GFX50r vs. Epson 850 - Scan of Tri-X 400

Now that I've been shooting 120 with an RB67, Bronica ETR, and Mamiya Super 23 (6x9), I wanted to try using my GFX50r to scan. I also wanted to see if splitting a 6x9 into 4 exposures and merging in Lightroom would beat the Epson.

Here are 100% crops of each trial. Post-processing for both tests was similar - levels and highlight/shadow adjustments. The Fuji is new; I'm still learning how to use it, and the exposure was way off.

First, the Epson:


Then the GFX


I'll see if I can improve on this.

-- Joe

I would just say that the second has just blown highlights. Generally from both one could safely say that thy produce the same results. It is just a curves thing and a bit of sharpening more on the later.

The GFX should beat the Epson hands down if the exposure is correct & everything locked down adequately to prevent vibration etc. The Epson's internal lack of precision is a massive flaw & destroys contrast and fine detail resolution.

Lachlan Young said:

The GFX should beat the Epson hands down if the exposure is correct & everything locked down adequately to prevent vibration etc. The Epson's internal lack of precision is a massive flaw & destroys contrast and fine detail resolution.

Click to expand...

That's what I'm hoping for. Definitely need to work on my technique, though.

GFX scan looks strange, like there's some motion blur going on?

BTW, I've modified my flatbed scanning procedure to avoid most multi-exposure settings as registration of my Epson V700 isn't perfect, and multi-exposure in VueScan in particular seemed to give up a lot of sharpness.

4season said:

GFX scan looks strange, like there's some motion blur going on?

BTW, I've modified my flatbed scanning procedure to avoid most multi-exposure settings as registration of my Epson V700 isn't perfect, and multi-exposure in VueScan in particular seemed to give up a lot of sharpness.

Click to expand...

I'd agree about the GFX shot - but it looks like camera movement as opposed to internal vibrations/ inaccuracies which is what makes the Epson soft. And camera movement is rather easier to solve!

Lachlan Young said:

I'd agree about the GFX shot - but it looks like camera movement as opposed to internal vibrations/ inaccuracies which is what makes the Epson soft. And camera movement is rather easier to solve!

Click to expand...

Motion blur with the GFX would not surprise me in the least. The camera is mounted on a copy stand. The LED light source is sitting on top of a huge and heavy sliding vise (which is how I control the movement of the negative), and the whole thing is sitting on a small table. Shaky at best. I'll be out of town and shooting tons of 6x9 at the end of the week, so I'll have lots to work with when I return. I'm going to try to finalize my setup first, and then I'll post the results here.

Lachlan Young said:

The GFX should beat the Epson hands down if the exposure is correct & everything locked down adequately to prevent vibration etc. The Epson's internal lack of precision is a massive flaw & destroys contrast and fine detail resolution.

Click to expand...

"massive"??? that's quite a hyperbole, or you have never seen a good Epson scan

Witold said:

"massive"??? that's quite a hyperbole, or you have never seen a good Epson scan

Click to expand...

I've seen the best possible results out of the Epsons with actual focusing systems & compared to the properly engineered high end scanners, the results are awful, the MTF performance collapses producing poor detail resolution & consequent horrid noise when sharpened.

Lachlan Young said:

I've seen the best possible results out of the Epsons with actual focusing systems & compared to the properly engineered high end scanners, the results are awful, the MTF performance collapses producing poor detail resolution & consequent horrid noise when sharpened.

Click to expand...

Again, you are living on a different planet. Cannot compare gear that has 20 times higher price tag. Nobody is calling Epson V700/800 a high end scanner, although it is in a way a high end within its target audience. Secondly, for a scanner to deliver what an Epson can deliver, it still must be quite precise, even if not all that close to what technology would allow, had the money / price tag not been an issue. So for what it is, an Epson flat bad, especially 700/800 models, are quite well put together and provide repeatedly good results, which is also a sign of precision engineering.