[Leica] Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted

["Douglas Landrum" <dflandrum@earthlink.net>]

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: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
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, 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
>