Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/02/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Tina, My experience is that the Nikon Scanner gets the tiniest scratches and the smallest dust onto the scan! A couple of negatives that gave practically no scratches when printed in the darkroom came out horrible with the Coolscan 5000 - so many scratches and stuff I hadn't seen in the first place. The same negative came out fine when scanned either with a flatbed scanner or with a drumscanner. It has to do with the light that is used for scanning: The Nikon uses LEDs for scanning (high contrast directional light), the flatbed scanner uses fluorescent light (like the coldlight heads in the traditional darkroom, very soft) and when "drumscanning" the negative is in an oilbath that takes care of most of the scratches. Tarek Le 8 f?vr. 2005, ? 01:54, Tina Manley a ?crit : > At 07:45 PM 2/7/2005, you wrote: >> You're no worse off than if you were printing dusty and scratched >> negatives >> using conventional methods. Except that you only have to "spot" your >> scan >> once and then make perfect prints time after time after time. >> >> Eric > > Thank you, Eric. You do restore my expectations to normal by > reminding me that I could be spending all of this time in the > darkroom. And I have!! I've printed all of these negatives in the > darkroom with much spotting and dodging and burning. It is much > easier here in the computer and, it's true, I only have to do it once! > I'll try to remind myself of that every time I click on the clone > stamp or the healing brush. Now I just have to figure out if I get > better basic scans with Vuescan or Nikon Scan. So far, I think Nikon > Scan is winning. > > Thanks - > > Tina > > > Tina Manley, ASMP > www.tinamanley.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >