Really, the reviews of printers at <http://www.photo-i.co.uk/> are
without peer. Thanks to Moose for sharing that source with all of us.
I would take photo-i's advice and I would be tempted greatly to save
money with the Epson Photo 1400 based on what I have seen come out of
one belonging to a friend.
After my own experience with a medium format/35mm film scanner I would
go for one of the good combination flatbed scanners. If you look at
the review at the above site the differences with images from a Nikon
film scanner are negligible. The real test is 35mm and medium format
is easier. Film scanners are slow, hard to keep clean and a pain in
the rear to use. I would not buy one again now that the choices are
better.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On / April 1, 2008 CE, at 5:27 PM, John Hudson wrote:
>
> Many many thanks to everyone who responded to my enquiry about
> medium format
> film scanners. I now have a feast of information to digest.
>
> Now onwards to another enquiry.
>
> Assuming that one was to invest in a Nikon Coolscan 9000 to scan MF
> film
> [and 35mm film] what would be a matching high end printer to to do
> full
> justice to the MF / 35mm scans? An 11" x 16" print would likely be
> my top
> sized print but I would want to match the best I could get from a
> pro photo
> lab at that size. I want to go a lot better than my my HP Deskjet
> 6940.
>
> Do anyone have any advice?
>
> jh
>
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|