Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
Hi David What didn't your friend like about the Nikon scanner? Which Nikon scanner(s) did he use? What did he like better about the Minolta? I've got no problem with huge files the bigger the better, IMO, as long as I can make small files for cataloging or proofs as well. shel David Mann wrote: On Mar 20, 2004, at 04:55, Shel Belinkoff wrote: The money, while important, isn't the main issue, as whatever scanner I purchase will be a long term investment. Isn't the 5400ppi of the Minolta an interpreted resolution? It is the optical resolution. I have a friend who has one - he tried out both the Nikon and the Canon 4000ppi scanners and he wasn't happy with them. He loves his Minolta despite the huge files he ends up with. Cheers,
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] What didn't your friend like about the Nikon scanner? Which Nikon scanner(s) did he use? What did he like better about the Minolta? Shel, Each brand has its detractors and within each brand, a few junkers make it out the door. It's safest to buy new so you can return if there's a problem. The Nikon Coolscan V, 5000, and Minolta 5400 are all excellent scanners. Unless things have changed since the last time I was over, I think you should be worrying more about the computer. Did you ever get around to replacing that mouse? ; ) Mark
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
Hi Mark ... I got another computer, lotsa memory, faster processor, two hard drives, and I replaced the mouse on the email machine. ;-)) I'll add a little more memory to the new machine, and I should be fine. shel Mark Dalal wrote: From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] What didn't your friend like about the Nikon scanner? Which Nikon scanner(s) did he use? What did he like better about the Minolta? Shel, Each brand has its detractors and within each brand, a few junkers make it out the door. It's safest to buy new so you can return if there's a problem. The Nikon Coolscan V, 5000, and Minolta 5400 are all excellent scanners. Unless things have changed since the last time I was over, I think you should be worrying more about the computer. Did you ever get around to replacing that mouse? ; ) Mark
Re: Chromogenic BW (Was:: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner)
Butch Black wrote: The problem with the Ilford film is that it is nearly impossible to get a neutral BW printing on color paper and any exposure change brings a major shift in color. I believe Ilfords philosophy behind that was that you proof in color but your final print should be printed with conventional BW paper. Steve wrote: It's less of an issue now that minilabs are switching to digital printing - the last time I took XP2 to a minilab I was offered (and accepted) true BW prints as a no-cost option. That's true I forgot about digital mini labs ability to desaturate a print made from a negative. Once dialed in they do a good job. Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
On Mar 21, 2004, at 01:29, Shel Belinkoff wrote: What didn't your friend like about the Nikon scanner? Which Nikon scanner(s) did he use? What did he like better about the Minolta? To be honest I don't remember. The models he looked at would have been 4000ppi, available new maybe 6 months ago. I do remember that the Minolta has an optical grain diffuser built-in but how much difference this makes I don't know. I think it'd be better if you could judge them yourself... that way whatever you buy will meet your own criteria. I've got no problem with huge files the bigger the better, IMO, as long as I can make small files for cataloging or proofs as well. First thing I did after taking delivery of my new computer was to whack in an extra Gb of RAM :) - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Re[2]: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
- Original Message - From: Alan Chan Subject: Re: Re[2]: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner I think it works if it digital ice is C41 BW films. C-41 black and white is an oxymoron. By definition, all C-41 films are colour films. Hence the term chromogenic. And yes, it works fine with them. William Robb
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
The Nikon 4000ED is a SCSI or Firewire scanner, so you need an interface card if your system doesn't have it built-in. The Minolta 5400, Nikon V, and Nikon 5000 are USB2. Nick -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 19/03/04 15:57:44 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner Thanks, Tiger ... Ice is not that important to me, although I've seen it in action on some color scans and it's a nice feature to have. What's an interface card? shel Tiger Moses wrote: Shel, The two top brands for home users in my opinion are the Minolta Dimage series and the Nikons. I've owned both. They both have nice twain interfaces, and both have option that includes interface cards. You want something faster than USB 1.0, becuase a hi-res scan can produce 30+ megabyte files and that takes time to travel over your wire! I switched from Minolta to Nikon because I wanted medium format support and went to the LS-8000. I think Minoltas are a bit more affordable currently. Lastly, make sure your scanner you are considering is supported by the ScanVue software from Hamrick. Its probably the best scanner software out there, so you always want to have that as an option! Since you are mainly talking about older BW film, don't get too impressed by Digital ICE and those addons, many aren't compatible with true BW emulsions!
