Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Scanner or not

Expand Messages
  • pr_roark
    ... David Brooks at Shutterbug tests a lot of these and is very enthused by the affordable Plustek 7200i. My experience is that the typical 4000 dpi of a film
    Message 1 of 22 , Apr 3 7:35 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Richard wrote:

      > Are there any good scanners for 35mm negatives
      > or should as, what is the best for 35mm ?

      David Brooks at Shutterbug tests a lot of these and is very enthused by
      the affordable Plustek 7200i.

      My experience is that the typical 4000 dpi of a film scanner cannot
      capture all the detail that is in the film. So, those extra pixels
      just might be significant.


      > or is all photography pretty much gone to digital.

      So far, I see no (affordable) serious digital competition for my medium
      format Tech Pan film when ultimate B&W quality is the issue. For
      color, however, I never shoot film any more.

      Paul
      www.PaulRoark.com
    • James Strain
      My Microtek 900i lost a solenoid and I then discovered, to my chagrin, that there are no Microtek service facilities in the USA. I could not recommend
      Message 2 of 22 , Apr 3 8:25 AM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        My Microtek 900i lost a solenoid and I then discovered, to my chagrin, that there are no Microtek service facilities in the USA. I could not recommend Microtek to anyone based on that unhappy (and expensive) experience. My Nikon Coolscan, on the other hand (the 9000) is humming along merrily. Jim



        ----- Original Message ----
        From: m revaldi <imnoexis@...>
        To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2008 3:48:04 AM
        Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanner or not

        try microtek i900 or other type or nikol coolscan

        imnoexis!

        ----- Original Message ----
        From: Richard <cms0009@gmail. com>
        To: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
        Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2008 12:48:13 PM
        Subject: [Digital BW] Scanner or not

        Are there any good scanners for 35mm negatives
        or should as, what is the best for 35mm ?

        or is all photography pretty much gone to digital.
        --

        Hate to sell of my Cannon camera

        TIA
        Richard



        ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
        You rock. That's why Blockbuster' s offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
        http://tc.deals yahoo.com/ tc/blockbuster/ text5.com

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • dlruckus
        I ve been using the Plustek for several years now and it does a very good job. Good enough, in fact, to exhibit just how disappointing some of my 35mm from the
        Message 3 of 22 , Apr 3 9:27 AM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          I've been using the Plustek for several years now and it does a very
          good job. Good enough, in fact, to exhibit just how disappointing some
          of my 35mm from the past is, technically speaking. 7200 dpi puts a
          very pitiless spotlight on any deficits. One of the very early
          reviewers, who was published in a UK photo magazine, really trashed
          the machine as being inadequate for use because at 7200dpi all his
          output looked less than sharp whereas 4000dpi from it as well as from
          another brand looked good. My experience with it indicates that he
          hadn't a clue as to what he was seeing. At that time it was even more
          affordable than today so a review such as his may very well have
          curtailed the machines marketing considerably.

          Regards
          Duane





          --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark"
          <pr_roark@...> wrote:
          >
          > Richard wrote:
          >
          > > Are there any good scanners for 35mm negatives
          > > or should as, what is the best for 35mm ?
          >
          > David Brooks at Shutterbug tests a lot of these and is very enthused by
          > the affordable Plustek 7200i.
          >
          > My experience is that the typical 4000 dpi of a film scanner cannot
          > capture all the detail that is in the film. So, those extra pixels
          > just might be significant.
          >
          >
          > > or is all photography pretty much gone to digital.
          >
          > So far, I see no (affordable) serious digital competition for my medium
          > format Tech Pan film when ultimate B&W quality is the issue. For
          > color, however, I never shoot film any more.
          >
          > Paul
          > www.PaulRoark.com
          >
        • Bill Morse
          I don t have experience with the Plustek, so can t say. The Nikons and similar film scanners, OTOH, are very difficult (impossible?) to get focus across the
          Message 4 of 22 , Apr 3 9:34 AM
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            I don't have experience with the Plustek, so can't say. The Nikons and
            similar film scanners, OTOH, are very difficult (impossible?) to get focus
            across the whole film plane unless you use a wet-mount holder. A used drum
            scanner (eg. Howtek 4500) will be your best bet, but you have to have alot
            of film to make it worth-while.

