Actually, I'll probably have the same image scanned on a 3200 and on my
Sprintscan from b&w 6x7 in a few weeks. I'll ask the photographer if I
can use samples to demonstrate the difference between the two machines.
(He has a 3200 that he uses to proof his work, and then I do the scans
for the final prints on my Sprintscan.)
-Aaron
On Apr 2, 2006, at 10:16 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
On Apr 2, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I would agree with that. Although compared to even a drum scan of a
6x7 neg, the Epson scan of a 4x5 is superior.
Yow -- that must've been a lousy drum scan!
My biggest issue with the 3200 is image noise. Like I said before in
this thread, if you're not pixel peeping you can make a very good
print from a 4x5 scan on a 3200 (and a 2450). You can make a good
8x10 from 6x7, and a very good 11x14 from 4x5. But the results from
my Sprintscan 120 so clearly outclass it for 6x7 work, especially once
you get up to 16x20 and bigger.
It also depends on what and how you shoot -- if you're not doing
images with a lot of detail down in the blacks, for example, many of
the deficiencies of the 3200 are hidden.
And, of course, much depends on what you do to it once you have the
scan.
-Aaron
