[Leica] Scanning question

[crbirchenhall at googlemail.com (Christopher Birchenhall)]

Dave

I have been dithering about trying MF and scanning is the big issue
for me; as of yet I have held off. The price of dedicated MF scanners
is too high for me. I have been thinking of the Epson V700/750s. here
I have been influenced by the following intensive review:

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_1.htm

Chris B

On 17/01/2008, David Rodgers <drodgers@casefarms.com> wrote:
>
> This is slightly off topic. But does anyone have any
> experience/thought/opinions regarding whether or not a dedicated MF film
> scanner (i.e. Nikon 8000/9000) would be noticeably better than a good
> flatbed scanner for scanning BW 120 negs.
>
> I ask because I've been using an Epson 1600 -- which is a very good
> scanner IMHO -- for some time. It does a good job on MF and LF, and it's
> adequate for 35mm, at least for BW and web. I've been using the 1600 for
> a long time with multiple software interfaces and I know its strengths
> and limitations pretty well.
>
> I also have a Minolta 5400 that I sometimes use for 35mm. I use the
> Minolta if for challenging negs or if I'm going to print big. OTOH, much
> of the time even 35mm scans from the flatbed are more than adequate for
> printing. Plus I can scan a whole roll of 35mm on the flatbed with very
> little effort. The file sizes are smaller which makes them easier to
> work with. So needless to say I use the flatbed far more often than the
> Minolta for 35mm. But the Minolta does come in handy occasionally.
>
> I know that a dedicated film scanner will extract more information than
> a flatbed. The question is how much more and it worth the 1) extra
> expense, 2) added desk space required, 3)added software, 4)added
> workflow and subsequent learning curve for a MF scanner, especially for
> BW.
>
> TIA
>
> DaveR
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>