jking@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>I am thinking of going the Nikon coolscan 9000 ed - since I now also need
>to scan medium format... but in the uk the price is far far higher than in
>the US. The only places I have seen it for a "reasonable" price never have
>it in stock.. :-(
>
>
Since there is ample evidence that excellent scans are possible with the
5400, it is very possible that a different scanner without other changes
will not improve things.
I see from another post that you are using VueScan. I have been using it
for years and like it very much. BUT, without film profiles, scans,
especially from negs, are soft looking.You can adjust the histogram in
VueScan, but not the curve, so you can't adjust them to look punchy
without losing highlights and/or shadows. Easy enough to bring up in PS,
but quite unsatisfying right out of the box. You mention that you have
created your own ICC profiles. Scanner? Film? Printer/ink/paper? Monitor?
Film profiles make a huge difference for VueScan output with neg film.
These sample scans with and without a film profile are just as they came
out of VueScan on a Can*n FS4000, except for downsizing
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/VuesProf/index.htm>. I did a scanner
profile with a slide IT8 target and it didn't seem to make much
difference with negs. Haven't tried to see what it does with slides yet.
'Twere me, I would learn how to get proper scanning results out of the
5400 and buy one of the high end flatbeds for MF. Unless you have
exceptional computer power and storage capacity and are doing huge
prints, they have more than enough resolution for MF. Again, even more
than with film scanners, flatbed output must be sharpened for good results.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|