Fuji Frontier Scanning vs. Epson 750

[Denton]

Hi Folks,

I've lost my darkroom/enlarger and lab and can only develop film, so I'm moving over to digital for the "fun" part of my photo work. I'm on the learning curve with my Epson 750 scanner and would like a "good" scan to compare. I just submitted some negatives to be scanned at 8x12 resolution on a lab's Fuji Frontier and I'm wondering if this instrument would provide superior scans relative to what the best that could be expected from the Epson?

Yes, I'm sure there are better film scanners out there, but for the moment, I need the Epson to sit up and beg...

Would the Frontier scans at my lab be a good standard to shoot for? They would scan at 300 dpi on 8x12 for 35mm film.

Denton

 

[Tim Gray]

Depends on how they scan them. If good, they will be pretty decent, and probably about what you can get from your 750, in terms of resolution. With a lot less work. If crummy, you'll have blown highlights, potentially weak blacks, and odd color. It really depends on what the operator is like. You'll likely always have more control over the 750 scans since you're the one doing it. That might help with color and highlights, etc.

If they are expensive, you could always consider taking up Precision Camera on their offer here, or NCPS. They both deliver pretty good scans for a decent price. That's what I do. Get scans from them and rescan a few 'keepers' now and then at home.

 

[cidereye]

I entrusted my local lab (who I am generally happy with and provide a good service for film photographers) with scanning a roll of Neopan 400CN recently on a Frontier and the results were awful!

I own a V700 myself but hate scanning so much I thought I'd be clever and give it a try at the lab but lesson learned. 🙁

As said by the others on this thread - It will all depend how much work the lab put into it before they make the scans. I know I produce far better results with my Epson than the lab could provide me with but that's not to say YMMV as indicated.

 

[djon]

The Frontier can make sharp-looking scans but it can't rival the last two generations of Nikon for actual detail resolution (grain sharpness). The more "work the lab puts into it" the more risk you take. Why would you trust a drugstore clerk (minilab "technician") with your film? The Epson will do a fabulous job with MF and a reasonably good job with 35, but won't equal the Nikon. Incidentally, Photoshop CS whups Genuine Fractals.

Shane Adams, above, is right if you need to scan a lot of film (travel snaps, weddings etc) or have not previsualized (ie do not know what you have on your film).

 

[Denton]

Actually, the point was not to scan my film regularly at the local lab, but to find a suitable comparison in order to set my expectations for the Epson 750. I need to know whether scanning with the 750, when it's tweaked, will disappoint and force me to the M9!

Wet printing is no longer an option. I have gone all digital with my business but I'm toying with the idea of offering film, and it needs to meet certain standards of quality.

thanks for the comments...
Denton

 

[sojournerphoto]

Actually, the point was not to scan my film regularly at the local lab, but to find a suitable comparison in order to set my expectations for the Epson 750. I need to know whether scanning with the 750, when it's tweaked, will disappoint and force me to the M9!

Wet printing is no longer an option. I have gone all digital with my business but I'm toying with the idea of offering film, and it needs to meet certain standards of quality.

thanks for the comments...
Denton

I've a post on comparative scans from v750 and Nikon LS9000 here . In my view you won't get M9 quality from a V700/750 scan of 35mm (actually you may struggle with MF, though that's a more open question that I've not tested). I'm not sure that a Nikon 9000 will give better from 35mm than an M9 - mine don't match up in terms of obvious resolution, though there's the digital 'clean' factor in there as well. Also, very film dependednt and on what look you want.

Mike

 

[Denton]

Comparison Done!

Comparison Done!

I've compared scans of delta 400 (DDX 8 mins) on Fuji Frontier at 8x12, 300 dpi vs 3200 dpi on my Epson 750. The Epson is slightly better. However, I experienced problems keeping the film flat and this effect was variable. The most effective solution was to breathe on the emulsion side while the film was loaded in the holder. I got a very poor scan when the film was not flat, not too suprising.

My solution to keeping film flat is to use AN glass overlay AND, most importantly, breathe on the film emulsion while it sits in the holder. I don't know if this will last for a full res scan of four film strips, but it works very well for just one.

I'm sure with 100 TMX or other fine grain film that the Epson will do better at 3200 or higher than an 8x12 300 dpi fuji scan. I recently did a series of test shots with 100TMX and I'm scanning it now. I did a studio stobe session with the CV 75 classic at f8, f5.6, f4, f2.8, f2 and f1.8 and I can already conclude that on the Bessa R2a the shots wider than f2.8 will not be acceptable. I don't know, at the moment, whether the problem is the lens softness itself or the inaccuracy of the Bessa baseline. I suspect the latter since I've done some shots on an Ikon with this lens and they are good to at least f2. The 75CV classic does seem to front focus just a bit however.

Denton