Re: [Leica] Offtopic: HP Photosmart Scanner

[Nathan Wajsman <nathan.wajsman@euronet.be>]

I second everything you say about the Photo 700. I have recently upgraded to this printer (from an Epson Stylus 600) and the results are wonderful. I scan my negatives using the HP Photosmart scanner. For fast B&W my preferred film is also Kodak T400CN; for slower film I have settled on Ilford's Delta Pro 100. It is quite fine grained, and judicious application of Photoshop's despecle filter removes whatever grain is left.

Nathan


srlondon@ibm.net wrote:

> On the topic of scanners and such, I thought that it might be useful to mention an excellent printer I recently acquired, the Epson Stylus Photo 700.  Unless you're doing web publishing, a scanner is only as good as your method of output.
>
> I purchased the printer at the reasonable price of $279 USD, at the office store Staples.  The printer works on either Macintosh or Windows computers without modification and includes software for both.  It has 6 different colored inks in addition to blacks for better colors.
>
> In the limited time I've had to experiment with the printer using the Epson coated photo paper (similar to conventional glossy color photo paper in weight and finish), the results are nothing less than outstanding.  I've been using digital files produced by an Olympus ES10s negative scanner (also excellent and reaonably priced, by the way).
>
> On Epson photo paperr, the photos the printer produces in 6 to 10 minutes are hard to distinguish from a conventional print  in color, sharpness, and detail.  It also produces excellent results using files scanned off of B&W films such as Tri-X and TMAX 400CN.  The CN is a particularly excellent choice, due to its lack of grain and gentle tonality.  At such a low price, it cannot be beat.
>
> The way I see it, there are several advantages to using a scanner/printer combination over darkroom usage.  While there is no denying the visceral appeal of hands-on work in a conventional silver-based darkroom, from the perspective of time-savings, the electronic way is better.  You can send your slide film (or Tmax 400CN to be handled process-only) out without having to bother with toxic and expensive chemicals, scan it, and make prints while retaining creative control at a cost far less than outsourced prints would demand.  You spend most of your time either shooting (the important part) or working on the finished product with little waste and minimal hassle.
>
> My own choice falls somewhere in the middle.  I prefer to process my own Tri-X or Tmax using mix-as-you-go  stock solution developers and scan the "keepers" for archiving and possible printing. It allows me the best digital photography has to offer (magical electronic manipulation of images at minimum cost) while still being able to enjoy my M6 at its best (b&w film).  While I understand the appeal of digital cameras, they are great for people in a hurry such as press photographers or snapshot shooters, but they are not going to beat the high quality and versatility of film at a competitive price for some time to come.  Plus, I don't have the inconvenience of lugging around a camera with a hard drive bolted to the baseplate.