Has Anyone Used the Epson 1680 or Other Scanner for 8X10 Negs

I have a 2450 and it does a reasonably good job on all of the negatives I have tossed it from 35mm to the larger sizes. However, it isn’t as good as a true negative scanner. But, for the money and the fact that it also doubles as a regular flatbed scanner, copies, fax, etc. I am perfectly happy with it.

Robert

But none of these scanners have a back light (in the lid) large enough to scan an 8 x 10 negative. The bed is large enough but the back light that must illuminate the negative is a limiting factor.

I have the Epson 2450 and frequently scan large negatives up to 4 x 5, but the built-in light source limits it’s negative handling capability to about a 5 x 10 area. The scanner came with plactic frames for holding negatives and the largest that they will hold is a 4 x 5. I once had success scanning some old glass plate negatives that were about 6 x 5 without using the frames, but you have to trick the scanner to make it scan them as negatives since it doesn’t detect that a frame is in use and defaults to photo scanning. At one time I considered using a light box on top of a large negative (larger than 4 x 5) so that I could it, but the guy that had asked if I could do it for him never brought the negative for by me to try this idea out. Maybe this idea will work for you.
—
Charley

"nospam" wrote in message

I have a 2450 and it does a reasonably good job on all of the negatives I have tossed it from 35mm to the larger sizes. However, it isn’t as good as

a

true negative scanner. But, for the money and the fact that it also

doubles

as a regular flatbed scanner, copies, fax, etc. I am perfectly happy with it.

Robert

What Charley says is true. However, I either don’t scan the entire thing (crop is something I do most time anyways) or I scan it in pieces and then assemble in Photoshop. The scanning in pieces works quite well and it allows me to get final images quite large in both dimensions and file size.

I also don’t do 8X10 images often. The film and developing are just too expensive so I don’t use that camera much. In fact the last time was 2 years ago for a trip to Yosemite. For sciences the large format cameras are just to die for. Looking at the images from these babies just makes you want to cry they are so good.

Robert

I am looking at the 1680 because it is supposed to scan 8X10 negatives in one pass. I have about 100 negatives to scan and the drum scanner guys do a great job but charge from $35 to $160 depending on the file size I want. If the 1680 doesn’t do a good enough job, I may just have to buy a drum scanner.

The more detailed (read more expensive) drum scans produce files of about 800 meg which print beautifully up to about 48X60 on B&W photo paper using a LightJet. This is fine for the 10 best negatives but far too expensive for the others. If I can get good 150 MB (20X24 @ 300 ppi) files from the 1680 that will let me print those up to 20X24 which is fine for most of the negatives.

Will

"nospam" wrote in message

What Charley says is true. However, I either don’t scan the entire thing (crop is something I do most time anyways) or I scan it in pieces and then assemble in Photoshop. The scanning in pieces works quite well and it

allows

me to get final images quite large in both dimensions and file size.
I also don’t do 8X10 images often. The film and developing are just too expensive so I don’t use that camera much. In fact the last time was 2

years

ago for a trip to Yosemite. For sciences the large format cameras are just to die for. Looking at the images from these babies just makes you want to cry they are so good.

Robert

I am looking at the 1680 because it is supposed to scan 8X10 negatives in one pass. I have about 100 negatives to scan and the drum scanner guys do a great job but charge from $35 to $160 depending on the file size I want. If the 1680 doesn’t do a good enough job, I may just have to buy a drum scanner.

The more detailed (read more expensive) drum scans produce files of about 800 meg which print beautifully up to about 48X60 on B&W photo paper using a LightJet. This is fine for the 10 best negatives but far too expensive for the others. If I can get good 150 MB (20X24 @ 300 ppi) files from the 1680 that will let me print those up to 20X24 which is fine for most of the negatives.

—
I have the Epson 1680 –
and would not reccomend it for anything
that I would consider quality (let alone "High quality"). I also have the Agfa DuoScan T2000XL.
That baby rocks.
Flat work and transparency work over 12×18.
Glassless scans for transparencies up to 4×5.
More dollars – but a sweet unit.

MSD

In article , says…

I am looking at the 1680 because it is supposed to scan 8X10 negatives in one pass. I have about 100 negatives to scan and the drum scanner guys do a great job but charge from $35 to $160 depending on the file size I want. If the 1680 doesn’t do a good enough job, I may just have to buy a drum scanner.

The more detailed (read more expensive) drum scans produce files of about 800 meg which print beautifully up to about 48X60 on B&W photo paper using a LightJet. This is fine for the 10 best negatives but far too expensive for the others. If I can get good 150 MB (20X24 @ 300 ppi) files from the 1680 that will let me print those up to 20X24 which is fine for most of the negatives.

Will

"nospam" wrote in message

What Charley says is true. However, I either don’t scan the entire thing (crop is something I do most time anyways) or I scan it in pieces and then assemble in Photoshop. The scanning in pieces works quite well and it

allows

me to get final images quite large in both dimensions and file size.
I also don’t do 8X10 images often. The film and developing are just too expensive so I don’t use that camera much. In fact the last time was 2

years

ago for a trip to Yosemite. For sciences the large format cameras are just to die for. Looking at the images from these babies just makes you want to cry they are so good.

Robert

Divide the resolution of the scanner by 300 to get the approx degree of enlargement it’s capable of. So a 1600 dpi scanner will give about 5x.
For an 8×10 original thats a 40×50 print. So the resolution is probably fine. Even 4×5 will give 20×25 print. So the other factors to consider are the bit depth of the scanner and the max density it can read. You should have at least 12 bits per channel. Dmax is not going to be a problem for negatives (b&w or color), but may be an issue for color transparencies especially if they are slightly underexposed.

—
Robert D Feinman

Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramas and Photoshop Tips
http://robertdfeinman.com