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
The Firewire interface card came with my 4000ED when I bought it about a year ago. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Nick Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner The Nikon 4000ED is a SCSI or Firewire scanner, so you need an interface card if your system doesn't have it built-in. The Minolta 5400, Nikon V, and Nikon 5000 are USB2. Nick
Re: OT: Almost ready to buy a scanner
Absolutely ... while not strictly a financial investment, it's a tool, one that should give years of good service. It's an investment just as my automotive tools are an investment, enabling me to work creatively and efficiently, to derive pleasure from my work, and to save time and money by not having to go to outside sources to make scans. And, to put it in financial terms, which you seem to be considering, the more I use it the more $$ I'll save, so it will provide a return on the initial investment. Mike Ignatiev wrote: scanner as an investment? i suppose you invest in pc's as well? :)
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
I just Bought the LS 5000 with the slides loader. I am very happy, I can go to the cinema while scan process... ^_^ For the best price and quality, the LS V is good enought, but le LS 5000 allow me to be lazy, at last, it takes time to get less mess in all my slide... The Firewire interface card came with my 4000ED when I bought it about a year ago. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Nick Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner The Nikon 4000ED is a SCSI or Firewire scanner, so you need an interface card if your system doesn't have it built-in. The Minolta 5400, Nikon V, and Nikon 5000 are USB2. Nick
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
Same way of rating by the french magazine Chasseur d'Images I think the Nikon Coolscan V is the same price as the Minolta, although it's only 4000ppi. It's rated better by Amateur Photographer in the UK. Nick -Original Message- From: Alan Chan[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 19/03/04 03:42:11 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner If I am correct, Minolta 5400 is cheaper than Nikon 4000. However, you need Vuescan to obtain good negatives scans. For E6 scans, the original Minolta software will do. Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan My choice of the Nikon is based on it being the only scanner I've used and that's affordable at this time, and that I've heard some questionable comments about other scanners. _ MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Chromogenic BW (Was:: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner)
- Original Message - From: graywolf Subject: Re: Chromogenic BW (Was:: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner) Well, actually, if you want a good BW image from color film you need to use a panchromatic enlarging paper like Panalure. Traditional BW papers do not give proper response to color negatives. Now, Bill Robb's statement that chromogenic BW does not worked well with variable contrast papers does not match my experiences. However, I have not used the current generation chromogenic BW's. My own experience is limited to the old XP1 film, usually developed in XP1 developer, though sometimes done by a very good minilab. Reread. I said colour negative film doesn't react well to black and white paper, not chromogenic. Chromogenic is a whole different beastie, although I have my doubts about the newer deep base ones like Select and Portra. Not first hand experience with em, I don't have a darkroom at present, just doubts. William Robb
Re: Re[2]: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
- Original Message - From: Mike Ignatiev Subject: Re[2]: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner scanner as an investment? i suppose you invest in pc's as well? :) If you plan to keep it and use it for a while, then it's not a bad idea. William Robb
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
your memory is going. it's a Firewire-only scanner. older models were SCSI-only. Herb - Original Message - From: Nick Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 1:02 PM Subject: Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner The Nikon 4000ED is a SCSI or Firewire scanner, so you need an interface card if your system doesn't have it built-in. The Minolta 5400, Nikon V, and Nikon 5000 are USB2.
Re: Chromogenic BW (Was:: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner)
Graywolf wrote: Now, Bill Robb's statement that chromogenic BW does not worked well with variable contrast papers does not match my experiences. However, I have not used the current generation chromogenic BW's. My own experience is limited to the old XP1 film, usually developed in XP1 developer, though sometimes done by a very good minilab. I have found the Ilford to be the best at printing on VC paper, All the Kodak and the Konica film have an orange masking similar to the color film. This acts like a low contrast printing filter so it is almost impossible to dial in enough contrast to print correctly. They are meant to be printed on color paper (or Panalure I suppose though I have never tried that. The problem with the Ilford film is that it is nearly impossible to get a neutral BW printing on color paper and any exposure change brings a major shift in color. I believe Ilfords philosophy behind that was that you proof in color but your final print should be printed with conventional BW paper. Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: Chromogenic BW (Was:: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner)
Butch Black wrote: The problem with the Ilford film is that it is nearly impossible to get a neutral BW printing on color paper and any exposure change brings a major shift in color. I believe Ilfords philosophy behind that was that you proof in color but your final print should be printed with conventional BW paper. It's less of an issue now that minilabs are switching to digital printing - the last time I took XP2 to a minilab I was offered (and accepted) true BW prints as a no-cost option. S
RE: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
I've been usin a Nikon LS4000 ED scanner for morethan a year nw and would definitely recommend it. I started with a Nikon Coolscan II (good), upgraded to a Minolta Dual Scan II (absolute rubbish), and then to the Nikon 4000 (the best). It's easy to use, gives great scans, includes ICE which greatly simplifies cleaning slides, and I'd recommend it. Of course the new Nikon Coolscan V is probably equivalent now at half the price. Nick -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18/03/04 09:45:13 To: PDML[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner I'm working on a long term project to scan years worth of BW negatives and also plan to use the scanner for E6 transparencies, and, to a lesser extent, color neg. I also intend to make larger than 8x10 prints and feel that the largest pixel count is important. I'm very close to deciding on a Nikon 4000ppi model (I can never recall the model number sigh). Why did those of you who bought one, decide it was the way to go? And for those who bought something else, why that, or why not the Nikon? My choice of the Nikon is based on it being the only scanner I've used and that's affordable at this time, and that I've heard some questionable comments about other scanners. shel
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
Hi Nick In what way was the Minolta rubbish? Have you scanned BW negs with either? Nick Clark wrote: I've been usin a Nikon LS4000 ED scanner for morethan a year nw and would definitely recommend it. I started with a Nikon Coolscan II (good), upgraded to a Minolta Dual Scan II (absolute rubbish), and then to the Nikon 4000 (the best). It's easy to use, gives great scans, includes ICE which greatly simplifies cleaning slides, and I'd recommend it. Of course the new Nikon Coolscan V is probably equivalent now at half the price.
Re[2]: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
-Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Nick In what way was the Minolta rubbish? Have you scanned BW negs with either? I also used CoolScan 4000 for almost 2 years, and Minolta Scan Multi II for a few months. I might have had a defective unit, but Minolta -- had serious banding problems -- the software is a piece of crap, that didn't do even what it was supposed to -- the color reproduction (esp. the blue channel) was horrible. I routinely had pink areas (like, peoples lips) on my scans that had 0 blue! it had a great price from calumet, but turned out to be a worthless piece of junk. OTOH, the nikon was truly great scanner, and the only reason i parted with it was to be able to scan mf as well. now i am waiting for the 9000 model. mishka
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
Shel, The two top brands for home users in my opinion are the Minolta Dimage series and the Nikons. I've owned both. They both have nice twain interfaces, and both have option that includes interface cards. You want something faster than USB 1.0, becuase a hi-res scan can produce 30+ megabyte files and that takes time to travel over your wire! I switched from Minolta to Nikon because I wanted medium format support and went to the LS-8000. I think Minoltas are a bit more affordable currently. Lastly, make sure your scanner you are considering is supported by the ScanVue software from Hamrick. Its probably the best scanner software out there, so you always want to have that as an option! Since you are mainly talking about older BW film, don't get too impressed by Digital ICE and those addons, many aren't compatible with true BW emulsions! At 01:45 AM 3/18/2004 -0800, you wrote: I'm working on a long term project to scan years worth of BW negatives and also plan to use the scanner for E6 transparencies, and, to a lesser extent, color neg. I also intend to make larger than 8x10 prints and feel that the largest pixel count is important. I'm very close to deciding on a Nikon 4000ppi model (I can never recall the model number sigh). Why did those of you who bought one, decide it was the way to go? And for those who bought something else, why that, or why not the Nikon? My choice of the Nikon is based on it being the only scanner I've used and that's affordable at this time, and that I've heard some questionable comments about other scanners. shel
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
The TWAIN driver for the Minolta refused to work so I had to use the supplied program to scan to TIFF rather than import into Photoshop directly. The Minolta used a carrier for slides and negatives which it moved during the scan rather than moving the LED array which the Nikon does. I found it would never register the same on successive scans, so that it would scan a different bit of the slide during preview and full scan, or even between subsequent scans of the same slide. It was all a bit hit and miss. I was glad when I part exchanged it for the Nikon. Nick -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18/03/04 14:40:14 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner Hi Nick In what way was the Minolta rubbish? Have you scanned BW negs with either? Nick Clark wrote: I've been usin a Nikon LS4000 ED scanner for morethan a year nw and would definitely recommend it. I started with a Nikon Coolscan II (good), upgraded to a Minolta Dual Scan II (absolute rubbish), and then to the Nikon 4000 (the best). It's easy to use, gives great scans, includes ICE which greatly simplifies cleaning slides, and I'd recommend it. Of course the new Nikon Coolscan V is probably equivalent now at half the price.
