On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:07:00 +0100, Roger Wesson
<roger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Would recommend strongly against this one. Jessops in the UK do a
>badged version of this, and when I bought it, the first one was damaged
>when I opened the box. I got it replaced, but the second one was just
>awful - intolerable noise in the shadows, woeful performeance on
>underexposed slides. I thought that might be a duff unit as well so I
>exchanged it again, but the third one was just the same.
At the risk of confusing Philip, I'm getting on OK with my 1800! I
accept it's not the "bee's knees" but for its price and the use I put
it to, it's OK. The software is a bit crude, especially the preview
feature that often does not show the colour balance that you get on
the proper scan. I use mine mainly to scan negatives, and found that
the "built in" colour channels for Fuji and Kodak often don't give
very good results, but it's no great hardship to "make your own".
Focus can sometimes be an issue if the film or slide is not very flat.
Nevertheless with care and a little after-treatment, most of my scans
have yielded results that compare with the images from my E-10, and
that's genuine praise!
Another quirk is that when scanning a B/W negative, you get far better
results by scanning as a slide and inverting in the image processing
software. I use PSP7, which is a fine piece of software at a fraction
of the cost of Photoshop.
Now if only I could get a cheap scanner for my 120 (6x4.5) images!
Maybe I'll get one of the new high-res flatbeds to replace my ageing
Agfa 1236 - has anyone any experience of, or recommendation for one?
Regards
John Gruffydd (Mold, Wales, UK)
< 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 >
|