Re: [Leica] Here is Martin's Review: Minolta Dimage Dual Scan III

["Steve LeHuray" <steve@streetphoto.net>]

Based on Martin's review I am planning on getting one.

sl 



> I was recently humming and haring about which option I should choose:
> cheap digital P&S, expensive digital SLR, or a film scanner.  While at
> first glance option three may have seemed obvious (and in retrospect it
> certainly does), I was out of touch with the cost/performance ratio of
> modern scanners (i.e., those released the past 18 months) that it
> didn't first occur to me.
>
> Fortunately, one of the advantages of a 768kbps Internet pipe plugged
> into the back of your computer is that Google is always available.  A
> few review sites later and I determined that the $300 Minolta Dimage
> Dual Scan III seemed like the perfect choice for me.
>
> Having now used it for about three weeks, I thought it might be time to
> summarize and post my experiences to the LUG, for the benefit of those
> who might be interested in a similar purchase.
>
> I should prefix all this by telling you how I use my equipment.  I
> shoot on (conventional) B&W film which I either develop myself, or have
> commercially developed.  The scanner is used to either produce 72 dpi
> images for the web (about 600-800 pixels along the longest dimension)
> or to produce 5x7" prints on a photo quality inkjet printer.  My reason
> for buying the scanner and printer was to close the photographic loop,
> so that I can shoot film and get prints and, thus, hopefully learn to
> become a better photographer.  In other words, to me, it's a learning
> tool.  I'm not producing 11x14" quad-black prints to mount and hang on
> a wall.  (I've only had the Canon i950 printer for about 1.5 weeks, so
> I'll post a review on that in a while once I've used it some more.)
>
> First off, I'm very impressed by this scanner.  It performs admirably
> for my needs.  Scanning is always done at the maximum resolution of
> 2820 dpi, which produces 56 Mb RGB files.  It is ColorSync aware, so I
> am able to use a colour managed process (although I have no hardware
> calibration tool).  I'm using a G4 PowerBook which only has the USB 1.1
> interface, so scanning is a bit slow (especially on the 8x setting),
> but then I'm not in a hurry.
>
> The bundled software comes in two versions.  An "Easy" program which I
> never use and a "Utility" program which affords a great deal of control
> over the scanning process.  Four basic media settings (colour neg,
> colour pos, B&W neg, B&W pos) are the starting point and affect the
> entire six negs in the film strip holder, while other controls allow
> individual control per negative (or, the whole strip, if you choose).
>
> My basic workflow is this: I load the film into the scanner, set the
> film type, and do an index scan.  From this I select the frames that
> I'm interested in scanning and do a preview scan.  The histogram tool
> shows whether the scanner is capturing the full density range.  The
> scanner, by default, scans outside the negative area, thus capturing
> some of the film holder too, which is perfect, because it provides an
> "absolute black" reference point.  As a result, I never crop in the
> scanner, although this is an option.
>
> If necessary, I use the exposure control to lighten or darken the whole
> image.  The histogram shows both Master levels, and individual R, G, &
> B histograms.  An advanced, "Curves"-like gamma/contrast control (for
> those of you familiar with Photoshop) is available and a great tool for
> fine tuning the scan.  For well exposed negatives, I usually don't have
> to do anything, except confirm that things look good.  In short, the
> software makes good initial guesses, that usually only require a little
> tweaking to produce good, clean scans.
>
> Difficult negatives can be handled in two ways.  One is to scan them as
> a positive and then invert the image in Photoshop.  This seems to
> capture a greater range of densities, but is tricky, because all you
> have to learn that a scan that is going to be good looks really dark on
> the monitor when you're tweaking it.
>
> The other trick is to do a two-pass scan: once with the exposure
> setting lower, the other with it set higher (I use -0.5 and +0.5 as
> starting points; +/- 2.0 are the maximum endpoints).  Then, using Curve
> Adjustment Layers in Photoshop, you can recombine the two scans into a
> single image with a much greater range of tones than a single scan
> would enable.  In particular, if there is detail in both deep shadow
> and in sunlit highlight, this is a good option.
>
> I tried Vuescan, but found that it was unstable in Mac OS X 10.2.3 (it
> crashed almost every time I used it) and the interface was obtuse and
> unnecessarily complex compared to the software bundled with the scanner
> itself.
>
> The scanner does not come with advanced dust and scratch removal
> algorithms.  There is an "auto dust brush" feature that seems to work
> better the more you overscan (which is why I have it enabled and the 8x
> multiple scan as default).  Personally, I use a little blower brush on
> the negatives before I scan the film, and the "Healing Brush" or
> "Healing Patch" in Photoshop 7 and it clears up things nicely.  But
> then, as mentioned, I'm not producing museum quality 11x14" prints, so
> for critical use, you'd best try it before deciding.
>
> For my kind of use, and for the $300 price tag, I find the Minolta
> Dimage Dual Scan III to be a steal.  Good quality scans and easy to use
> software mean that I'm very happy with this little workhorse.
>
> M.
>   
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html