Re: Downright Depressing

[=shAf=]

James writes ...

> After having so many difficulties scanning negatives and
> transparencies on my Epson 1200U scanner, I discussed one of the
> problems, posterization, with a SilverFast tech.  He suggested
> that the problem could be beyond the capabilities of my scanner
> and to make some scans with a higher quality scanner.  ...
> ...

Am I correct in assuming your scanner is a flatbed with capability
for tranparencies?  If so, then I'll probably assume its primary
intent was for scanning hardcopy, and that if asked to scan a
transparency, it falls flat with respect to optical density.  If a
scanner's OD abilities are not up to the task, then you will see
posterization when you ask the scan to deliver what the image is
supposed to look like.
While still a bit spendy (... < US$4000 ...), Polaroid will
apparently offer a reasonably priced MF scanner soon.

shAf  :o)

shAf  :o)




The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Downright Depressing

[Dave King]

I migrated from a 1200U to an Agfa T2500 about 6 months ago.  I recently
had a job requiring compositing that exceeded my Photoshop skills, so
down I went to my local digital services provider with my T2500 35mm
color neg scans.  My color managed PC system scans opened on his color
managed MAC system looking just like they did on mine, and he also
commented on the good scan quality.  Moral of the story?  ICC profiles
are a good thing, and the T2500 is still probably the least expensive
($4300) 35 to 4x5 scanner that will really do the job.  If you don't
need 4x5 scans, the new medium format Polaroid is higher res and a bit
less money.

Dave King

- Original Message -
From: James L. Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2000 12:07 PM
Subject: Downright Depressing


> After having so many difficulties scanning negatives and
> transparencies on my Epson 1200U scanner, I discussed one of the
> problems, posterization, with a SilverFast tech.  He suggested
> that the problem could be beyond the capabilities of my scanner
> and to make some scans with a higher quality scanner.  Upon his
> suggestion, I asked the owner of a local photo service company to
> scan a particularly difficult negative (2 1/4" X 2 1/4")on his
> Sytek scanner (perhaps an overkill to the tech's suggestion).  The
> comparison of his scan and the best I could do on my scanner is
> depressing, to say the least.  While the color was a good bit off
> (it was a raw scan), there was no posterization and I was able to
> adjust the colors to within an acceptable range in Photoshop.  The
> image was razor sharp.
>
> The photo service has been in business for almost thirty years and
> has made the transition from film to digital imaging.  He has two
> printers - one very large format inkjet and another large format
> printer that exposes the image, via a laser scan, on to
> photographic paper.  The images are breathtaking - some billboard
> size.  While he still has one E-6 line operating, does some black
> and white work, and still uses a Deardorff copy camera for copy
> work, over 90% of his business is digital.  It was interesting (to
> me, at least) that he does not use ICC profiles.  His finish work
> is all done within his in-house loop and image scans are given to
> the customer as raw TIFF files.  He uses both PC's and Macs in his
> facility.
>
> An even more interesting observation is that the scan he made for
> me was done to produce a 20" X 20" image at 300 dpi.  That is well
> within the capability of the 4000 dpi Polaroid and Microtek
> scanners and the Minolta Scan Multi II.  The Sytek does have a bit
> higher OD (advertised 4.1 Dmax) but I believe that the scanners
> just mentioned could come very close to the same result.  All have
> 42 bit image data internal (I think).
>
> The visit to my friend, Cecil Isbell, his company, Quality Photo,
> was an eye opener.  While a good medium format scanner is probably
> beyond my justifiable reach, I fully appreciate Polaroid and other
> manufacture's interest in producing quality scanners for medium
> format at a price within the reach of serious amateurs and small
> business professionals.  Things just keep getting better.
>
> Jim Sims



The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

RE: Downright Depressing

[Austin Franklin]

> and the T2500 is still probably the least expensive
> ($4300) 35 to 4x5 scanner that will really do the job.

I recently went through that...and ended up with a near new LeafScan 45 for $2000.




The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Downright Depressing

[Dave King]

> > and the T2500 is still probably the least expensive
> > ($4300) 35 to 4x5 scanner that will really do the job.
>
> I recently went through that...and ended up with a near new LeafScan
45 for $2000.

Which from the sound of it is a very good scanner, if a little hard to
find.



The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.

Re: Downright Depressing

[Jeffrey Goggin]

>> I recently went through that...and ended up with a near new LeafScan
>45 for $2000.
>
>Which from the sound of it is a very good scanner, if a little hard to
>find.

Actually, they turn up on eBay fairly regularly ... in fact, this
particular one sounds like one that I was prepared to bid on -- a friend
and I were going to split it -- except the auction was cancelled in the
last few hours because there hadn't been any bids and the seller was
nervous enough about it not selling that he accepted a fixed offer for it.

In retrospect, this was probably a good thing (assuming Polaroid's scanner
is everything they claim it to be!) as we have since learned first-hand
just how s-l-o-w-l-y it works ... decent scans, though, and it does accept
4x5s.

Jeff Goggin
Scottsdale, AZ


The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign,  with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the 
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.