A
Alan Browne
DBLEXPOSURE said:
Scan photos: flatbed
Scan film: film scanner.
Don't top post.
Scan photos: flatbed
Scan film: film scanner.
Don't top post.
D
DBLEXPOSURE
Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
That's not an explanation of your position but a reiteration and a mule
headed one at that.
What makes you think that because one has a film or slide carrier only makes
it electronically or otherwise better? What is the technical reasoning
behind your position?
My response sighted well-known flatbed scanners with good performance and
good technical specifications and they work those specs on film and slides
as well as large format mediums. An inch is an inch whether it is a 35mm
slide or a 5X7 photograph.
Do you have sound reasoning or are you stuck in some sort of scanner
paradigm?
My original question below, please answer with some sort of technical answer
or at least an answer that defends your position in the discussion and not
your self appointed role as top-posting police.
PZ
www.Imagequest.ifp3.com
-Why not a flatbed? Here are a couple flatbeds from Epson that have good
and great resolution, come with Digital Ice, have good Dmax specs -and can
scan not only negs and -slides but will handle prints and medium and large
format negs if you like.
-4800dpi http://tinyurl.com/27xt9t
-6400 dpi http://tinyurl.com/2or38c
-PZ
-www.Imagequest.ifp3.com
Alan Browne said:
That's not an explanation of your position but a reiteration and a mule
headed one at that.
What makes you think that because one has a film or slide carrier only makes
it electronically or otherwise better? What is the technical reasoning
behind your position?
My response sighted well-known flatbed scanners with good performance and
good technical specifications and they work those specs on film and slides
as well as large format mediums. An inch is an inch whether it is a 35mm
slide or a 5X7 photograph.
Do you have sound reasoning or are you stuck in some sort of scanner
paradigm?
My original question below, please answer with some sort of technical answer
or at least an answer that defends your position in the discussion and not
your self appointed role as top-posting police.
PZ
www.Imagequest.ifp3.com
-Why not a flatbed? Here are a couple flatbeds from Epson that have good
and great resolution, come with Digital Ice, have good Dmax specs -and can
scan not only negs and -slides but will handle prints and medium and large
format negs if you like.
-4800dpi http://tinyurl.com/27xt9t
-6400 dpi http://tinyurl.com/2or38c
-PZ
-www.Imagequest.ifp3.com
A
Alan Browne
DBLEXPOSURE said:
PLONK -1 and counting.
Every time I have seen a side by side of the best flatbed to an ordinary
film scanner, the flatbed was, to be kind, soft in comparison. I was
tempted to buy the Epson 4990 but Jim (link below) sent me CD's with
4990 scans of my own 120 film. I bought the Nikon 9000 ED based on that
comparison and on others people posted online.
James held a "bake off" of scanners in 2005. The flatbeds lagged hard
regardless of their resolution numbers:
http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2005/numbers.html
And just to be clear: the declared number of pixels is not a "technical
reason" to buy anything.
Cheers,
Alan.
A
Alan Browne
Alan said:
Was actually Ken Weitzel. Sorry Ken and Jim.
D
DBLEXPOSURE
Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
Thanks for the reasonable answer. I know what you mean about not judging by
the numbers, I have known a few marketing execs in my time. Still, a claim
of 6400dpi is worth looking into. Epson has always, to the best of my
knowledge, been a reputable company and a leader in the digital imaging
world, at least when it comes to scanners and printers
BTW, "PLONK -1 and counting" One good plonk deserves another, speak to me
respectfully and I will always do in kind, take a shot and expect one in
return.
Also, is it not the local courtesy to leave the above post completely in
tack when replying? Chunks of my previous are missing from your reply, just
curious.
Patrick Ziegler
www.imagequest.ifp3.com
Alan Browne said:
Thanks for the reasonable answer. I know what you mean about not judging by
the numbers, I have known a few marketing execs in my time. Still, a claim
of 6400dpi is worth looking into. Epson has always, to the best of my
knowledge, been a reputable company and a leader in the digital imaging
world, at least when it comes to scanners and printers
BTW, "PLONK -1 and counting" One good plonk deserves another, speak to me
respectfully and I will always do in kind, take a shot and expect one in
return.
Also, is it not the local courtesy to leave the above post completely in
tack when replying? Chunks of my previous are missing from your reply, just
curious.
Patrick Ziegler
www.imagequest.ifp3.com
A
Alan Browne
DBLEXPOSURE said:
Not is it's meaningless numbers. Would you rather an epson flatbed scan
at 6400 dpi or a Nikon 9000 scan at 4000 dpi? For that matter, if it
were affordable, a drum scan at 5000 dpi?
