If you've wrung the most out of your lens, I wouldn't expect much
difference for purposes such as viewing on a monitor or prints up to about
8x10 at normal viewing distances. If you're looking for teeny tiny dust
spots on the original, they won't be as sharp as with a flatbed.running at,
say, 400 ppi or higher depending on original size.
A high bit depth flatbed scan may offer some advantages over the K20 for
salvaging badly faded prints, but I couldn't confirm that without careful
testing.
My comments are based on many shots with a Kodak DSC14N (13 megapixel full
frame) and a Micro Nikkor 60mm. I'd expect about the same from a K20D with
a good lens.
With a really good copy setup it's possible to crank through several hundred
decent(magazine quality with minor editing) black and white copies versus
maybe two or three dozen equivalents on a flatbed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Waller" <[email protected]>
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner
The whole point was I wasn't going to purchase a flatbed scanner for a few
prints! These reproductions totally exceeded my expectations.
It would be interesting to see how these digital images from my K20D
compare to those from a scanner.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
----- Original Message -----
From: "JC OConnell" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: K20D as Scanner
as good as that worked, using a decent flatbed scanner
would probably be even better! scanners can be super
critical sharp too.
JC O'Connell (mailto:[email protected])
"Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom" - Thomas Jefferson
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Ken Waller
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:49 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: K20D as Scanner
I had the need for prints from some 50 year old B+W family pictures that
I
didn't have the negs for.
I don't have a flat bed scanner & decided to shoot them with my K20D &
my
200mm f4.0 ED Macro.
I shot them using a tripod, making sure I was perpendicular to the image
plane, using available light & being mindful to eliminate glare off the
originals. I shot raw, ran them thru CS2 (including applying a small
amount
of unsharp mask) & printed them (slightly larger than the original
image) on
my 12 year old Epson Stylus Photo printer.
The results are simply astounding ! Its hard to believe the final
results
came from the 50 year old original - much clearer and sharper. I
seriously
doubt if wet prints off the original negs would even come close to the
digitally produced images.
FYI
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