            I would recommend getting sample scans from the same wide-gamut negative
            from several different kinds of scanners (operated by knowledgeable
            owners!!) before deciding.

            Bill

            On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:27 PM, dlruckus <dlruckus@...> wrote:

            > I've been using the Plustek for several years now and it does a very
            > good job. Good enough, in fact, to exhibit just how disappointing some
            > of my 35mm from the past is, technically speaking. 7200 dpi puts a
            > very pitiless spotlight on any deficits. One of the very early
            > reviewers, who was published in a UK photo magazine, really trashed
            > the machine as being inadequate for use because at 7200dpi all his
            > output looked less than sharp whereas 4000dpi from it as well as from
            > another brand looked good. My experience with it indicates that he
            > hadn't a clue as to what he was seeing. At that time it was even more
            > affordable than today so a review such as his may very well have
            > curtailed the machines marketing considerably.
            >
            > Regards
            > Duane
            >
            > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
            > "pr_roark"
            >
            > <pr_roark@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Richard wrote:
            > >
            > > > Are there any good scanners for 35mm negatives
            > > > or should as, what is the best for 35mm ?
            > >
            > > David Brooks at Shutterbug tests a lot of these and is very enthused by
            > > the affordable Plustek 7200i.
            > >
            > > My experience is that the typical 4000 dpi of a film scanner cannot
            > > capture all the detail that is in the film. So, those extra pixels
            > > just might be significant.
            > >
            > >
            > > > or is all photography pretty much gone to digital.
            > >
            > > So far, I see no (affordable) serious digital competition for my medium
            > > format Tech Pan film when ultimate B&W quality is the issue. For
            > > color, however, I never shoot film any more.
            > >
            > > Paul
            > > www.PaulRoark.com
            > >
            >
            >
            >



            --
            Regards,

            Bill Morse
            Wm. Morse Editions

            http://www.MorseEditions.com/


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Roger
            I ve never used the Plustek but have heard it has limited Dmax which should matter to you for scanning transparencies and some silver B&W negatives. I have
            Message 5 of 22 , Apr 3 9:49 AM
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              I've never used the Plustek but have heard it has limited Dmax which
              should matter to you for scanning transparencies and some silver B&W
              negatives.

              I have seen Nikon output and focus depends on the model. The LS-4000
              model was known for finicky focus and limited depth of field. The
              LS-5000 and V were known to be far easier to get the frame in focus.

              I use the Canon FS4000US which has generous depth of field but fairly
              poor holders. A scanhancer diffuser nicely suppresses Fuji pepper
              grain and B&W grain. It has rather limited Dmax, so for contrasty
              transparencies expect to have to scan twice and combine exposures. I
              use Photomatix to do the combining and Vuescan as my scanner software.

              If I were buying a scanner today for 35mm I'd get the Nikon LS-50 or
              5000 for the combination of speed, high quality IR cleaning, and Dmax.
              The LS-5000 is somewhat higher resolution than my 4000 dpi Canon based
              on scanning test charts. I find 4000dpi overkill for most of my work
              which is handheld on relatively fast films and after scanning at
              4000dpi I downsize in Photoshop to 8x12 inches or so at 300dpi.

