Digital BW, The Print

I just noticed this message, that someone was going to buy a Polaroid SS4000
for BW, I assume to scan traditional film and it will be the newer 4000+
model.

My experience with the original SS4000 was very disappointing.  I purchased
a refurbed demo directly from Polaroid and had to sell it in a month.
Previous to that I was using a low-end Canon 2720.  The Polaroid may have
had subtley better dmax; but, the 4000 dpi vs the 2700 dpi simply didn't
matter at all.   The most glaring imperfection of the Polaroid is the lack
of sharpness.  It was simply no sharper then the Canon 2720, which is/was a
basic 3.0 dmax/ 2700 dpi scanner.

I ended up buying a Nikon LS40, which has since dropped in price to a very
reasonable level.   The Nikon works much better in every respect to the
Polaroid SS4000 I had.   The newer Polaroid SS4000+ has higher dmax but the
same technology and I would not believe it to be any sharper then the
original one.   Also the negative holders in the Polaroid are a pain.
Loading a strip of negatives into the Nikon is a breeze, you don't even have
to put them into a holder unless they are very curled.

The Minolta scanners would probably be worth looking at also.

Rick
www.rickschiller.com

At 12:49 AM 8/15/2003, you wrote:
>My experience with the original SS4000 was very disappointing.  I purchased
>a refurbed demo directly from Polaroid and had to sell it in a month.
>Previous to that I was using a low-end Canon 2720.  The Polaroid may have
>had subtley better dmax; but, the 4000 dpi vs the 2700 dpi simply didn't
>matter at all.   The most glaring imperfection of the Polaroid is the lack
>of sharpness.  It was simply no sharper then the Canon 2720, which is/was a
>basic 3.0 dmax/ 2700 dpi scanner.

I've been using the original SS4000 for well over a year now and it looks 
tack sharp to me. I don't use the Polaroid software, which someone else 
pointed out had a focus bug in early versions. I use Vuescan with all three 
of my scanners (SS4000, 45i, and Epson 2450) and have had no problems with 
focus.

Stan

================================
Photography by Stan McQueen
http://www.smcqueen.com

I use the Polaroid SS4000 as well and in my opinion it is the best 
sub-$500 scanner on the market.  You may not have the scanner focused 
correctly.  I use the SS4000 with VueScan and you can calibrate the 
focusing, which you may need to do.  As buggy as VueScan tends to be 
it is still much better than the Silverfast AI5.5 or the included 
Polaroid software.

Duncan

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Stan McQueen 
<stan@s...> wrote:
> At 12:49 AM 8/15/2003, you wrote:
> >My experience with the original SS4000 was very disappointing.  I 
purchased
> >a refurbed demo directly from Polaroid and had to sell it in a 
month.
> >Previous to that I was using a low-end Canon 2720.  The Polaroid 
may have
> >had subtley better dmax; but, the 4000 dpi vs the 2700 dpi simply 
didn't
> >matter at all.   The most glaring imperfection of the Polaroid is 
the lack
> >of sharpness.  It was simply no sharper then the Canon 2720, which 
is/was a
> >basic 3.0 dmax/ 2700 dpi scanner.
> 
> I've been using the original SS4000 for well over a year now and it 
looks 
> tack sharp to me. I don't use the Polaroid software, which someone 
else 
> pointed out had a focus bug in early versions. I use Vuescan with 
all three 
> of my scanners (SS4000, 45i, and Epson 2450) and have had no 
problems with 

> focus.
> 
> Stan
> 
> ================================
> Photography by Stan McQueen
> http://www.smcqueen.com

I have the Poloaroid SS4000. It is a wonderful scanner. Tested this against a Nikon 
LS2000 - it blew the Nikon away.

