friendly when it comes to customizing the scan, so I've just let it set the exposure...figuring I'd fix it in photoshop.
My biggest complaint is that nothing is as contrasty as I'd like it. But, since I'm new to this film/scan thing, I attribute that to my choice of film. So far that's only been PlusX and XP2 Super.
I've got some Delta 100 for both 35mm and 120 out being developed so I can continue to compare.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Examples with detail
Examples with detail
I do have an example of what I belive to be a scanner artifact from the 3170.
I'm attaching the full image and a 100% crop of a detail that shows horizontal lines in areas of high contrast. So far, I've only noticed this on this one exposure.
BTW, I picked up my 3170 for $70 at the Epson web site. It was refurbished and shipping was included. I'd not seen the price down to $79 locally (I think more like $175) so I bought the refurbished version.
Examples with detail
I do have an example of what I belive to be a scanner artifact from the 3170.
I'm attaching the full image and a 100% crop of a detail that shows horizontal lines in areas of high contrast. So far, I've only noticed this on this one exposure.
BTW, I picked up my 3170 for $70 at the Epson web site. It was refurbished and shipping was included. I'd not seen the price down to $79 locally (I think more like $175) so I bought the refurbished version.
Chuck A
Chuck A
I have the 3170 and have scanned both 35mm and Med format negs. It is just ok for 35mm negs. Seriously, if you want a scan that you can get an excellent 8x10 or above then look at a dedicated film scanner. It is passable for non-critical jobs at 8x10 though.
As far as Med format goes, it is quite good. I am really impressed with the quality of prints at 12x12in and above. It also does a great job of scanning prints. I paid $100 for mine a year ago and it has been worth it. If even for the Med format scanning.
As far as Med format goes, it is quite good. I am really impressed with the quality of prints at 12x12in and above. It also does a great job of scanning prints. I paid $100 for mine a year ago and it has been worth it. If even for the Med format scanning.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
A dedicated film scanner would be out of my range...even for a 35mm only unit. Really, I want to scan for MF. I'm shooting an old folder for fun. Still waiting on my first negs.
Now that I think of it, I did scan one neg taken with a C220 about 30 years ago.
Attaching that now as the only example I have from this scanner and MF film.
I should also add that these shots were all posted to pbase before I uploaded them here. That doesn't do the sharpness any good at all.
Now that I think of it, I did scan one neg taken with a C220 about 30 years ago.
Attaching that now as the only example I have from this scanner and MF film.
I should also add that these shots were all posted to pbase before I uploaded them here. That doesn't do the sharpness any good at all.
ffttklackdedeng
Registered User
Hello,
old thread, I know, but anyway:
I was using a 3170 Photo before I got a dedicated film scanner, and I've also done some more or less scientific measures to see where it reaches its edge:
- scanned on highest res, and downsized to dpi-equivalents: 600, 800, 1000, 1200, 1400, 1600, 2400, 3200. Then upsized again to have a 300 dpi 8x12inch print and made the print (the scanned negative was very sharp). Result: clear differences between 600, 800 .. up to 1200, then just a very very tiny improvement on 1400, none on 1600 and above. Therefore I'd rate the real resolution around 1250 dpi.
- Scanned at highest res and then printed in 4x, 5x, 6x, 7x, 8x enlargement. Until 5x, I was rating the picture as 'very sharp' (of course you need to apply some usm to the scanned pictures, this might explain why some are very disappointed with their results), at 6x I could see a degradation of sharpness. Therefore I'd rate my 'eye sharpness' at 250 dpi.
Summary: for my eyesight the 3170 was very good until 5x enlargement, i.e. approximately 13x18cm print size (from 35mm negatives).
Regards,
Robert
old thread, I know, but anyway:
I was using a 3170 Photo before I got a dedicated film scanner, and I've also done some more or less scientific
measures to see where it reaches its edge:- scanned on highest res, and downsized to dpi-equivalents: 600, 800, 1000, 1200, 1400, 1600, 2400, 3200. Then upsized again to have a 300 dpi 8x12inch print and made the print (the scanned negative was very sharp). Result: clear differences between 600, 800 .. up to 1200, then just a very very tiny improvement on 1400, none on 1600 and above. Therefore I'd rate the real resolution around 1250 dpi.
- Scanned at highest res and then printed in 4x, 5x, 6x, 7x, 8x enlargement. Until 5x, I was rating the picture as 'very sharp' (of course you need to apply some usm to the scanned pictures, this might explain why some are very disappointed with their results), at 6x I could see a degradation of sharpness. Therefore I'd rate my 'eye sharpness' at 250 dpi.
Summary: for my eyesight the 3170 was very good until 5x enlargement, i.e. approximately 13x18cm print size (from 35mm negatives).
Regards,
Robert
Last edited:
morongobill
Member
Here's a 35mm(sorry Olympus slr) scanned with 3170.
This is a very poor shrinkage job with psp 8, original on cd lost in my storage unit in Joshua Tree.
Bill Mcdonald
This is a very poor shrinkage job with psp 8, original on cd lost in my storage unit in Joshua Tree.
Bill Mcdonald
Michiel Fokkema
Michiel Fokkema
Hi,
I used to have a 3170 but sold it and got a 4990.
Much better dynamic range, digital ice and sharper. Especially important for slides.
But I only use it for MF. For 35mm my humble Minolta dual 3 is much better.
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
I used to have a 3170 but sold it and got a 4990.
Much better dynamic range, digital ice and sharper. Especially important for slides.
But I only use it for MF. For 35mm my humble Minolta dual 3 is much better.
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema