For several years, I scanned all my 6x7 transparencies and negs on an Epson 3200. The results were nice. I sold quite a few as stock and many to magazines. When I went to visit my friend the other day, he asked me to bring some transparencies that I had confidence in regarding sharpness and exposure. I brought a few car shots from one of my magazine articles. He scanned them on an Imacon. Wow. I was impressed. I printed one on the 2400 when I got home. An amazing difference. Not just in sharpness or detail resolution, but shadow detail and color gradation as well. Now I just have to find a benefactor to buy me an Imacon. When I have time, I'll prepare a 100% crop comparison, since I still have my original scans. Paul On Jan 1, 2007, at 10:00 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 2007, at 6:43 PM, K.Takeshita wrote: > >> I did not think it was directed to anyone specific :-). > > I'm glad for that. > >> But by calling a thread stupid, I just felt that some people might >> have been >> offended and did not think there was any need to stir up a pod >> which was >> relatively calm. That's all. > > Well, the intent was to say "I want no further participation in this > BS". I only posted it since I had been involved at the beginning of > the thread, felt everything that needed to be said was said, and > thought my message was brief and too the point, stated my opinion > clearly. > > I'm very calm here. Just scanning all those 645 negatives I made, one > at a time ... Tedious. I want them into the digital domain so I can > work on rendering a few of them and can archive them properly. > > Obscanning: I love the look of the images, but quite frankly the K10D > does better at detail resolution and tonality than 645 format film > and an Epson 2450 scanner. I need a better scanner, I guess. > > Godfrey > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
