Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> On 2/25/04 7:24 PM, "Matthew Powell" <mlpowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > On Feb 25, 2004, at 7:21 PM, Dan C wrote: > >> I'm still happy with my Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II (a 2820 dpi film > >> scanner), which has been superceded by models III and IV. They > >> represent > >> good value in scanners, costing in the low hundreds of dollars. Even > >> the > >> higher end Minolta 5400 still only costs a bit over $1,000 in Canadian > >> dollars. I would expect any of these scanners to be significantly > >> superiour to flat bed scanners with film adaptors, at least for 35mm > >> film. > > > > I purchased a new Nikon Coolscan V for $549 locally - only minor > > differences (from what I can tell) with the Coolscan 5000. The 5000 is > > a little bit faster, 48-bit (vs. 42-bit) and will let you scan entire > > rolls at once with a special adapter, for ~$450 more. > > > > I'm hoping that the price of the Coolscan 8000 used will drop with the > > introduction of the 9000, for my 6x6 negatives (and X-Pan negs, if I > > can ever save up the money for one). > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > In darkroom printing with a film developer dilution combination and print > magnification there is a distinctive grain pattern which I'm very attuned to > and thatıs a good part of the reason why I'd use such a combination. > Gradation is great but I do go down to the nitty gritty and take loupes to > my prints and check them out. Enlarging magnifiers donıt tell you nothing. > Or certainly even the best loupe on a print. You'd need a microscope. > > It's not certainly unusual to be having grain quality be a major reason why > one would pick a certain film/developer/dilution/magnification combination > or technique. > > In digital the quality of the grain seems to come mostly from the use and > mainly abuse of the unsharp mask filter and other strange algorithms from > the planet Xenon. A slow film can easily show more grain than a super fast > film and visa versa you see all the time. A scanner can moiré if it's > resolution is close to that the resolution in the grain pattern is I hear. I > get that when I press the wrong button every morning on my blender! > "ON GUARD!" > > I believe Mark Davison told me that the 5000 more so than the 4000 can give > a a sense of the exact quality of grain that is really in the negative. > I guess so when you printed the neg in the darkroom it would look something > like your previously made inkjet. And my money is on he's probably right. > It sure doesn't with anything I'm using now. A Nikon LS-2000 and a Umax > PowerLook III. He say's it's not quite there with the 4000. It sure as hell > is not there with something you'd get for 200 bucks but not everybody takes > a loupe to his prints or makes A3's or Super B's. > I think my sister was a Super B when we were kids. Gave the Brownies a run > for their money! > > With the resolutions we've had so far we've not been able to get a real feel > for what the real grain of the neg is all about. I think the printer's now > cold pull it off if the scans were higher res. This could be easily > confirmed by just bringing in a neg to a place to get scanned super high > res and then print on my 2200. Maybe someone can confirm this - this whole > post is pure conjecture. > But really NICE conjecture I sure! > > > Mark Rabiner > Photography > Portland, Oregon > http://rabinergroup.com/ > From what i,ve checked many times with my 4000 scanner ,it fails to digitise detail that is available in handheld shots .I doubt that a 5000 one would extract the fine detail one would achieve with a tripod. Brother how long would it take one to get started in printing the old way? simon - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html