filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
Peter wrote: > I think there is only one happy scanner owner, Ed, > in this forum. He is not using it mainly for slides > though. I certainly have the impression that Ed's main use of the scanner is on colour neg film. I think you may have a skewed impression of the satisfaction levels because of the nature of the list. People post most often when they have a problem, so it looks like nobody is happy. > The rest of people probably own drum scanners or do > not own scanners at all. Ignorance is bliss? :) > I would expect more input from people owning scanners > in $600-$1500 price range. It is unfortunate. I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to here, because there's no previous text for reference. Harking back to the post which started this thread, I think there's been a lot of useful feedback. As far as my LS30 is concerned, it's a great scanner with certain limitations. Unfortunately one of those limitations has been a bug in the Nikon software which causes misalignment of scan lines. Using Vuescan (which I only found out about through this forum) the scans have no such problem. The other limiting factor of the LS30 is grain aliasing due to interference between film grain and the CCD array sampling pattern. This issue seems to be more noticeable on the LS30 than other 2700dpi scanners purportedly due to the collimated nature of the LED light source, but also I believe because the Nikon scanner has much sharper focus than many other scanners. Having an infrared channel is a godsend unless you have a LOT of time to spend spotting scans. While I'm sure everyone would like to think that they look after their films, scanning has a tendency to show up the slightest speck of dust. The automated cleaning in Vuescan, or ICE in Nikonscan makes scanning a LOT easier with a minor loss of sharpness. I have made some excellent scans with the LS30. LS30 scans of some of my photos have been used in a commercial magazine. If I am a vocal member of the list, it's because to me US$800 (AUD$1600) is a significant investment in hardware; my SLR with a 28-80 zoom only cost US$400. I want to get the most out of that investment, and I can't afford to simply sell it second hand to run out and buy a newer one. Most of the hassles I've had with film scanning have related to finding out the limitations of the hard, software, colour management, and even more importantly the limitations of 35mm films. The simplest piece of advice I think I could give anyone is to make sure your photos are as sharp as you can make them, with the exposures as accurate as possible, on the finest grain film you can afford. At the end of the day, the quality of the source material will determine a lot about the quality of the scanned result. Choosing a scanner has a lot to do with what the buyer wants to do with the results. There's no single answer that is right for everyone. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
Rob Geraghty wrote: > Peter wrote: > > I think there is only one happy scanner owner, Ed, > > in this forum. He is not using it mainly for slides > > though. > > I certainly have the impression that Ed's main use of the scanner is on > colour neg film. I think you may have a skewed impression of the satisfaction > levels because of the nature of the list. People post most often when they > have a problem, so it looks like nobody is happy. I agree with Rob. The forum is necessary for problems and comparisons, each of which generate traffic and give the impression that everyone here would rather have a differnet scanner than they acquired. For those purposes, the forum is doing its job, in fact, quite well. > > The rest of people probably own drum scanners or do > > not own scanners at all. > > Ignorance is bliss? :) > > > I would expect more input from people owning scanners > > in $600-$1500 price range. It is unfortunate. > > I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to here, because there's no previous > text for reference. Harking back to the post which started this thread, > I think there's been a lot of useful feedback. Regarding the LS-30 I agree because I have one. Like most other scanners, they do a great job if the slide/negative is done correctly. In other cases, the scan allows you to manipulate it in another program (PS, PSP) and then improve it as much as possible. Sio they are doing their job. > The automated cleaning in Vuescan, or ICE in Nikonscan makes > scanning a LOT easier with a minor loss of sharpness. One of the reasons I got the LS-30 and it is very helpful > Choosing a scanner has a lot to do with what the buyer wants to do with > the results. There's no single answer that is right for everyone. In the price range you present ( in $ US) I think you pick up about 90% of the home use scanner price range - both the older ones and the newer models. In fact, your range is so large that it has to be confusing. Narrow it down, set up criteria based on what you think is important, like dpi, density range, ICE, ROC, GEM etc, what you will be doing with the output, and of course the price you want to pay. In fact what you want to get as a final output (to me at least) is probably the most important. Once the field is narrowed, then ask again and the answers will really help you make the decision. This process, including what you are doing now, is the same process I went through about 2 years ago. This list really did the most help after I narrowed the field. Gordon
RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
> Narrow it down, set up criteria based on what you think is > important, like > > dpi, I want a dpi high enough that I don't run into grain aliasing; from what I read here, sounds like > 3,000 dpi. > density range, Highest possible. From what I understand so far, this may be the most important factor. Let's say > 3.6 DMax. > ICE, I shoot mostly Fuji velvia, provia and astia slides, but I also have a lot of b&w negatives (agfa, delta, tri-X and XP2 super). My slides are a year old or less, but the keepers have been living in carousels (boxed) and often projected, so there is likely to be some dust. ICE could therefore be a big timesaver for me with the slides; I understand it doesn't work so well with Kchrome (only have a handful of these) and b&w like Tri-X (have a lot more of this). My main priority, though, are the fuji slides. > ROC, > GEM These could be real timesavers for me. But I hate to use them at the expense of sharpness. I shoot with Leica lenses because my eyes can see the better edge sharpness, contrast, color rendition, and lack of veiling flare. I'm beginning to see that what I'm most concerned about with color image quality is _contrast_. For b&w, it's tonality. I guess I want a scanner that will do my Leica glass justice. Is that asking too much in the $3k (US) price range? > etc, what you will be doing with the output, Color work will go to an Epson 1280 for 11x14 prints. B&W will go to an Epson 1160 with piezo drivers/inks for 11x14 prints. > and of course the price you want to pay. Up to $3k, but I'd be willing to save up and spend more--even as much as three times that amount--if it meant final prints that look as good as my projected slides. That's why I spent the extra money on Leica lenses--I can see a difference, and to me it is very much like the difference between the Leafscan 45 scan and the Nikon ED 4000 scan of the girl's face midpage at: http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html Whatever this difference is (contrast?), it seems very similar to the different look of slides shot through Leica vs. Nikon glass. > In fact what you want to get as a final output (to me at > least) is probably the most important. My dream is to get final color prints that look as good as my projected slides; cibachromes have really been disappointing to me. I also very much like the look of the prints in Jim Brandenburg's _Chased by the Light_ (which I believe were shot with Nikkors! which is why I'm hoping digital imagery can give me the look I want). For b&w, I'm looking for deep, dark blacks, true whites, and a rich tonal range inbetween. Guess I'm asking a bit much, eh?! > Once the field is narrowed, then ask again and the > answers will really help you make the decision. I wish I could afford to send all my slides out to be processed by a place like West Coast Imaging (http://www.westcoastimaging.com/index.htm) using Tango drum scanners and Lightjet printers--but I can't. It could be that a good compromise would be to do the scanning and Photo Shop tweaking myself and send the best out for lightjet prints. If so, I'm wondering if I can find a scanner that will give me digital files worthy of a lightjet--or even if I could hope for prints from an Epson that would come close to that quality. I'm not a pro and have not yet even considered selling my work. But as an amateur, image quality is very important to me. I have many friends who would like to have prints of my slides, but the cibachromes I've had done have really been disappointing to me--they just don't capture the look of the projected images at all. Obviously, this is highly subjective, and I'm such a novice that I have difficulty expressing what qualities I'm after. > This process, including what you are doing now, is the same process > I went through about 2 years ago. This list > really did the most help after I narrowed the field. Hope so. But I also believe that at some point I'll just to have to make a choice (flipping a coin if necessary) and dive in to discover on my own what works and what doesn't for my eyes. I have to say that the Leafscan 45 sample at the pytolwany site is the first one that really caught my attention as to the look I'm after--and maybe that's all the pointers I need. I never hear anything about this scanner, though, and worry that I won't be up to mastering it. And I only have 35 mm slides (should have mentioned that earlier)--no other formats. Dan
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
