I use negative film too, because my scanner doesn't like dense film either. In fact its impossible to scan a slide with dense areas. Incidentally - I processed a twelfth roll in chemicals (Tetenal C-41) that should have been discarded after eight this morning and it looks great. Its also 9 weeks old. The colours are fine. I took some shots of one of Aino's cacti that is flowering extravagantly yesterday and holding up an actual flower, against the image on the monitor, shows very faithful colour reproduction. If anyone is interested I'll post an image or two. I used the P30t, the Sigma 50/2.8 Macro and that flash contraption. I too am a mean old fart.
Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 8:55 PM Subject: Re: A good argument for buying a film scanner > I'd love to be able to agree. I think this probably depends on the scanner. > My Pacific Image Primefilm 3600 "Pro" does a decent job on slides provided > there is not dark detail to wring out. It poops all over dark slides, but > then I got it for about $500. Its limitations have turned me into a die-hard > negative film shooter, which I purty much was before I bought it. I mean, > used Pentaxes are _cheap_, Gold 100 is _cheap_, and I'm a _cheap_ ole fart... > > -Lon > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > I hear you Paul. This summer I did a lot of work for a client and used print > > exclusively for many of the same reasons you mention. I don't find scanning > > negs any easier than slides though. In fact, I think I like my scanned slides > > better than the negs, but the nice thing about having a film scanner is it no > > longer really matters if its slide or negs. The end result (digital image or > > print) is more or less the same. > > Vic >
