Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/08/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]If your Minolta scanner is only "good enough for screen/web use" then it is not a very good scanner (and/or your printer is not up to the job). This assessment of the Minolta scanner is not good news for the Minolta marketeers! My nikon ED IV scanner and Epson 2200 produces very fine prints indeed, and I have seen other (more accomplished) users of scanners/printers who's output equals (at least) the finest traditional darkroom work. Traditional darkroom process is losing ground quickly to the digital darkroom. (a caveat.... I personally believe that film has a special place in photography.. I dont want to rehash the recent spate of film vs. digital capture. I am speaking strictly of the quality of scanned and printed images vs. wet darkroom methods). Asbestos underwear in place.. I sign off cheers Jack McLain Tucson, AZ http://jackmclain-photography.dotcommunity.net - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Low" <space@byvoid.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 10:04 PM Subject: RE: [Leica] Minolta DiMage Dual Scan III Scanner > Ted, > > I have and use this scanner. I scan only B&W negatives (or should I say > that I shoot on B&W). I use it for producing images for screen, and for > a quick "preview" so I know where to D/B in the darkroom. The scans are > never as good as the prints, in terms of contrast and tonal range. Of > course, it depends on what sort of film and developer you use. > > So, I'd say it's good enough for screen/web use, but for prints, the > traditional process still beats this hands down. > > Justin > > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html