Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/05/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I come to this thread late, but still here is some of my experience. While I agree with B.D. that the scanner should not dictate the film, it is nonetheless an influence on the choice. I use a 5-year old Nikon LS-2000 with Vuescan. You have all seen my PAWs, often shot with Tri-X or Fuji Neopan 1600. I do not think the grain or aliasing are a big problem in any of those images. My experience is that some films do scan easier than others on this scanner, but I can usually get a decent scan no matter what. The films that I find hard to scan are: - Ilford Delta 3200 - Agfa Scala (if underexposed) - Kodachrome (if underexposed) But I still have a fair amount of Scala and Kodachrome images on my site. I have stopped using Kodachrome since moving to the Netherlands, but that has nothing to do with scanning--it is the 2 to 3 weeks turnaround time that I cannot accept. In general, I find that dense film is harder to scan. So underexposed slide film (whether Scala or colour) or overexposed negative film are the worst. Nathan Peter Klein wrote: > > Is it possible that many of the people who have B&W scan issues are running > ~2000 dpi scanners? I used to run one, and it was fine for color. For > Tri-X, it gave me grain that was bigger than on the negative. Evidently > Tri-X grain + 2000 dpi pixels = Aliasing City. > -- Nathan Wajsman Almere, The Netherlands e-mail: n.wajsman@chello.nl Mobile: +31 630 868 671 http://www.nathanfoto.com/index.html