I have used both Epson 2450 and Epson 3200 for 4x5 negs but let me tell you a "trick". With LF, the negs are big enuff that you seldom need to scan at anything more than about 2000ppi. The only time I do is if I was using a absolutely killer lens on the camera ( I have a few ) or I will be cropping the image severely or making a poster sized print I might scan at 3200 ppi but even then that seems like overkill, you rarely are gaining details at that scan resolution with LF unless the lens was REALLY REALLY good and the film is a slow real fine grain high reslotion type. With BW LF I'll scan at 3200 more often, but not color film. I have been shooting Kodak 160 Portra NC mostly for LF including landscapes. Nice, well behaved film.
JCO -----Original Message----- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 2:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? What do you scan with? Tom C. >From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:36:32 -0400 > >I'd like to comment. > >I can say from experience it is great because with color negative film >the film resolution is not as good as BW and the grain is worse than BW >so by going to LF with color, those limitations are nearly completely >eliminated. > >What I do is shoot 4x5 color neg, develop negs, scan negs, and print >myself at home. NO LABS involved. It is easy to do it all and the >results are beautiful. I never >use to do color LF until I discovered how easy and inexpensive it is to >develop >c-41 LF at home. > >JCO > >-----Original Message----- >From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 2:23 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? > > >Allow me to aks the ultimate "Mr. Clueless" question. What's it like >doing color LF? > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7/26/2004 4:12:30 PM >>> >Perhaps they are more gadget/equipment enthusiasts instead of image >enthusiasts? > >Bruce > > >Monday, July 26, 2004, 12:35:59 PM, you wrote: > >WR> I still don't understand why more enthusiasts don't shoot with >medium >WR> format. Most everyone seems married to the concept that 35mm is >the >WR> way to go, and don't even consider larger formats. >WR> I think this is a mistake. >WR> As an enthusiast/hobby format, 6x7 can't be beat. It has many of >the >WR> advantages of 35mm, with the advantage of lots more real estate. > >WR> William Robb > > >
