Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/12/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Speaking of the Polaroid - I had a Polaroid and when it eventually went belly up replaced it with the Microtex - it's said to be made on the same assembly line, of the same parts, as the Polaroid - 4000 dpi, excellent results with Tri-X and other black and whites...all the scanned stuff on my site was scanned with it. And it's relatively inexpensive. On 12/19/05 12:10 PM, "David Rodgers" <drodgers@casefarms.com> wrote: > I have the original Minolta 5400. Some people have claimed that it does > a better job on silver BW film because it has florescent tubes -- as > does the Polaroid 4000 -- rather than an LED light source. I don't know > if that makes any difference. But I really like my 5400. > > I bought the 5400 because it was less expensive. I wasn't sure how much > film I'd be scanning. Turns out I'm scanning a lot. I bought a scanner > to occasionally scan old negs. I wasn't shooting any film. Now I'm > shooting film again. > > Nikon scanners are built extremely well. They work. They're a safe bet. > They're also the most expensive and no guarantee you'll get great > results. > > A good negative or slide is easy to scan and scanner will do. It's less > than perfect negs/slides that test your scanner, and your scanning > skills. > > FWIW, I proof everything on an Epson 1680 flatbed, which can scan a > whole roll at one time. I've spent time and resources scanning images > high res and processing large files only to end up with a small JPG that > I could have made on the 1680. > > Scanner software seems to be getting better. Some people swear by > Vuescan. I have Vuescan pro. I've used Vuescan since I bought my first > Coolscan 6 years ago, so I'm pretty familiar with it. But I still use > Minolta Scan utility (raw mode). It's easy and it works. I make > adjustments in PS. I've used Nikonscan and Silverfast. I wasn't > impressed by Silverfast, although some people love it. > > I never understood the difference between having scanner software adjust > the files, or just scanning raw and adjusting in Photoshop. Everything > starts with a RAW file. I trust Photoshop more than most scanning > software; perhaps because I have more visibility into what's happening > in PS. I make the adjustments. It may make sense to use scanning > software for color, since most software has built in color adjustments > for film type. But not BW. Maybe somebody can shed some enlightenment on > that. > > DaveR > > > On 12/19/05, Nick Hillyer <obecalp@gmail.com> wrote: >> I am looking for a film scanner to scan my Tri-X negatives, and an > curious >> what others are getting good results with. I tried a Minolta Scan > Dual IV, >> but couldn't get it to work with my Mac, and ultimately returned it. > I have >> been thinking about the Nikon Coolscan V with Vuescan (which seems to > be >> highly recommeded), but I have not found a lot of info on how it > handles >> silver based B&W film. Anyone using this combo? What are your > thoughts? >> >> Thanks! >> Nick >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information