Re: filmscanners: Enlargements & Film Sacnners
AFAIK you pictures will scan with the same clarity (which is excellent clarity) whether you shoot with the 300 or 400 lens, so the lens decision is not in any way tied or related to the scanning of the resulting images. Maris - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 5:33 AM Subject: filmscanners: Enlargements & Film Sacnners | We are new into the film scanner environment and looking for some assistance | in advance of making of decision on several issues. As amateur ice hockey | photographers we shoot in very poor light. We are currently contemplating a | Nikon 4000 scanner to work in concert with Photoshop 6.0. We currently shoot | with Nikon F5's and lenses at 200/2.8 and 300/4. Our question is will our | scanner provide the ability to crop and enlarge clearly our negatives (say to | 11x14), or do we need to invest in a 400/2.8 lens. Our options appear to be | either the 400/2.8 or 300/2.8 at half the price. In either case we will be | acquiring the scanner -- just hate to overspend if we can accomplish the same | result with a new scanner. | | Thanks |
Re: filmscanners: Enlargements & Film Sacnners
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes ... > ... we shoot in very poor light. ... Our question is will our > scanner provide the ability to crop and enlarge clearly > our negatives (say to 11x14), ... My own feeling is ... to "enlarge clearly" to 11 x 14, you need the entire 35mm film frame ... especially for fast films and because this scanner will tend to enhance the grain. I have, however, seen good results from the included GEM software, but I believe an 11 by 14 might approach "good or excellent" quality, rather than "fine". Since you will get the scanner anyway (I cannot suggest a better one), you'll be able to evaluate your need for another lens. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Enlargements & Film Sacnners
I shot some hockey pictures this last season, and from that experience would recommend the longer lens. I used 2 types of film Fugi 800 and Kodak portra 400. I have a Nikon Coolscan 3 and the 800 film scanned with huge grain making it impossible crop the negs to gat the expressions on the kids faces I was looking for. The Kodak was OK and using Genuine Fractals i could get the "digital zoom" with some effort. I was using a f2 80mm lens If I would have had the longer one the I could have got the lose up without the fuss. Around here (In Ontario) a lot of photographers are shooting digital and selling prints as the kids leave the arena. John Bradburu - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 6:33 AM Subject: filmscanners: Enlargements & Film Sacnners > We are new into the film scanner environment and looking for some assistance > in advance of making of decision on several issues. As amateur ice hockey > photographers we shoot in very poor light. We are currently contemplating a > Nikon 4000 scanner to work in concert with Photoshop 6.0. We currently shoot > with Nikon F5's and lenses at 200/2.8 and 300/4. Our question is will our > scanner provide the ability to crop and enlarge clearly our negatives (say to > 11x14), or do we need to invest in a 400/2.8 lens. Our options appear to be > either the 400/2.8 or 300/2.8 at half the price. In either case we will be > acquiring the scanner -- just hate to overspend if we can accomplish the same > result with a new scanner. > > Thanks
filmscanners: Enlargements & Film Sacnners
We are new into the film scanner environment and looking for some assistance in advance of making of decision on several issues. As amateur ice hockey photographers we shoot in very poor light. We are currently contemplating a Nikon 4000 scanner to work in concert with Photoshop 6.0. We currently shoot with Nikon F5's and lenses at 200/2.8 and 300/4. Our question is will our scanner provide the ability to crop and enlarge clearly our negatives (say to 11x14), or do we need to invest in a 400/2.8 lens. Our options appear to be either the 400/2.8 or 300/2.8 at half the price. In either case we will be acquiring the scanner -- just hate to overspend if we can accomplish the same result with a new scanner. Thanks
