For years I've been touting the various iterations of the Imacon here often to be met with comments about people not seeing any appreciable difference, comments (based on some technical crap or web articles) that a good flat bed scanner is comparable or almost as good, etc. I'm very glad to see that someone finally agrees with my assessment of the scanner. Now, if you want to "kick it up a notch," get a good scan on a real drum scanner, like the Heidelberg Tango (when "good enough" is not good enough). Compare that to any of the Epsons, and even some Imacons. Be careful that you don't step on your jaw <LOL>
I am fortunate in that I can rent time on a couple of the mid- and high-end Imacons, and can get good support and scanning advice from an expert on the subject, who is usually right there when I'm scanning. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Paul Stenquist > 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. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