Dan: I thought I recognized your name from the Leica list. I also am a Leica shooter. With your budget, I would get a Nikon LS4000 or LS8000 (MF capability). I am told that there is a review of film scanners in the current Popular Photography magazine. There are recent reviews of the Nikon and Polaroid 4000 ppi scanners at this link: http://www.imaging-resource.com/ For what it's worth, I am Very, VERY pleased with the nikon Coolscan IV. Some have complained about edge sharpness of the Nikon LS-4000, but I am skeptical of those commentaries. At 2900 ppi, the Coolscan VI picks up grain in my shots on HP5 processed in Xtol. Be prepared for a VERY steep learning curve to get good scans and prints. I'm getting great prints off my very mundane Epson 740. Epson printers are the standard for photo work. I have printed shots that I tried to print on Ilfochrome on the Epson that are knock outs with the brilliance of the source slides (from Kodachrome to Sensia). You can see some of my feeble attempts here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=3861 You should use Photoshop 6.0, about US$600, for adjustments. It's incredible as you get to understand it. The critical factor in Photoshop is to manage color between you devices (printer/scanner) and your monitor. Color management is not explained anywhere intelligible except here: http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ I hope that this saves you weeks of floundering that I suffered on these topics. I decided to post directly to you and to Tony Sleep's scanner list, a great list, and the LUG in hopes of preventing someone from suffering the misunderstanding of color management. I look forward to Mr. Sleeps review of the new crop of scanners too. You might wait for his sage analysis. Regards, Doug - Original Message - From: "Dan Honemann" <> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 4:30 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted > > Narrow it down, set up criteria based on what you think is > > important, like > > > > dpi, > > I want a dpi high enough that I don't run into grain aliasing; from what I > read here, sounds like > 3,000 dpi. > > > density range, > > Highest possible. From what I understand so far, this may be the most > important factor. Let's say > 3.6 DMax. > > > ICE, > > I shoot mostly Fuji velvia, provia and astia slides, but I also have a lot > of b&w negatives (agfa, delta, tri-X and XP2 super). My slides are a year > old or less, but the keepers have been living in carousels (boxed) and often > projected, so there is likely to be some dust. ICE could therefore be a big > timesaver for me with the slides; I understand it doesn't work so well with > Kchrome (only have a handful of these) and b&w like Tri-X (have a lot more > of this). My main priority, though, are the fuji slides. > > > ROC, > > GEM > > These could be real timesavers for me. But I hate to use them at the > expense of sharpness. I shoot with Leica lenses because my eyes can see the > better edge sharpness, contrast, color rendition, and lack of veiling flare. > I'm beginning to see that what I'm most concerned about with color image > quality is _contrast_. For b&w, it's tonality. I guess I want a scanner > that will do my Leica glass justice. Is that asking too much in the $3k > (US) price range? > > > etc, what you will be doing with the output, > > Color work will go to an Epson 1280 for 11x14 prints. B&W will go to an > Epson 1160 with piezo drivers/inks for 11x14 prints. > > > and of course the price you want to pay. > > Up to $3k, but I'd be willing to save up and spend more--even as much as > three times that amount--if it meant final prints that look as good as my > projected slides. That's why I spent the extra money on Leica lenses--I can > see a difference, and to me it is very much like the difference between the > Leafscan 45 scan and the Nikon ED 4000 scan of the girl's face midpage at: > > http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html > > Whatever this difference is (contrast?), it seems very similar to the > different look of slides shot through Leica vs. Nikon glass. > > > In fact what you want to get as a final output (to me at > > least) is probably the most important. > > My dream is to get final color prints that look as good as my projected > slides; cibachromes have really been disappointing to me. I also very much > like the look of the prints in Jim Brandenburg's _Chased by the Light_ > (which I believe were shot with Nikkors! which is why I'm hoping digital > imagery can give me the look I want). For b&w, I'm looking for deep, d
RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
Doug, Thanks for your thoughts (and useful links) on scanners. I like your work; in particular, this one: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=137114 I'm prepared for the learning curve and dazzled already. Mostly I'm impressed with the intelligent folks and posts found on this list. (One thing I've discovered here, however, is that often it takes my posts a full 8-12 hours after sending them before they show up on the list; not sure if that is a problem on my end, or par for the course.) I just installed Photoshop 6 to start learning ahead of getting my scanner. > I look forward to Mr. Sleeps review of the new crop of scanners too. You > might wait for his sage analysis. Me, too! For now, my choice would be the LS 4000, although I haven't ruled out the SS 120. The Leafscan is an intriguing alternative, but I have a vague notion I'd have to be as bright as Austin to get the most of it, and that just ain't gonna happen in this lifetime. Dan
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
I believe that my responses to your criteria are accurate, but, if they aren't you will certainly receive additional ones. Dan Honemann wrote: > I want a dpi high enough that I don't run into grain aliasing; from what I > read here, sounds like > 3,000 dpi. This places you into the Nikon 4000 (though I believe it does not quite reach 4K), the Polaroid, and maybe 1 or 2 others. > Let's say > 3.6 DMax. Still the same products listed that match the dpi criteria. Some Minolta's are here but with lesser dpi. > ICE could therefore be a big timesaver This is available in the Nikon and possibly Minolta but at a lesser DPI. ICE requires an Infra Red channel, not found in all scanners. > These could be real timesavers for me. But I hate to use them at the > expense of sharpness. ROC restores colors - I do not believe that it soften the pictures. GEM has a softening effect. This is correctable in a program like Photoshop using Unsharp Mask (USM).. > I guess I want a scanner > that will do my Leica glass justice. Is that asking too much in the $3k > (US) price range? Home scanners are less than the 3k cost. Others will have to comment on the Leica glass like results. > > etc, what you will be doing with the output, > > Color work will go to an Epson 1280 for 11x14 prints. B&W will go to an > Epson 1160 with piezo drivers/inks for 11x14 prints. 3k dpi is better for this size print. > > and of course the price you want to pay. > > to me it is very much like the difference between the > Leafscan 45 scan and the Nikon ED 4000 scan of the girl's face midpage at: > > http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html > > Whatever this difference is (contrast?), it seems very similar to the > different look of slides shot through Leica vs. Nikon glass. I will leave others to comment here. I have no experience with a Leafscan. > > > > In fact what you want to get as a final output (to me at > > least) is probably the most important. > > My dream is to get final color prints that look as good as my projected > slides; cibachromes have really been disappointing to me. I also very much > like the look of the prints in Jim Brandenburg's _Chased by the Light_ > (which I believe were shot with Nikkors! which is why I'm hoping digital > imagery can give me the look I want). For b&w, I'm looking for deep, dark > blacks, true whites, and a rich tonal range inbetween. Guess I'm asking a > bit much, eh?! Remember, very few scanners will give you results that cannot be enhanced by using PS, PSP, or some other program > > Once the field is narrowed, then ask again and the > > answers will really help you make the decision. > > I wish I could afford to send all my slides out to be processed by a place > like West Coast Imaging (http://www.westcoastimaging.com/index.htm) using > Tango drum scanners and Lightjet printers--but I can't. You may want to search for and test a local custom lab that has a Fuji Frontier or a Noritsu. These units will convert a digital image to a process that produces a C-41 print. > > > This process, including what you are doing now, is the same process > > I went through about 2 years ago. This list > > really did the most help after I narrowed the field. > > Hope so. But I also believe that at some point I'll just to have to make a > choice (flipping a coin if necessary) and dive in to discover on my own what > works and what doesn't for my eyes. Sometimes that is what it takes > I have to say that the Leafscan 45 sample at the pytolwany site is the first > one that really caught my attention as to the look I'm after--and maybe > that's all the pointers I need. You may want o check Tony Sleep's site and read his information and see the test results of the scanners he shows. There are also sites that users of this list have that can give you an idea of other scanners' capabilities. however, a 72 dpi screen picture is often very different from a print. > > > Dan
RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:12:38 -0400 Dan Honemann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > One > thing I've discovered here, however, is that often it takes my posts a > full > 8-12 hours after sending them before they show up on the list; not sure > if > that is a problem on my end, or par for the course Provided the listserver is behaving, and it usually is, such delays are due to your mail being spooled one or more times at intermediate 'hops'. If you check the headers you should be able to figure out where and for how long. The routing cannot be controlled but you can protest to the admin of the offending mailservers. At busy times it may take up to an hour or so to distribute from the listserver. It serves other lists as well, but has to distribute around 30,000 mails from this one each day (and I get all the bounces ;-/ ) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
