"Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
Have you discussed this slowness with Epson yet, to determine if that is
the "norm" or just either a defective unit or some weirdness in your
system. I find this very odd, as I haven't yet heard another discussion
of this problem.
Re
David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> It seems to be between the Canon 9000 (dye-based inks) and the pigment ink
> Epson 2100, 2200, or 4000 (same printer: the only difference is where you
> buy it). The Canon (as I understand it) doesn't do full-bleed A3. However,
> I'm finding the Epson 950C _very_
Look at it, but don't necessarily buy it ;-)
The Minolta Multi Pro has received overall good reviews, but it does
suffer from the same problems all the Minolta recent scanners seem to...
exaggerated grain, dust and scratches and somewhat less effective IR
clean up.
But ultimately "Ops" is right
"Op's" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Me: (I was particularly disturbed by the
> noise ("grain") in the examples discussed here a while ago.)
That's not my experience of the Minolta. Yes its only 3200 optical for 120
film but 6x6
scan is - 145M tiff file which is quite sufficient to work
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
> "Op's" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Have a look at the Minolta Scan Multi Pro
>
> It looks to me that the Multi Pro is the best 35mm scanner available, but
> that it's behind the 8000 for MF work. (I was particularly disturbed by the
> noise ("grain") in the ex
"Op's" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have a look at the Minolta Scan Multi Pro
It looks to me that the Multi Pro is the best 35mm scanner available, but
that it's behind the 8000 for MF work. (I was particularly disturbed by the
noise ("grain") in the examples discussed here a while ago.)
> >
> Have a look at the Minolta Scan Multi Pro
>
> rm
For slides, fine. For negs, I would say a big "thumbs down". I do have
extensive real-world experience in that realm. I've already learned the
hard lessons the expensive way.
Joyfully, -david soderman- <><
---
