I can't afford a high end scanner either, or at least it's not a priority since I shoot so little film. But it was certainly enlightening to see what the Imacon can do. I don't know what model it was, but it wasn't slow. Paul On Jan 2, 2007, at 12:53 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> Yeah, an Imacon Flextight would be wonderful. But $5000 for the > cheapest one puts it well out of my budget, never mind the time it > takes to use it. > > Results I've seen from the Epson V700 are pretty good. $500 is a lot > closer to affordable... > > Godfrey > > On Jan 1, 2007, at 8:30 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > >> For several years, I scanned all my 6x7 transparencies and negs on an >> Epson 3200. The results were nice. I sold quite a few as stock and >> many to magazines. When I went to visit my friend the other day, he >> asked me to bring some transparencies that I had confidence in >> regarding sharpness and exposure. I brought a few car shots from one >> of my magazine articles. He scanned them on an Imacon. Wow. I was >> impressed. I printed one on the 2400 when I got home. An amazing >> difference. Not just in sharpness or detail resolution, but shadow >> detail and color gradation as well. Now I just have to find a >> benefactor to buy me an Imacon. When I have time, I'll prepare a 100% >> crop comparison, since I still have my original scans. >> Paul > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