What "shot" did I take?
If you want to plonk me, please go ahead.
Netiquette: trim replies to the pertinent. Retain context of prev.
poster, remove all the rest. Google groups can retain that.
Cheers,
Alan
F
Frank ess
DBLEXPOSURE said:
I'll bet you meant "intact", and in a previous post, "citing" rather
than "sighting".
Technical, certainly, but not typographical errors. Live and learn,
just helpful.
D
DBLEXPOSURE
Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
Frank, yes indeed that is exactly what I meant and thank you for pointing
that out, if your are looking for a fight you won't get one from me on that
one. I admit my writing skills are my weakest link and I have no issues
with having my mistakes pointed out to me. Live and learn indeed...
I do think however, you meant, "Just being helpful" Or at least, that is
how I would say it.
Patrick Ziegler
www.imagequest.ifp3.com
Frank ess said:
Frank, yes indeed that is exactly what I meant and thank you for pointing
that out, if your are looking for a fight you won't get one from me on that
one. I admit my writing skills are my weakest link and I have no issues
with having my mistakes pointed out to me. Live and learn indeed...
I do think however, you meant, "Just being helpful" Or at least, that is
how I would say it.
Patrick Ziegler
www.imagequest.ifp3.com
D
DBLEXPOSURE
Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
Your short answer,
"Scan photos: flatbed
Scan film: film scanner.
Don't top post."
Left the impression that it was more important to you to get to the point of
not top posting and the real matter of the discussion, Flatbed Vs. Film
Scanner was totally irrelevant and my question did not merit an answer, I
suppose because I had the audacity to top-post.
It was a shot.
For Frank, I think he meant, "Not, it is meaningless." Or perhaps "they are
meaningless." What's good for the goose.
Anyway, I digress, Alan, to say the specs are meaningless is wrong. I would
agree that the one specification standing on it's own is meaningless if all
other specs are poor or if the device making the claim is otherwise
dysfunctional.
To answer your question, I would rather have the flatbed if it performed in
all other areas. The ability to make larger prints is important to my
clients and me. In this case, all other things being equal, the Epson can
produce 60% larger prints, if the claim of 6400dpi is true.
I have used Epson printers and scanners plenty in my time and have found
their products to be worthy of advertising claims and they produce great
results. Many cutting edge photographers, Jay Maisel, Grahm Nash, Vincent
Versace and Greg Gorman to name a few, Use Epson scanners and printer
exclusively.
I am not familiar with the Nikon 9000, but I would shy away from it based on
the 4000dpi spec. Now that is not to say that I would not investigate
further based on Nikon's claims of superior quality.
In the end, I would like to see large prints of images made on both models
before I gave up nearly $2K verses roughly $600. Admittedly, the huge price
separation has me scratching my head.
Patrick Ziegler
www.imagequest.ifp3.com
Alan Browne said:
Your short answer,
"Scan photos: flatbed
Scan film: film scanner.
Don't top post."
Left the impression that it was more important to you to get to the point of
not top posting and the real matter of the discussion, Flatbed Vs. Film
Scanner was totally irrelevant and my question did not merit an answer, I
suppose because I had the audacity to top-post.
It was a shot.
For Frank, I think he meant, "Not, it is meaningless." Or perhaps "they are
meaningless." What's good for the goose.
Anyway, I digress, Alan, to say the specs are meaningless is wrong. I would
agree that the one specification standing on it's own is meaningless if all
other specs are poor or if the device making the claim is otherwise
dysfunctional.
To answer your question, I would rather have the flatbed if it performed in
all other areas. The ability to make larger prints is important to my
clients and me. In this case, all other things being equal, the Epson can
produce 60% larger prints, if the claim of 6400dpi is true.
I have used Epson printers and scanners plenty in my time and have found
their products to be worthy of advertising claims and they produce great
results. Many cutting edge photographers, Jay Maisel, Grahm Nash, Vincent
Versace and Greg Gorman to name a few, Use Epson scanners and printer
exclusively.
I am not familiar with the Nikon 9000, but I would shy away from it based on
the 4000dpi spec. Now that is not to say that I would not investigate
further based on Nikon's claims of superior quality.
In the end, I would like to see large prints of images made on both models
before I gave up nearly $2K verses roughly $600. Admittedly, the huge price
separation has me scratching my head.
Patrick Ziegler
www.imagequest.ifp3.com
T
Talker
The best scanner on the market....film or photos, is a flatbed.
I have checked on this line frequently, but they are way out of my
league.(maybe in my next life<g>). I just like to see what they are
doing from time to time.
