Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/01/17

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Scanning question
From: drodgers at (David Rodgers)
Date: Thu Jan 17 07:53:32 2008

This is slightly off topic. But does anyone have any
experience/thought/opinions regarding whether or not a dedicated MF film
scanner (i.e. Nikon 8000/9000) would be noticeably better than a good
flatbed scanner for scanning BW 120 negs. 

I ask because I've been using an Epson 1600 -- which is a very good
scanner IMHO -- for some time. It does a good job on MF and LF, and it's
adequate for 35mm, at least for BW and web. I've been using the 1600 for
a long time with multiple software interfaces and I know its strengths
and limitations pretty well. 

I also have a Minolta 5400 that I sometimes use for 35mm. I use the
Minolta if for challenging negs or if I'm going to print big. OTOH, much
of the time even 35mm scans from the flatbed are more than adequate for
printing. Plus I can scan a whole roll of 35mm on the flatbed with very
little effort. The file sizes are smaller which makes them easier to
work with. So needless to say I use the flatbed far more often than the
Minolta for 35mm. But the Minolta does come in handy occasionally.

I know that a dedicated film scanner will extract more information than
a flatbed. The question is how much more and it worth the 1) extra
expense, 2) added desk space required, 3)added software, 4)added
workflow and subsequent learning curve for a MF scanner, especially for



Replies: Reply from reid at (Brian Reid) ([Leica] Scanning question)
Reply from crbirchenhall at (Christopher Birchenhall) ([Leica] Scanning question)
In reply to: Message from ricc at (Ric Carter) ([Leica] IMG:Dad's Wayback)