Re: [Leica] Scanner recommendation?

[Nathan Wajsman <nathan.wajsman@euronet.be>]

Hans-Peter,

The Photosmart will work just fine for negatives (both colour and B&W) and even for
slides, as long as they are not too contrasty. But you are not going to save time.
Scanning is relatively slow. The way I use my scanner is to scan the negatives or
slides that I have already decided are worth printing or putting on my web page. The
initial screen is done the old-fashioned way, on a light table with a loupe. It is
actually faster than on the computer. In addition, unless you have a monitor costing
many thousands DM, you are unlikely to get a good idea of the quality of the
negative based on a scan preview.

Nathan

"Hans-Peter.Lammerich" wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am also interested to buy a film scanner. Again, I am not into "digital
> darkroom", "Photoshop" and the like, but simply want quick and easy results. I
> have seen websites which praise HP's Photosmart S20, but more recent tests in
> German computer magazines were less enthusiastic about it.
>
> Mainly I intend to use it to preview and archive colour negs, XP2 or T-Max 400
> CN, using it as a sort of digital contact sheet and loupe, from which I then
> could evaluate and select the best negatives for conventional, chemical printing
> or for illustrating a website. I may also put them on a CD to circulate it among
> my friends rather than to invite them to a slide show. But my concern is that it
> may take hours to feed a few rolls of film into the scanner. Yes you can order a
> conventional contact sheet from any photo dealer, but you then wait one week for
> the results.
>
> Making my own prints through the computer is currently no option for me. I live
> in town and within 48 hours you get reasonably priced quality prints on Kodak
> Royal paper (or the Fuji requivalent). Although not "pro", but still "consumer"
> quality, they seem to outperform any demonstration print I have yet seen from a
> (consumer) photo printer (Epson Stylus Photo or HP 970 Cxi with "Photo Ret
> III"). By the way, the cost for one "chemical" print is less than the cost of
> glossy photo paper for a computer printer, not accounting for ink cartridges,
> miss prints, hard/software cost and, most important, the time spend at the
> computer.
>
> Prior to that I mainly used consumer slide film (Fuji Sensia, Kodak Elite). You
> buy it cheap, say DM 60 to DM 80 for a pack of 10 Elite 100 (including voucher
> for processing), get it developed overnight, view it with a loupe and select the
> best frames for printing. I liked the projected slides, but even the digital
> prints were not up to the quality of consumer prints from negatives, take one
> week rather than 48 hours for Kodak's "Royal plus Service" and are limited to a
> maximum size of 20 by 30 cm. Moreover, there seems to be no good slide film in
> the ASA 400 plus range, but plenty of excellent print film.
>
> Kodak's Picture CD would work perfect for me and for the above described
> purposes, but here in Germany they offer it only in connection with prints
> which I do not want at that stage.
>
> Hans-Peter

- --
Nathan Wajsman
Overijse, Belgium

General photo site: http://belgiangator.tripod.com/
Belgium photo site: http://members.xoom.com/wajsman/
Motorcycle site: http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/1704/