Quite a noticeable difference - beautiful morning light behind the vehicles BTW.
I use an Epson 3200 for my medium format scans. I'm not surprised at the difference - I found it to be iffy for high quality scans from slide film, but then slide film is the most demanding for scanning. I think the 3200 does a better job with negative film, especially B&W. I did a head to head comparison of some 35mm B&W frame between my Canoscan FS4000 and the Epson 3200, and found the difference to be negligible. I've also had several large (30 x 24) B&W prints made from scans off the Epson that just scream with detail. Color negative film also scans well on the Epson - better than color transparency - but unfortunately my Epson has developed a problem with putting a blue line into every color scan at exactly the same place. Well, it's getting old. I keep watching for a good deal on a Nikon medium format scanner as a reasonable compromise between the flatbeds and the Imacons. It's really hard to sink a lot of money into a technology that's on the wane - I can see even my MF film days coming to a close. - MCC Paul Stenquist wrote: > Here's a pic I rescanned on my friend's Imacon. I treated it somewhat > differently as well, both in terms of the crop and the rendering, but I > still think there's a distinct difference. Note the detail in the > background trtees. > > The imacon scan: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5416945&size=lg > > The Epson 3200 scan: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2609820&size=lg > > No surprise, but mildly interesting perhaps. > Paul > > -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