I'm talking about the old CreoScitex scanner line. They were
bought out by Kodak, and you can still check them out under the Kodak
EverSmart Supreme line.
http://graphics.kodak.com/us/product/scanners/professional_scanners/eversmart_supreme_ii/default.htm
No film scanner can reproduce what these flatbeds will do, and
from what I've read, they are also better than drum scanners.
Anyway, I just though I'd add my two cents.
Talker
(ps. Most groups have their own guidelines when it comes to top/bottom
posting, and very few groups ask you to top post. The reason they
prefer bottom posting is because that's how you read....from top to
bottom. If 10 people replied to a post and they all top posted, you
would have to scroll down to the bottom of the page to read the
initial post, then scroll up to the next post and scroll down it as
you read it. That is not how one reads normally. By bottom posting,
one can follow each post by scrolling down as you read it.....the same
way you would read a book.)
T
theo
I can't personally conceive of going to the trouble of scanning a lot of
If you still wish to consume significant chunks of your life to
babysitting a piece of machinery, take a look at the BRAUN (not the same
Co as the shaver people) MULTIMAG 4000, new thru B&H or Adorama, used
wherever, for doing a lot of 35MM slides. After sifting thru several
thousands of slides and negatives, I packed the remaining half to a
service and paid them well for the tedium offset. When your audience is
generations of family alive today or yet unborn then getting the names
right for the genealogy branches carries much more importance than digging
out the minutest detail from the shadows. "The Story of Us" needs these
pix to stitch the narrative of who /where /when. Even the most
pixel-persnickety must decide why they must use or exclude each image in
carrying the story of fomily to current and future relations.
Regards for whichever choice you select,
Theo
If you still wish to consume significant chunks of your life to
babysitting a piece of machinery, take a look at the BRAUN (not the same
Co as the shaver people) MULTIMAG 4000, new thru B&H or Adorama, used
wherever, for doing a lot of 35MM slides. After sifting thru several
thousands of slides and negatives, I packed the remaining half to a
service and paid them well for the tedium offset. When your audience is
generations of family alive today or yet unborn then getting the names
right for the genealogy branches carries much more importance than digging
out the minutest detail from the shadows. "The Story of Us" needs these
pix to stitch the narrative of who /where /when. Even the most
pixel-persnickety must decide why they must use or exclude each image in
carrying the story of fomily to current and future relations.
Regards for whichever choice you select,
Theo
F
Frank ess
DBLEXPOSURE said:
And here I thought I had done such a good job of emulating your "just
curious" thought/speech pattern!
Live and learn, indeed!
Just being snide.
A
Alan Browne
DBLEXPOSURE said:
Why scratch your head? A film scanner transport mechanism and optics
are of a higher standard than those in a flatbed. And the _results_
show it.
A
Alan Browne
Talker said:
The best to worst in the realm of most amateurs (and a good proportion
of pros) are:
drum scanners
film scanners
flatbeds
A
Alan Browne
theo said:
You're making assumptions about why people scan that do not match why
everyone scans. Mine have nothing to do with decades old images but
those that I shoot in the here and now. On film.
D
DBLEXPOSURE
Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
The King of Snide, perhaps.
Anything to say about one scanner Vs. another?
PZ
Frank ess said:
The King of Snide, perhaps.
Anything to say about one scanner Vs. another?
PZ
T
Talker
That might be true of consumer level scanners, but for the best of
the best, the Kodak EverSmart Supreme II flatbed is the best scanner
you can buy. Heck, if you scan slides or negatives, you just place
them haphazardly on the scanner's glass, close the lid and do the
scan. The software straightens them out and scans each one
separately...no need for an adapter or holder.
Like you say though, in the realm of most amateurs, and the
EverSmart is not in the realm of most amateurs. The last I checked,
they were going for about $54,000.<g>
Talker
F
Frank ess
DBLEXPOSURE said:
Same as it always was.
D
David Dyer-Bennet
DBLEXPOSURE said:
Resolution isn't a reliable scanner specification, since it's mostly
stated in terms of the mechanics of the scanner, rather than as any sort
of measured ability to resolve things. The Epson scanners in particular
are known for using multiple offset lower-resolution sensors, and
claiming 2x the resolution.
The quality of the optics and any mirrors in the light path, and how
well the film holders hold the film flat are key factors in getting high
quality results. The flatbeds generally have extra air-glass interfaces
in the light path, and not even coated glass.
I've scanned 35mm slides and negs on a number of flatbeds and a number
of real film scanners, and the difference is night and day. You can't
make a reasonable choice just from the numbers cited by the manufacturers.
D
David Dyer-Bennet
DBLEXPOSURE said:
No; you should edit out all the bits you're not responding too.
Otherwise it's hard to read and grows really huge.