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
I have once scanned BW with the nikon but not to very good effect. However the negative was very thin as I'd used some old chemicals to process it, something I don't do very often as I almost exclusively use Fuji Velvia or Sensia 200 slide film. Best get the answer to this one from someone more experienced. Nick -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff[EMAIL PROTECTED] Have you scanned BW negs with either?
Re[2]: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
i scanned a few rolls of BW (some tmax100, some trix, some really old svema) on the nikon -- apart from the fact that ice is not working with it, i couldn't see anything to complain about. just make sure you save and edit all in 16 bit mode, otherwise all you'll have is 256 shades of grey. mishka -Original Message- From: Nick Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:16:19 - Subject: Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner I have once scanned BW with the nikon but not to very good effect. However the negative was very thin as I'd used some old chemicals to process it, something I don't do very often as I almost exclusively use Fuji Velvia or Sensia 200 slide film. Best get the answer to this one from someone more experienced. Nick
Re: Re[2]: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
- Original Message - From: Mike Ignatiev Subject: Re[2]: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner i scanned a few rolls of BW (some tmax100, some trix, some really old svema) on the nikon -- apart from the fact that ice is not working with it, i couldn't see anything to complain about. just make sure you save and edit all in 16 bit mode, otherwise all you'll have is 256 shades of grey. Digital Ice doesn't work with black and white film. William Robb
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
Hi, Thursday, March 18, 2004, 9:45:13 AM, Shel wrote: I'm working on a long term project to scan years worth of BW negatives and also plan to use the scanner for E6 transparencies, and, to a lesser extent, color neg. I also intend to make larger than 8x10 prints and feel that the largest pixel count is important. I'm very close to deciding on a Nikon 4000ppi model (I can never recall the model number sigh). Why did those of you who bought one, decide it was the way to go? And for those who bought something else, why that, or why not the Nikon? My choice of the Nikon is based on it being the only scanner I've used and that's affordable at this time, and that I've heard some questionable comments about other scanners. I have a Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED, which I think is the same as the one you're considering. I chose it because I wanted that resolution and this appeared to be the best option at the time I bought it. I found few if any negative comments about it while I was researching it. It was chosen by a lot of labs and other people who depended on it to generate money, which was a significant factor in my choice. I haven't used it as much as I expected to, largely because I'm lazy and I haven't fully got to grips with the technicalities of colour management. However, it is easy to use and produces results I'm satisfied with so far. One word of advice I can offer is to use lint-free gloves when you put a strip of film into the holder. It's rather a fiddly operation getting it lined up properly and you run the risk of getting paw-prints on the film unless you wear gloves. I have an IT-8 slide which I use to set up the scanner profile. It was difficult to find sensible information about how to do this with VueScan, but I found a web-page in French with the information. I intend to translate it into English and post it on my site sometime. If you're interested I could get on with that. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
Traditional BW film. It should work with Chromogenic BW. But then Bill doesn't like Chromogenic BW. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Mike Ignatiev Subject: Re[2]: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner i scanned a few rolls of BW (some tmax100, some trix, some really old svema) on the nikon -- apart from the fact that ice is not working with it, i couldn't see anything to complain about. just make sure you save and edit all in 16 bit mode, otherwise all you'll have is 256 shades of grey. Digital Ice doesn't work with black and white film. William Robb
Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
- Original Message - From: Peter J. Alling Subject: Re: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner Traditional BW film. It should work with Chromogenic BW. But then Bill doesn't like Chromogenic BW. It works fine with chromogenics, which are, in reality, colour negative film. I actually quite like the Kodak chromogenics, although I have noted image stability problems in the past. I don't like XP-2 all that much for a number of reasons, none of which have anything to do with the image quality of the film, which I think is fine. William Robb
Chromogenic BW (Was:: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner)
this has probably been discussed to death before, but what's the reason to use chromogenic bw? if you take a color negative film, and print on bw paper, wouldn't it give you the same result? am i missing something very basic here? best, mishka -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Traditional BW film. It should work with Chromogenic BW. But then Bill doesn't like Chromogenic BW.
