> [John, I think your military analogy is probably on target. It reminded me that Wild Bill Hickock in America's old west, probably one of the most experienced gunfighters of his day, persisted in using his black powder cap and ball revolvers well into the era of cartridge guns. He is said to have commented that he felt his Navy Colts were more familiar and reliable than the new-fangled metallic cartridge revolvers of his day. His record right up until the moment of his untimely assassination from behind seemed to have borne out his choice, and I doubt that the scores of men he shot felt any less dead or wounded because he was using "old technology".] >
DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
News from Zeiss on Wednesday
- Thread starter dirk
- Start date
I think that there is a missing element for film users in the digital age. More and more we rely on labs who have gone digital almost entirely. Negs are now scanned and printed. These scans aren't designed to be of the highest quality, but are for mass production.
Those of us who scan at home using desk-top units are using the equivalent of a low end consumer camera. It is far from the finest quality that can be extracted from film. Get a professional drum scan if you don't believe me.
Home desktop scanner manufacturers make claims of this and that, but most of it is exaggerations at best. As fewer and fewer people use these tools, they also will began to disappear. Minolta stopped production of the MF Multi Pro last year, and as far as I know has not introduced a replacement.
In thinking about this, I've decided NOT to purchase a second 39 meg Imacon MF digital back, and instead hunt down a Imacon 646 scanner. True 16 bit, 4.6 D-max using single pass (not multi pass like others), and 6300 dpi un-interpolated without fudging the figures. I've seen scans from this unit, and my Minolta MF Multi Pro is a toy in comparison. Of course the Imacon price reflects it. But it's 1/3rd the price of a new digital back and the investment I have in lenses and film cameras can easily justify it.
Those of us who scan at home using desk-top units are using the equivalent of a low end consumer camera. It is far from the finest quality that can be extracted from film. Get a professional drum scan if you don't believe me.
Home desktop scanner manufacturers make claims of this and that, but most of it is exaggerations at best. As fewer and fewer people use these tools, they also will began to disappear. Minolta stopped production of the MF Multi Pro last year, and as far as I know has not introduced a replacement.
In thinking about this, I've decided NOT to purchase a second 39 meg Imacon MF digital back, and instead hunt down a Imacon 646 scanner. True 16 bit, 4.6 D-max using single pass (not multi pass like others), and 6300 dpi un-interpolated without fudging the figures. I've seen scans from this unit, and my Minolta MF Multi Pro is a toy in comparison. Of course the Imacon price reflects it. But it's 1/3rd the price of a new digital back and the investment I have in lenses and film cameras can easily justify it.
jsmisc
Well-Known Member
Marc,
Interesting comment about labs of which I wasn't aware.
I rarely have prints made now. I also hadn't appreciated that there was such a difference in performance of low and high end scanners although when I think about it, it stands to reason. I have a Minolta too which is OK but is very slow with ICE.
I am actively looking at the idea of buying a better one at the moment to scan my medium format slides as well as 35mm but it all comes down to money unfortunately.
John
Interesting comment about labs of which I wasn't aware.
I rarely have prints made now. I also hadn't appreciated that there was such a difference in performance of low and high end scanners although when I think about it, it stands to reason. I have a Minolta too which is OK but is very slow with ICE.
I am actively looking at the idea of buying a better one at the moment to scan my medium format slides as well as 35mm but it all comes down to money unfortunately.
John
John, you can buy my Minolta if I get the Imacon ;-)
I'm not far from retirement, maybe what I should do is offer Imacon scans for sale. It's not only the scanner but the eyes doing the scanning. I could surely out do a gum crackin' teenager at the lab. And probably most scanning services since I'm a photographer also. Hmmm...
I'm not far from retirement, maybe what I should do is offer Imacon scans for sale. It's not only the scanner but the eyes doing the scanning. I could surely out do a gum crackin' teenager at the lab. And probably most scanning services since I'm a photographer also. Hmmm...
jsmisc
Well-Known Member
Tom,
Your post got me searching the internet for Wild Bill and I spent some time following links to all sorts of interesting articles and stories on Annie Oakley, Sitting Bull, Calamity Jane and so on. I love Westerns much to my wife's disgust.
Sorry if this is off topic everyone,
John
Your post got me searching the internet for Wild Bill and I spent some time following links to all sorts of interesting articles and stories on Annie Oakley, Sitting Bull, Calamity Jane and so on. I love Westerns much to my wife's disgust.
Sorry if this is off topic everyone,
John
I have been doing some scanning as I brought a new Minolta 5400 II and sold my Minolta Elite II. My Apple does not like RAW so I have to go with low compression JPEG.
I shoot with Kodak 200 HD, 85 1.2 at 2.4, S2b. Scan the negative with 3300dpi. made it to low comp. JPEG. I do the colour balance, contrast, brightness with the monitor at linear Gamma, temp at 5000K. I also print out one s&le to confirm with me the colour and contrast. Here is the result. It takes time but in the end, I got a digital print which I am happy with.
Finally, I did some colour balance, it should be OK if you view it with apple RBG. this is the best I can do with the monitor. I must say the colour print looks more vivid than the image from the monitor. For ex&le, I find the reflection from the cornea being more vivid in the print compared with the monitor, no matter how I alter the contrast and brightness in the photoshop.
I shoot with Kodak 200 HD, 85 1.2 at 2.4, S2b. Scan the negative with 3300dpi. made it to low comp. JPEG. I do the colour balance, contrast, brightness with the monitor at linear Gamma, temp at 5000K. I also print out one s&le to confirm with me the colour and contrast. Here is the result. It takes time but in the end, I got a digital print which I am happy with.
Finally, I did some colour balance, it should be OK if you view it with apple RBG. this is the best I can do with the monitor. I must say the colour print looks more vivid than the image from the monitor. For ex&le, I find the reflection from the cornea being more vivid in the print compared with the monitor, no matter how I alter the contrast and brightness in the photoshop.
Joseph, that is nice picture of a beautiful subject.
Perhaps your scan has to much contrast. The blacks are crushed and the highlights are blown. The adjustment tools of the Minolta DiMAGE Scan Utility program can be used to keep that from happening.
When you say your Apple doesn't like RAW, and you have to save in compressed jpg, what do you mean? You can save a scanned file in tiff format as well as a full jpeg.
Also, in the preferences for the scan utility, there is a place to select the editing program to open a file once scanned. If you are using PSCS2, just select that and the scanned file will automatically open for further adjustment ... then can be saved in any file format you wish.
Perhaps your scan has to much contrast. The blacks are crushed and the highlights are blown. The adjustment tools of the Minolta DiMAGE Scan Utility program can be used to keep that from happening.
When you say your Apple doesn't like RAW, and you have to save in compressed jpg, what do you mean? You can save a scanned file in tiff format as well as a full jpeg.
Also, in the preferences for the scan utility, there is a place to select the editing program to open a file once scanned. If you are using PSCS2, just select that and the scanned file will automatically open for further adjustment ... then can be saved in any file format you wish.
FYI
https://www.camera-info.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=2
Zeiss lenses for all mounts, that work with M42 adapter!
https://www.camera-info.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=2
Zeiss lenses for all mounts, that work with M42 adapter!