              Roger


              --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Morse"
              <Bill.Morse@...> wrote:
              >
              > I don't have experience with the Plustek, so can't say. The Nikons and
              > similar film scanners, OTOH, are very difficult (impossible?) to get
              focus
              > across the whole film plane unless you use a wet-mount holder. A
              used drum
              > scanner (eg. Howtek 4500) will be your best bet, but you have to
              have alot
              > of film to make it worth-while.
              >
              > I would recommend getting sample scans from the same wide-gamut negative
              > from several different kinds of scanners (operated by knowledgeable
              > owners!!) before deciding.
              >
              > Bill
              >
              > >
              > > --- In
              DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
              > > "pr_roark"
              > >
              > > <pr_roark@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Richard wrote:
              > > >
              > > > > Are there any good scanners for 35mm negatives
              > > > > or should as, what is the best for 35mm ?
              > > >
              > > > David Brooks at Shutterbug tests a lot of these and is very
              enthused by
              > > > the affordable Plustek 7200i.
              > > >
              > > > My experience is that the typical 4000 dpi of a film scanner cannot
              > > > capture all the detail that is in the film. So, those extra pixels
              > > > just might be significant.
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > > or is all photography pretty much gone to digital.
              > > >
              > > > So far, I see no (affordable) serious digital competition for my
              medium
              > > > format Tech Pan film when ultimate B&W quality is the issue. For
              > > > color, however, I never shoot film any more.
              > > >
              > > > Paul
              > > > www.PaulRoark.com
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              > --
              > Regards,
              >
              > Bill Morse
              > Wm. Morse Editions
              >
              > http://www.MorseEditions.com/
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • Peter De Smidt
              If you get a Nikon 35mm Film scanner, make sure to get an FH-3 film strip holder. They are not expensive. This allows you to scan 6 frame film strips, and it
              Message 6 of 22 , Apr 3 10:38 AM
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                If you get a Nikon 35mm Film scanner, make sure to get an FH-3 film
                strip holder. They are not expensive. This allows you to scan 6 frame
                film strips, and it holds the film flatter than the motorized strip
                loading mechanism.
              • Dana H. Myers
                ... That s not my experience with the Nikon LS-9000; the glass holder gives very good edge-to-edge sharpness without resorting to wet-mount. Dana
                Message 7 of 22 , Apr 3 10:41 AM
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Bill Morse wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > I don't have experience with the Plustek, so can't say. The Nikons and
                  > similar film scanners, OTOH, are very difficult (impossible?) to get focus
                  > across the whole film plane unless you use a wet-mount holder.

                  That's not my experience with the Nikon LS-9000; the glass
                  holder gives very good edge-to-edge sharpness without resorting
                  to wet-mount.

                  Dana
                • William John Smith
                  ... I have to agree with Dana on this one. I have been using a 9000 for over two years now with the glass carrier, both 35 mm and 120, and the focus is tack
                  Message 8 of 22 , Apr 3 4:58 PM
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Dana H. Myers"
                    <dana.myers@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Bill Morse wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > I don't have experience with the Plustek, so can't say. The Nikons and
                    > > similar film scanners, OTOH, are very difficult (impossible?) to get focus
                    > > across the whole film plane unless you use a wet-mount holder.
                    >
                    > That's not my experience with the Nikon LS-9000; the glass
                    > holder gives very good edge-to-edge sharpness without resorting
                    > to wet-mount.
                    >
                    > Dana


                    I have to agree with Dana on this one. I have been using a 9000 for over two years now
                    with the glass carrier, both 35 mm and 120, and the focus is tack sharp. If the negative is
                    clean without scratches then there is no reason to go to all the trouble of wet mounting.
                    Once you use glass you never go back.

                    William
                  • djon43
                    35mm Nikon V and 5000 are ordinarily grain-sharp, corner to corner without glass, but ends of strips are issues if the film is curley...which is the reason you
                    Message 9 of 22 , Apr 3 6:35 PM
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      35mm Nikon V and 5000 are ordinarily grain-sharp, corner to corner
                      without glass, but ends of strips are issues if the film is
                      curley...which is the reason you want FH-3 carrier.

                      The worst film for Nikon scanners is probably paper-mounted slide
                      film, which tends to be bubbled both from the sides and the ends,
                      unlike plastic-mounted. Mounted slides are worse than unmounted film
                      either way.

                      35mm Nikons have a great deal more depth of focus than did Minoltas,
                      but it's still wise to focus about 1/3 from the edge, rather than from
                      the center, to take best advantage of that depth of focus. Nikon
                      autofocus is amazing, in fact.

                      Nikons also do exceptionally well with grainy film, but if one wants
                      the grain to vanish the way some do with grain softening developers
                      (D76/ID11 etc) or they way they do with diffusion enlargers they will
                      have to intentionally soften the image because the Nikon wants to
                      render the grain sharply...

                      I print grain sharp 12X18 with Nikon V...don't have a larger printer,
                      but since these are so sharp I'm sure murals would be just as good...

                      Sometimes good scanners surprise people by revealing how bad their
                      camera lenses are. Zooms, for example. Bad lenses aren't as obvious
                      when the image is softened by enlarger optics.

