On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 16:07:41 -0700 Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> I suppose its possible Polaroid owners are unwilling to admit they
> spend their nights at home doing dust spotting, since they laid out all
> that ca$h on the SS4000, but I'd expect someone would break ranks and
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 07:39:48 -0700 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Afterall, did we ever blame enhanced Tri-X grain on the point
source
> enlarger we preferred for sharp detail and increased contrast?
The odd thing is that this doesn't happen - at least no more than printing
on a harde
On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 23:48:17 -0400 Isaac Crawford ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hmmm... was the scanner *adding* the dust and scratches? I would
rather
> have a scanner that gets as much info off of the film as possible, and
> if there are dust and scratches on the film, they should be res
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Hemingway, David J wrote:
> Ed,
> I have been biting my tongue throughout this whole dust conversation but I
> guess I am finally baited out. I have done actual scans on the scanner with
> a LED light source and the SS4000. It was quite obvious to me that there was
> considera
Art: I have a LS-30 and mostly use Vuescan. There are times when I have failed to
use its version of ICE and wish I had done so. I would rather not see the dust,
specks, scratches, etc. on the neg. or slide at all. Any softening can be
corrected by using the USM.
It sure beats the process of b
Rob wrote:
>I wonder
>if the Nikon focusses more accurately on the *surface* of the film hence
>it tends to show surface defects more? Has anyone tried manually
>adjusting the focus a little to see if it's possible to defocus the dust
>and scratches without losing too much sharpness in the imag
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (shAf) wrote:
> Derek writes ...
>
> > In a sense you could say that the Nikon scanners
> > do add dust and scratches! To be exact any dust
> > and scratches that are there are emphasised
> > because of the LED light source that they use.
>
> To say the Nikons add dust a
I have also used LS2000 with many Kodachromes and have had GREAT success
with them. My problem was mould and some quite awful slides have been
rescued with minimal work. I tried one of them before getting the Nikon
and spent 3 hours (it was a very bad attack of mould) fixing it in PS. The
N
Art wrote:
>To bring this into a slightly different realm...
>
>Let's say you had a choice between a car which has a bit of vibration in
>the steering column, and tends to require just a bit of steering
>adjustment to keep it going perfectly straight, but handles over steering
>and other human
>
> I suppose its possible Polaroid owners are unwilling to admit they spend
> their nights at home doing dust spotting, since they laid out all that
> ca$h on the SS4000, but I'd expect someone would break ranks and blow
> the whistle.
>
I just have the Artixscan 4000T.
Unless you keep your scan
Dave King wrote:
>
>
> Yes, I agree in principle, but sharpness gains have to be weighed
> against other performance factors. How much sharper in real terms is
> the Nikon 8000 vs the Polaroid 120, if at all? And how much
> difference is there in the ability to scan Kodachrome and B&W with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 6/8/2001 12:32:29 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
>> I have been biting my tongue throughout this whole dust conversation but I
>> guess I am finally baited out. I have done actual scans on the scanner with
>> a LED light source and the SS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> My experience is that scanners with better focus show more dust
> than scanners without good focus. For instance, take a SprintScan 4000
> and a Nikon LS-4000 and compare the raw scans. They show exactly
> the same dust spots if you use the same slide on both, a
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My experience is that scanners with better focus show more dust
> than scanners without good focus. For instance, take a SprintScan 4000
> and a Nikon LS-4000 and compare the raw scans. They show exactly
> the same dust spots if you use the same slide on both, and bo
I find it very interesting just how defensive most of the Nikon scanner
owners are on this list.
The question below was a reasonable one. Do the new Nikon scanners tend
to amplify the dust and dirt when dICE is off, as they do on the older
scanners?
All the sudden all these Nikon scanner own
> > I guess my take is that the "adding" of dust is just a corollary to
> > having a really sharp scan... It's hardly the scanner's fault that
> there
> > is dust or damage to the film...
> >
> > Isaac
>
> Yes, I agree in principle, but sharpness gains have to be weighed
> against other performa
In a message dated 6/8/2001 12:32:29 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I have been biting my tongue throughout this whole dust conversation but I
> guess I am finally baited out. I have done actual scans on the scanner with
> a LED light source and the SS4000. It was quite obvious to me that
> In a message dated 6/8/2001 6:14:53 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
>
> > Not quite sure how to answer this assertion since it goes against
> > everything I've read and my own personal experience.
>
> Don't believe everything you read (including what I write ).
>
> > I guess all I
> > can sa
> Dave writes ...
>
> > > The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust
> > > and scratches ... that is, no more than any other scanner.
> > >
> > > shAf :o)
> >
> > ... my LS-30 without ICE compared to scans on my Agfa
> > T-2500 are quite different in terms of dust and scratches.
> Derek Clarke wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac Crawford) wrote:
> >
> > > Rob Geraghty wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dave wrote:
> > > > >Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether
scans
> > > > >performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same
problems
> > > > >with exc
]
Subject:Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
In a message dated 6/8/2001 6:14:53 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Not quite sure how to answer this assertion since it goes against
> everything I've read and my own personal experience.
Don't believe everything you read
Derek Clarke wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac Crawford) wrote:
>
> > Rob Geraghty wrote:
> > >
> > > Dave wrote:
> > > >Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans
> > > >performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems
> > > >with excessive dust and sc
Are you implying that the Nikon light source (or optics, or whatever)
do(es) not emphasize dirt, scratches and dust more so than other equal
resolution scanners using other light sources, or whathaveyou?
Art
shAf wrote:
> Dave writes ...
>
>
>> ... Specifically, I'd like to find out whether
In a message dated 6/8/2001 6:14:53 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Not quite sure how to answer this assertion since it goes against
> everything I've read and my own personal experience.
Don't believe everything you read (including what I write ).
> I guess all I
> can say is scans on m
Derek writes ...
> In a sense you could say that the Nikon scanners
> do add dust and scratches! To be exact any dust
> and scratches that are there are emphasised
> because of the LED light source that they use.
To say the Nikons add dust and scratches simply because the light
source em
Dave writes ...
> > The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust
> > and scratches ... that is, no more than any other scanner.
> >
> > shAf :o)
>
> ... my LS-30 without ICE compared to scans on my Agfa
> T-2500 are quite different in terms of dust and scratches.
> The Nikon "see
> Dave wrote:
> >Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans
> >performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems
> >with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if
this
> >has been improved, and if so, by how much.
>
> What problems did the o
> Dave writes ...
>
> > ... Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans
> > performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the
> > same problems with excessive dust and scratches as
> > on the old scanners, ...
>
> The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust and
> scratches
> Rob Geraghty wrote:
> >
> > Dave wrote:
> > >Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans
> > >performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same
problems
> > >with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if
this
> > >has been improved, and if so, by h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac Crawford) wrote:
> Rob Geraghty wrote:
> >
> > Dave wrote:
> > >Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans
> > >performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems
> > >with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if
Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
> Dave wrote:
> >Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans
> >performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems
> >with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this
> >has been improved, and if so, by how much.
Dave wrote:
>Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans
>performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems
>with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this
>has been improved, and if so, by how much.
What problems did the old scanners h
Dave writes ...
> ... Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans
> performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the
> same problems with excessive dust and scratches as
> on the old scanners, ...
The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust and
scratches ... tha
33 matches
Mail list logo