Peter,

Yes, I am aware of Tony Sleep's observations and this is a good point.
However, I carefully tested scans with both the Polaroid Insight software
and the included SilverFast 5.5 full version software that came with the
scanner.   The SilverFast certainly had much more control and capability;
but, the sharpness issue (or lack thereof) was unaffected by the software.
I assumed it to be a hardware issue, indemic to the type of lighting system
the Polaroid uses.   I will say softer scans can be an advantage if you have
dirty negatives, a lot less shows up then with the Nikon scanners.   I also
did some tests with a Nikon LS4000 and found it getting almost too much
information, in a sense, requireing more Photoshop clone tool work to remove
every little mark on negatives that wouldn't even show up if printed with a
condenser enlarger in a darkroom.

I'm going to again reiterate the clumsy negative holders as a factor in
considering other scanners then the polaroid.   I did tests with a Canon
4000 and thought it very good also.

Rick

Message: 9
   Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 17:19:08 +1000

   From: "Peter Marquis-Kyle" <peter@...>
Subject: Re: re: B&W Printing . . . Polaroid SS4000

Rick Schiller wrote:
> My experience with the original SS4000 was very disappointing.
[snip]
> The most glaring
> imperfection of the Polaroid is the lack of sharpness.  It was
> simply no sharper then the Canon 2720, which is/was a basic 3.0
> dmax/ 2700 dpi scanner.

Rick -- just to set the record straight -- could this lack of
sharpness
have been due to the 'focus bug' in the Polaroid Insight software?
(See Tony Sleep's review of this Polaroid ss4000 scanner here:
http://www.halftone.co.uk/tech/filmscan/pol4000/pol4000.htm )

Peter Marquis-Kyle
www.marquis-kyle.com.au

I use the canon FS4000 and it seems to work fine using just the canon 
software. I'm not an expert but 4 my purposes it is great.


                        Tim













--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Schiller" 
<rschiller@a...> wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> Yes, I am aware of Tony Sleep's observations and this is a good 
point.
> However, I carefully tested scans with both the Polaroid Insight 
software
> and the included SilverFast 5.5 full version software that came 
with the
> scanner.   The SilverFast certainly had much more control and 
capability;
> but, the sharpness issue (or lack thereof) was unaffected by the 
software.
> I assumed it to be a hardware issue, indemic to the type of 
lighting system
> the Polaroid uses.   I will say softer scans can be an advantage if 
you have
> dirty negatives, a lot less shows up then with the Nikon 
scanners.   I also
> did some tests with a Nikon LS4000 and found it getting almost too 
much
> information, in a sense, requireing more Photoshop clone tool work 
to remove
> every little mark on negatives that wouldn't even show up if 
printed with a
> condenser enlarger in a darkroom.
> 
> I'm going to again reiterate the clumsy negative holders as a 
factor in
> considering other scanners then the polaroid.   I did tests with a 
Canon

> 4000 and thought it very good also.
> 
> Rick
> 
> Message: 9
>    Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 17:19:08 +1000
>    From: "Peter Marquis-Kyle" <peter@m...>
> Subject: Re: re: B&W Printing . . . Polaroid SS4000
> 
> Rick Schiller wrote:
> > My experience with the original SS4000 was very disappointing.
> [snip]
> > The most glaring
> > imperfection of the Polaroid is the lack of sharpness.  It was
> > simply no sharper then the Canon 2720, which is/was a basic 3.0
> > dmax/ 2700 dpi scanner.
> 
> Rick -- just to set the record straight -- could this lack of
> sharpness
> have been due to the 'focus bug' in the Polaroid Insight software?
> (See Tony Sleep's review of this Polaroid ss4000 scanner here:
> http://www.halftone.co.uk/tech/filmscan/pol4000/pol4000.htm )
> 
> Peter Marquis-Kyle
> www.marquis-kyle.com.au

I don't know what software the Nikon 4000 ships with.  But, I don't have the issues with my Nikon 8000 that you describe with the 4000.  With the Nikon provided software, I can get perfectly clean scans.  These scans are so clean that in cases where I don't want to alter the image (some wedding pics, perhaps), I don't do anything except crop and print.  I don't know what else I could ask from a scanner.
 