                      My impression is that at 4000ppi the Nikons rival point-source
                      enlargement (I'm experienced with Dursts)...which means they're far
                      sharper and more highly detailed than any conventional condenser
                      enlarger...and scanning is less tricky.

                      Unfortunately Microtek has yet to produce a decent 35mm scanner IMO.
                      If you don't want a Nikon I suggest the latest Canons, which do very
                      well...rival color enlargers, for example.





                      --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Dana H. Myers"
                      <dana.myers@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Bill Morse wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > I don't have experience with the Plustek, so can't say. The Nikons and
                      > > similar film scanners, OTOH, are very difficult (impossible?) to
                      get focus
                      > > across the whole film plane unless you use a wet-mount holder.
                      >
                      > That's not my experience with the Nikon LS-9000; the glass
                      > holder gives very good edge-to-edge sharpness without resorting
                      > to wet-mount.
                      >
                      > Dana
                      >
                    • Ernst Dinkla
                      On wet mounting. It depends. For 35mm film I usually rely on the normal Nikon LS-8000 strip holder and no glass at all. Which was the subject of this thread as
                      Message 10 of 22 , Apr 4 1:11 AM
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On wet mounting.

                        It depends. For 35mm film I usually rely on the normal Nikon
                        LS-8000 strip holder and no glass at all. Which was the
                        subject of this thread as far as I know. For MF up to 6x9 my
                        own wet mount system is very reliable in getting the grain
                        sharp on every spot in the frame. That holder is also
                        tweaked to get focus as equal as possible on all the spots
                        for the first and the second frame (6x9). There are no
                        issues like Newton rings and there's some gain in light
                        transmission when the emulsion surface of B&W film is matte
                        (less scattering). I'm sure most of this goes unnoticed when
                        you do not use a print above A3 size. Film strips that had a
                        rough past can be healed with wet mounting and ICE. For the
                        Epson V700 etc models and larger films the same advantages
                        of wet mounting apply.

                        The last Minolta 35 mm scanner hasn't been mentioned. No
                        longer produced it probably is hard to get but with its own
                        Scanhancer inspired screen it is good competition to the
                        recent Nikon 35mm models.


                        --
                        Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


                        | Dinkla Grafische Techniek |
                        | www.pigment-print.com |
                        | ( unvollendet ) |
                      • Tony Sleep
                        ... Nikon seem to be the only mainstream mfr. still in the prosumer filmscanner market. They re good but the LED lightsource is prone to grain aliasing on some
                        Message 11 of 22 , Apr 4 3:40 AM
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 03/04/2008 Richard wrote:
                          > Are there any good scanners for 35mm negatives
                          > or should as, what is the best for 35mm ?

                          Nikon seem to be the only mainstream mfr. still in the prosumer
                          filmscanner market. They're good but the LED lightsource is prone to grain
                          aliasing on some materials, and DoF is limited as the source is not bright
                          enough to allow a small lens aperture, so film flatness/focus can be an issue.

                          I'm still using a Polaroid 4000 which is now 6-7 years old, and I get
                          better results than I could manage in the wet darkroom with a
                          Durst+Componon S and half-glass carrier, at 16x12. The downside with the
                          Polaroid is that there is no ICE dust/scratch tech, so manual repair of
                          poor negs is hard and long.

                          Probably the best later filmscanner is the Minolta Dimage 5400. That
                          includes ICE and is a very nice scanner. Unfortunately it was axed during
                          the Konica Minolta merger. 5400's in good condition are in considerable
                          demand and sometimes sell on eBay for more than their last new price.

                          A lot of flatbeds now scan 35mm film and are OK for casual use or larger
                          formats to modest sizes, but unless very costly the optics don't match
                          dedicated filmscanners.

                          --
                          Regards

                          Tony Sleep
                          http://tonysleep.co.uk
                        • E Neilsen
                          I picked up 4 rolls of 35mm color film at WPPI in Las Vegas from Kodak that is meant for improved scans. I have yet to try it. That is a moving forward answer
                          Message 12 of 22 , Apr 4 5:53 AM
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I picked up 4 rolls of 35mm color film at WPPI in Las Vegas from Kodak that
                            is meant for improved scans. I have yet to try it. That is a moving forward
                            answer for sure but it does mean that the film companies are not entirely
                            closed to scanning issue.



