Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/02/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 2/25/04 7:24 PM, "Matthew Powell" <mlpowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Feb 25, 2004, at 7:21 PM, Dan C wrote: >> I'm still happy with my Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II (a 2820 dpi film >> scanner), which has been superceded by models III and IV. They >> represent >> good value in scanners, costing in the low hundreds of dollars. Even >> the >> higher end Minolta 5400 still only costs a bit over $1,000 in Canadian >> dollars. I would expect any of these scanners to be significantly >> superiour to flat bed scanners with film adaptors, at least for 35mm >> film. > > I purchased a new Nikon Coolscan V for $549 locally - only minor > differences (from what I can tell) with the Coolscan 5000. The 5000 is > a little bit faster, 48-bit (vs. 42-bit) and will let you scan entire > rolls at once with a special adapter, for ~$450 more. > > I'm hoping that the price of the Coolscan 8000 used will drop with the > introduction of the 9000, for my 6x6 negatives (and X-Pan negs, if I > can ever save up the money for one). > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html In darkroom printing with a film developer dilution combination and print magnification there is a distinctive grain pattern which I'm very attuned to and thatıs a good part of the reason why I'd use such a combination. Gradation is great but I do go down to the nitty gritty and take loupes to my prints and check them out. Enlarging magnifiers donıt tell you nothing. Or certainly even the best loupe on a print. You'd need a microscope. It's not certainly unusual to be having grain quality be a major reason why one would pick a certain film/developer/dilution/magnification combination or technique. In digital the quality of the grain seems to come mostly from the use and mainly abuse of the unsharp mask filter and other strange algorithms from the planet Xenon. A slow film can easily show more grain than a super fast film and visa versa you see all the time. A scanner can moiré if it's resolution is close to that the resolution in the grain pattern is I hear. I get that when I press the wrong button every morning on my blender! "ON GUARD!" I believe Mark Davison told me that the 5000 more so than the 4000 can give a a sense of the exact quality of grain that is really in the negative. I guess so when you printed the neg in the darkroom it would look something like your previously made inkjet. And my money is on he's probably right. It sure doesn't with anything I'm using now. A Nikon LS-2000 and a Umax PowerLook III. He say's it's not quite there with the 4000. It sure as hell is not there with something you'd get for 200 bucks but not everybody takes a loupe to his prints or makes A3's or Super B's. I think my sister was a Super B when we were kids. Gave the Brownies a run for their money! With the resolutions we've had so far we've not been able to get a real feel for what the real grain of the neg is all about. I think the printer's now cold pull it off if the scans were higher res. This could be easily confirmed by just bringing in a neg to a place to get scanned super high res and then print on my 2200. Maybe someone can confirm this - this whole post is pure conjecture. But really NICE conjecture I sure! Mark Rabiner Photography Portland, Oregon http://rabinergroup.com/ - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html