Photo printers' response to scanned film as opposed to native digital

Hello all,

I have exhausted my patience with going to the print shop every time I
want an 8x10", so I am thinking seriously about buying my first
printer. I have a Canon 5D that I use occasionally, but I mostly
shoot a lot of 35mm film, black and white and color negative.

I've only had exposure to Canon bodies and lenses, so naturally the
first thing I thought of when buying a printer was the Pixma 9500,
since it is featured so prominently at the camera stores around town.
However, after looking at the sample prints in the store and checking
around some other bulletin boards, I get the impression that Canon
might still be playing catch up as far as printers go. The Epson
R2400 receives a lot of praise from enthusiasts, but also draws some
criticism as Epsons seem to have a reputation for being unreliable.

My top priorities are dynamic range in b/w prints (faithful pure
blacks, smooth gray contours), and a lack of artifacts in terms of
visible noise/grain in the print.

My number one concern is, will a photo printer do the same service to
a scanned negative as a shot from a digital camera? I am a little
worried that with so much development in the consumer market for
digital these days, the printers may all be designed/calibrated to
support them more faithfully than film scans. Am I wrong in this?

Thank you for the advice!

On Oct 11, 11:03 am, HeroOfSpielburg wrote:
Hello all,

I have exhausted my patience with going to the print shop every time I
want an 8x10", so I am thinking seriously about buying my first
printer. I have a Canon 5D that I use occasionally, but I mostly
shoot a lot of 35mm film, black and white and color negative.

I've only had exposure to Canon bodies and lenses, so naturally the
first thing I thought of when buying a printer was the Pixma 9500,
since it is featured so prominently at the camera stores around town.
However, after looking at the sample prints in the store and checking
around some other bulletin boards, I get the impression that Canon
might still be playing catch up as far as printers go. The Epson
R2400 receives a lot of praise from enthusiasts, but also draws some
criticism as Epsons seem to have a reputation for being unreliable.

My top priorities are dynamic range in b/w prints (faithful pure
blacks, smooth gray contours), and a lack of artifacts in terms of
visible noise/grain in the print.

My number one concern is, will a photo printer do the same service to
a scanned negative as a shot from a digital camera? I am a little
worried that with so much development in the consumer market for
digital these days, the printers may all be designed/calibrated to
support them more faithfully than film scans. Am I wrong in this?

Thank you for the advice!

Do you have a simple way to send me a scanned image or 2? If so, I
will send you what an Epson 4800 will do with it.

Email use a 2 instead of G

My only frustration with Epson printers is that you need to use them
weekly, daily is better, to keep the heads clean. Long trips are
always a frustration to come back from...

"HeroOfSpielburg" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hello all,



My number one concern is, will a photo printer do the same service to
a scanned negative as a shot from a digital camera? I am a little
worried that with so much development in the consumer market for
digital these days, the printers may all be designed/calibrated to
support them more faithfully than film scans. Am I wrong in this?


I have the Epson R1800, a pigment ink, medium format printer that produces
stunning color prints. I print scanned negatives and slides with excellent
results. If you do B&W, get the Epson R2400. Here's Adorama's listing, and
you can do a Google search for reviews.

http://www.adorama.com/IESSR2400.html

SW

On Oct 11, 11:03 am, HeroOfSpielburg wrote:
Hello all,

I have exhausted my patience with going to the print shop every time I
want an 8x10", so I am thinking seriously about buying my first
printer. I have a Canon 5D that I use occasionally, but I mostly
shoot a lot of 35mm film, black and white and color negative.

I've only had exposure to Canon bodies and lenses, so naturally the
first thing I thought of when buying a printer was the Pixma 9500,
since it is featured so prominently at the camera stores around town.
However, after looking at the sample prints in the store and checking
around some other bulletin boards, I get the impression that Canon
might still be playing catch up as far as printers go. The Epson
R2400 receives a lot of praise from enthusiasts, but also draws some
criticism as Epsons seem to have a reputation for being unreliable.

My top priorities are dynamic range in b/w prints (faithful pure
blacks, smooth gray contours), and a lack of artifacts in terms of
visible noise/grain in the print.

My number one concern is, will a photo printer do the same service to
a scanned negative as a shot from a digital camera? I am a little
worried that with so much development in the consumer market for
digital these days, the printers may all be designed/calibrated to
support them more faithfully than film scans. Am I wrong in this?

Thank you for the advice!

Got your email did you get my response?
Jim

"HeroOfSpielburg" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hello all,

I have exhausted my patience with going to the print shop every time I
want an 8x10", so I am thinking seriously about buying my first
printer. I have a Canon 5D that I use occasionally, but I mostly
shoot a lot of 35mm film, black and white and color negative.

I've only had exposure to Canon bodies and lenses, so naturally the
first thing I thought of when buying a printer was the Pixma 9500,
since it is featured so prominently at the camera stores around town.
However, after looking at the sample prints in the store and checking
around some other bulletin boards, I get the impression that Canon
might still be playing catch up as far as printers go. The Epson
R2400 receives a lot of praise from enthusiasts, but also draws some
criticism as Epsons seem to have a reputation for being unreliable.

My top priorities are dynamic range in b/w prints (faithful pure
blacks, smooth gray contours), and a lack of artifacts in terms of
visible noise/grain in the print.

My number one concern is, will a photo printer do the same service to
a scanned negative as a shot from a digital camera? I am a little
worried that with so much development in the consumer market for
digital these days, the printers may all be designed/calibrated to
support them more faithfully than film scans. Am I wrong in this?

Thank you for the advice!



Have you considered using an online print service, such as Kodak Gallery,
Adorama or Dale Labs?

You'll get prints made on silver halide paper, using real photo dyes, not
inkjet prints. True, it takes a few days for the prints to arrive in the
mail, but if you can live with that you'll avoid agonizing over which
printer to buy, and which paper/ink combination offers longest life. Also,
as technology improves, the online printers will upgrade their equipment,
without the need of any additional investment from you.

Just a thought . . .