Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 9:57 AM +0100 7/16/00, Tim Spragens wrote: >> From: "Henning J. Wulff" <henningw@archiphoto.com> >> >> At 9:54 PM -0400 7/14/00, Isaac Crawford wrote: >> > I've been thinking about getting into the digital end of things >> > for a while... >> > >> >Isaac >> >> ... the LS2000. It is >> particulary in getting information out of the densest areas of a film >> that the LS2000 has an advantage. The Polaroid 4000 has higher >> resolution, but the Nikon does better in getting into the shadows, and >> only the $5000+ flatbeds even start to approach either one of these as >> far as the dynamic range is concerned. > >My Gossen went off recently, causing me to overexpose some >shots on Ilford 100 by 2-3 stops (brain was disengaged). The Artix >4000t (SS 4000 actalike) was able to pull detail out of all but the >darkest areas. Dynamic range isn't the issue here, but the ability to >push light through the film to the sensors. I haven't seen a positive >or negative that challenged the dynamic range of this scanner (the >native software gives an adjustable histogram of the DR). I've only >been working with it for a few weeks, but have fed it a variety of >films. > >I haven't tried the Nikon, and am not looking for a brand war here. > > >-- >Tim Spragens >http://www.borderless-photos.com I did a couple of days test with both scanners before buying, and have posted the results here a couple of times. It's in the archives. You don't go wrong with either scanner, but they vary in their strong points. * Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography & Design /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com