                            Eric



                            Eric Neilsen Photo

                            4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

                            Dallas, TX 75226

                            214 827-8301



                            http://ericneilsenphotography.com

                            SKype ejprinter



                            _____

                            From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
                            [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony
                            Sleep
                            Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 5:40 AM
                            To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanner or not



                            On 03/04/2008 Richard wrote:
                            > Are there any good scanners for 35mm negatives
                            > or should as, what is the best for 35mm ?

                            Nikon seem to be the only mainstream mfr. still in the prosumer
                            filmscanner market. They're good but the LED lightsource is prone to grain
                            aliasing on some materials, and DoF is limited as the source is not bright
                            enough to allow a small lens aperture, so film flatness/focus can be an
                            issue.

                            I'm still using a Polaroid 4000 which is now 6-7 years old, and I get
                            better results than I could manage in the wet darkroom with a
                            Durst+Componon S and half-glass carrier, at 16x12. The downside with the
                            Polaroid is that there is no ICE dust/scratch tech, so manual repair of
                            poor negs is hard and long.

                            Probably the best later filmscanner is the Minolta Dimage 5400. That
                            includes ICE and is a very nice scanner. Unfortunately it was axed during
                            the Konica Minolta merger. 5400's in good condition are in considerable
                            demand and sometimes sell on eBay for more than their last new price.

                            A lot of flatbeds now scan 35mm film and are OK for casual use or larger
                            formats to modest sizes, but unless very costly the optics don't match
                            dedicated filmscanners.

                            --
                            Regards

                            Tony Sleep
                            http://tonysleep. <http://tonysleep.co.uk> co.uk





                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Richard Smallfield
                            I have the Minolta Scan Elite 5400 and would agree that it s very good - the extra resolution (5400ppi) is good to have. I ve printed excellent A2 tech pan
                            Message 13 of 22 , Apr 4 1:34 PM
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I have the Minolta Scan Elite 5400 and would agree that it's very good - the extra resolution (5400ppi) is good to have. I've printed excellent A2 tech pan prints from it that were sharp even at that size.

                              It does sometimes suffer from lack of depth of field, however.

                              If you are getting a film scannner it is well worth also buying VueScan as it's an excellent scanning program.

                              Richard

                              At 11:40 p.m. Friday 4/04/2008, you wrote:
                              >Probably the best later filmscanner is the Minolta Dimage 5400. That
                              >includes ICE and is a very nice scanner. Unfortunately it was axed during
                              >the Konica Minolta merger. 5400's in good condition are in considerable
                              >demand and sometimes sell on eBay for more than their last new price.

                              --
                              http://smallfield.vze.com

                              "I know but one freedom & that is the freedom of the mind."
                              --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
                            • Robert Gaunt
                              I ve been using an Epson V700 for about a year now and am pretty happy with it - does batch (24 negative) scans pretty well. Used the V700s at Maine Workshops
                              Message 14 of 22 , Apr 4 2:27 PM
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I've been using an Epson V700 for about a year now and am pretty happy with it - does
                                batch (24 negative) scans pretty well. Used the V700s at Maine Workshops and liked them
                                well enough to buy one.

                                Bob Gaunt


                                --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Richard <cms0009@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Are there any good scanners for 35mm negatives
                                > or should as, what is the best for 35mm ?
                                >
                                > or is all photography pretty much gone to digital.
                                > --
                                >
                                > Hate to sell of my Cannon camera
                                >
                                >
                                > TIA
                                > Richard
                                >
                              • Richard
                                ... Hey Peter, Well, I used to shot B&W 25 ISO, but that stuff is long gone, its now Fuji Superia Reala 100 for color and sharpness. Richard
                                Message 15 of 22 , Apr 5 10:16 PM
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Thursday 03 April 2008 9:54:28 am Peter De Smidt wrote:
                                  > > Are there any good scanners for 35mm negatives
                                  > > or should as, what is the best for 35mm ?
                                  > >
                                  > > or is all photography pretty much gone to digital.
                                  > > --
                                  > >
                                  > > Hate to sell of my Cannon camera
                                  > >
                                  > > TIA
                                  > > Richard
                                  >
                                  > Richard, what type of film are you scanning? Nikon Coolscan scanners
                                  > (I have a V) are very good with fine-grained film, but not so good with
                                  > grainy film. My Canon 9950F flatbed is better with grainy negatives.
                                  > Then there are the high-end flatbeds (Screen Cezanne, Kodak/Creo
                                  > IQSmart, Kodak/Creo Eversmart...) and drum scanners, but both of these
                                  > options are much more expensive. I have a Cezanne, but it's not for
                                  > everyone. It makes great scans, though.
                                  >
                                  > -Peter
                                  >
                                  >

                                  Hey Peter,
                                  Well, I used to shot B&W 25 ISO, but that stuff is long gone,
                                  its now Fuji Superia Reala 100 for color and sharpness.