TB

Rick Schiller <rschiller@...> wrote:
Peter,

Yes, I am aware of Tony Sleep's observations and this is a good point.
However, I carefully tested scans with both the Polaroid Insight software
and the included SilverFast 5.5 full version software that came with the
scanner. The SilverFast certainly had much more control and capability;
but, the sharpness issue (or lack thereof) was unaffected by the software.
I assumed it to be a hardware issue, indemic to the type of lighting system
the Polaroid uses. I will say softer scans can be an advantage if you have
dirty negatives, a lot less shows up then with the Nikon scanners. I also
did some tests with a Nikon LS4000 and found it getting almost too much
information, in a sense, requireing more Photoshop clone tool work to remove
every little mark on negatives that wouldn't even show up if printed with a
condenser enlarger in a darkroom.

I'm going to again reiterate the clumsy negative holders as a factor in
considering other scanners then the polaroid. I did tests with a Canon
4000 and thought it very good also.

Rick

Message: 9
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 17:19:08 +1000

From: "Peter Marquis-Kyle" 

Subject: Re: re: B&W Printing . . . Polaroid SS4000

Rick Schiller wrote:
> My experience with the original SS4000 was very disappointing.
[snip]
> The most glaring
> imperfection of the Polaroid is the lack of sharpness. It was
> simply no sharper then the Canon 2720, which is/was a basic 3.0
> dmax/ 2700 dpi scanner.

Rick -- just to set the record straight -- could this lack of
sharpness
have been due to the 'focus bug' in the Polaroid Insight software?
(See Tony Sleep's review of this Polaroid ss4000 scanner here:
http://www.halftone.co.uk/tech/filmscan/pol4000/pol4000.htm )

Peter Marquis-Kyle
www.marquis-kyle.com.au






Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

John, I have never used a Nikon LS20/LS2000 and cannot speak to Nikon's
manufacturing specifications.  From all I've read in reviews, the
LS40/LS4000 are vast improvments over the older Nikon scanners.  I know what
I saw with the Polaroid SS4000 and what I've seen with the Nikon LS40.  Also
please note I don't know if the SS4000+ is a whole different animal in terms
of sharpness over the none-plus ss4000.   I also had a Canon 2720 and tested
a Nikon 4000 and a Canon 4000.   I'm not a scientist so I have no objective
data to offer to my observations beyond what I see and what my clients will
accept.   Much of my photography business is Black & White headshots.
Occasionally I have to scan the negatives, work the images in photoshop, and
print them out digitally so these prints have to look spot on (or at least
very, very close) to darkroom 8x10 glossies.    I am very concerned about
quality and it is a very competitive market.   I know in some cases other
photographer's digital prints have not reproduced well by Lithographers and
have even been rejected.   After much work, mine are useable for
duplication.   There is no way I could have given clients or duplicators
digital prints made with the Polaroid ss4000 I had and it was purchased
directly from Polaroid.   I'm only relaying my experiences.  If others are
getting better results then I am, I would like to see them as perhaps I did
not set the software correctly, although I used both Insight and SilverFast
and may even have tried a few scans with Vuescan, which I use exclusively on
the Nikon.

Rick
www.rickschiller.com

Rick,

Your experience is the exact opposite of mine.  The main reason I changed
from the coolscans (LS-20 and LS-2000) was the lack of sharpness.  My
problem was the depth of focus with the coolscans.  My understanding is that
the coolscans use a low intensity light source therefore requiring a wide
aperture lens.  This results in a BIG difference in edge/centre sharpness as
the film is usually curved.

The coolscan manual focus allowed me to have sharp centre or sharp edges but
not both. I tried for many months to solve the problem, but could not.  I
have read of many with a similar experience.

It was a while ago so forgive my sketchy description.

Maybe they have now solved this problem with the LS40??

js