>===== Original Message From olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx =====
>I have been dithering for some months over whether to invest in a negative
>scanner. At present I use Reala, processed very well by a high-street lab
>(who are awake and attentive) to 9x6. I then flat-bed scan on an Epson
>GT7000, trim and tweak a bit, then print to around 10x8/10x12 via a 1270.
>Does anyone have any experience of the differences in quality of output I
>might expect from a negative scanner? If so any suggestions on which
>scanners to consider. I also have an interest in B&W, but do hear that the
>only way to do this justice is via a wet darkroom (flat bed scanning of B&W
>is nowhere as a good as colour print output in my experiences). Would be
>grateful for your thoughts/experiences etc
>
>Tony
Tony,
First, I would recommend Vuescan software (via http://www.hamrick.com), since
most people who have used it feel that it is superior for negatives, more or
less regardless of scanner. I think it should also work with your flatbed.
At $40 it really is almost stealing.
I don't think it requires as expensive a scanner if you intend to scan only
negatives. Chromes are tougher and you get what you pay for in a scanner.
The models to beat at present are the Polaroid SS4000 and Nikon LS-2000. They
are almost the most expensive of all as well. The LS-30 is particularly good
value because in addition to digital ICE (for digital "cleaning" and scratch
repair), with Vuescan you can do multiple-pass scans. This is not the same as
the LS-2000's single-pass multiple scan capability, but it is reportedly
almost as good at lowering noise in the shadows. With the SS4000 there is
little shadow noise, so this feature really is not needed, although it is
apparently going to be included in future models, since it seems to have
significant market value. The Polaroid is capable of higher ppi scans (4000
vs. 2700). Be aware that there is a Polaroid/Nikon rivalry somewhat similar
to platform wars. I have a Polaroid, so I'm not an impartial observer
(although I am correct on all points <g>).
Minolta seems to have a scanner for every budget, and I have generally heard
good things about them, with the exception of the software. However, Vuescan
nullifies this as an objection IMO.
The Acer Scanwit gets good reviews in the budget category.
Lastly, the objection against BW and scanning is generally in the printing,
not the scanning per se. Jon Cone of Inkjetmall.com has developed a method of
printing BW through Epson printers which is reportedly quite outstanding
(called Piezography). He uses 4-color grayscale inks and special
drivers/profiles, so it requires a dedicated Epson printer.
Hope this helps.
Joel Wilcox
Iowa City, Iowa USA
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|