                                  Richard
                                • Richard Smallfield
                                  ... Isn t Efke 25 still around? I still have several rolls in the freezer ... don t know when they ll see light of day though. Richard --
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Apr 5 10:19 PM
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    At 04:16 p.m. Sunday 6/04/2008, you wrote:
                                    >Well, I used to shot B&W 25 ISO, but that stuff is long gone,
                                    >its now Fuji Superia Reala 100 for color and sharpness.

                                    Isn't Efke 25 still around? I still have several rolls in the freezer ... don't know when they'll see light of day though.

                                    Richard

                                    --
                                    http://smallfield.vze.com

                                    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity;
                                    an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. "
                                    --Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
                                  • cschaible94111
                                    William: Do you mean to say that with my 9000 I can scan 35 mm film using my 120 glass holder? Is there a trick? I m under the impression that the software
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Apr 10 5:12 PM
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      William: Do you mean to say that with my 9000 I can scan 35 mm film
                                      using my 120 glass holder? Is there a trick? I'm under the
                                      impression that the software only allows MF scans with that holder.
                                      Any info appreciated. Thanks. Chuck


                                      --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "William John
                                      Smith" <william@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Dana H. Myers"
                                      > <dana.myers@> wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > Bill Morse wrote:
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > I don't have experience with the Plustek, so can't say. The
                                      Nikons and
                                      > > > similar film scanners, OTOH, are very difficult (impossible?) to
                                      get focus
                                      > > > across the whole film plane unless you use a wet-mount holder.
                                      > >
                                      > > That's not my experience with the Nikon LS-9000; the glass
                                      > > holder gives very good edge-to-edge sharpness without resorting
                                      > > to wet-mount.
                                      > >
                                      > > Dana
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > I have to agree with Dana on this one. I have been using a 9000
                                      for over two years now
                                      > with the glass carrier, both 35 mm and 120, and the focus is tack
                                      sharp. If the negative is
                                      > clean without scratches then there is no reason to go to all the
                                      trouble of wet mounting.
                                      > Once you use glass you never go back.
                                      >
                                      > William
                                      >
                                    • Ernst Dinkla
                                      ... With Vuescan and a good custom mask (to reduce flare) in a wetmount holder you can scan one, two or four 35mm frames in a 9000 at the same time. One is
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Apr 11 1:49 AM
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        cschaible94111 wrote:
                                        > William: Do you mean to say that with my 9000 I can scan 35 mm film
                                        > using my 120 glass holder? Is there a trick? I'm under the
                                        > impression that the software only allows MF scans with that holder.
                                        > Any info appreciated. Thanks. Chuck

                                        With Vuescan and a good custom mask (to reduce flare) in a
                                        wetmount holder you can scan one, two or four 35mm frames in
                                        a 9000 at the same time. One is better considering that the
                                        exposure has to deal with one image only and the focus point
                                        is easier to place. The normal Nikon glass holder isn't wide
                                        enough (should be 70 mm) to do two strips at the same time.
                                        So one strip only and two frames max. Make a custom mask
                                        as well. I think it should be possible with NikonScan too
                                        just crop the scan window starting from a 6x9 one. One thing
                                        that usually spoils the first attempt is that the focusing
                                        spot is right at the division between two frames or on the
                                        mask part if you cover that too. The focus then takes
                                        endless time and the preview can be aborted. So work out a
                                        method/mask that sets the focus spot at actual image
                                        content. There's the manual focus point possible with both
                                        scanner drivers.

                                        --
                                        Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


                                        | Dinkla Grafische Techniek |
                                        | www.pigment-print.com |
                                        | ( unvollendet ) |
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.