Re: Chromogenic BW (Was:: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner)
C-41 Minilab 1hr capable! At 10:45 PM 3/18/2004 +0300, you wrote: this has probably been discussed to death before, but what's the reason to use chromogenic bw? if you take a color negative film, and print on bw paper, wouldn't it give you the same result? am i missing something very basic here? best, mishka -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Traditional BW film. It should work with Chromogenic BW. But then Bill doesn't like Chromogenic BW.
Re: Chromogenic BW (Was:: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner)
Stupidly wide exposure latitude. Tiger Moses wrote: C-41 Minilab 1hr capable! At 10:45 PM 3/18/2004 +0300, you wrote: this has probably been discussed to death before, but what's the reason to use chromogenic bw? if you take a color negative film, and print on bw paper, wouldn't it give you the same result? am i missing something very basic here? best, mishka -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Traditional BW film. It should work with Chromogenic BW. But then Bill doesn't like Chromogenic BW.
RE: Chromogenic BW (Was:: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner)
The opposite seems true too. When you print chromogenic negs on colour paper the contrast is completely different to BW papers. I tried using chromogenics because I could get it developed and proofed (6x4s) in any minilab in an afternoon, but the contrast problem made the proof useless and I ended up doing a contact sheet anyway. From there I decided I might as well develop it myself and stick with fp4/hp5 that I prefer. Paul Ewins Melbourne, Australia -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Variable contrast black and white papers often don't react well to colour negative film. Gaak. It doesn't matter if the paper is VC or not. William Robb
Re: Chromogenic BW (Was:: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner)
At 10:45 PM 3/18/2004 +0300, you wrote: this has probably been discussed to death before, but what's the reason to use chromogenic bw? if you take a color negative film, and print on bw paper, wouldn't it give you the same result? am i missing something very basic here? best, mishka The masking on color negative film interferes with proper tonal renditions. Kodak makes a BW paper (Panalure) designed especially to print color negatives. Some conventional papers seem to do a better job with color negs then others. Ilford multi grade IV does well IIRC. Chromegenics have their place. They area good film for portraits as they are somewhat softer then conventional BW films. Most times you do not want maximum sharpness in a portrait. MY 2 Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: Chromogenic BW (Was:: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner)
Someone (sorry, I lost track of who) asked: this has probably been discussed to death before, but what's the reason to use chromogenic bw? if you take a color negative film, and print on bw paper, wouldn't it give you the same result? am i missing something very basic here? Yes -- that a colour negative printed on colour paper will generally yield a colour image, but a chromogenic bw negative printed on colour paper is supposed to produce a monochrome image. A colour negative printed on bw white paper will produce a bw image, yeah. Then someone else said: Variable contrast black and white papers often don't react well to colour negative film. and Mr Robb remarked: Gaak. It doesn't matter if the paper is VC or not. In my limited (and mostly not recent) experience, it was *much* easier to print from colour negatives onto non-VC bw paper than onto VC. ERN
RE: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
If I am correct, Minolta 5400 is cheaper than Nikon 4000. However, you need Vuescan to obtain good negatives scans. For E6 scans, the original Minolta software will do. Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan My choice of the Nikon is based on it being the only scanner I've used and that's affordable at this time, and that I've heard some questionable comments about other scanners. _ MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Re[2]: OT: Almost ready to by a scanner
I think it works if it is C41 BW films. Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Digital Ice doesn't work with black and white film. _ MSN Premium helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
