Digital BW, The Print

I have a friend, not satisfied with her Epson flatbed for anything
smaller than 4x5, and not rich enough to have me drum scan for her
regularly, darn it.
I'd suggest the Nikon to her, but there have to be many here scanning
medium format negs for B&W output with useful opinions, all would be
welcome. I have not been paying much attention to new products like
this for some time, I hear there's a new Microtek?
She really does just scan B&W film, unfortunately comparing to my
Howtek scans of same for her... there has to be some middle ground.
Thanks,
Tyler

You might email Ernst about this Epson: 


http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?
BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=63056500

 He seems to like his. It scans 6400 dpi optical has two lenses, and 
has a fluid mounting holder that you can use with Kami. That is a 
significantly bigger file size than our Howteks. Of course your not 
going to achieve the dynamic range of the Howtek in the shadows but 
might be the sweet spot financially. I"ve never really been happy 
with my Nikon. It picks up every little scratch and micro dust 
element. Come to think of it Amadou has the Epson V750 too and has 
directly compared to his Howtek. See what he says,probably as good as 
most of the digital camera files we receive these days.

john


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> I have a friend, not satisfied with her Epson flatbed for anything
> smaller than 4x5, and not rich enough to have me drum scan for her
> regularly, darn it.
> I'd suggest the Nikon to her, but there have to be many here 
scanning

> medium format negs for B&W output with useful opinions, all would be
> welcome. I have not been paying much attention to new products like
> this for some time, I hear there's a new Microtek?
> She really does just scan B&W film, unfortunately comparing to my
> Howtek scans of same for her... there has to be some middle ground.
> Thanks,
> Tyler
>

An Imacon will do an excellent job for her. They are available at  reasonable 
prices on eBay from time to time, and there might be someone in her  area who 
will do a scan for her at a reasonable cost. I've been using a  Flextight 
Precision for medium, 4x5 and 35mm with excellent results.
 
Richard Massie
 
 
In a message dated 1/19/2008 6:26:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
tyler@... writes:

I have a  friend, not satisfied with her Epson flatbed for anything
smaller than 4x5,  and not rich enough to have me drum scan for her
regularly, darn it.
I'd  suggest the Nikon to her, but there have to be many here scanning
medium  format negs for B&W output with useful opinions, all would be
welcome.  I have not been paying much attention to new products like
this for some  time, I hear there's a new Microtek?
She really does just scan B&W  film, unfortunately comparing to my
Howtek scans of same for her... there  has to be some middle  ground.
Thanks,
Tyler





**************Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape.     
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489


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

Ted Harris will have a review of the new Microtek in the January edition 
of Viewcamera.  On the LF forum he said that it's better than the Epson 
V750.  I seem to remember reading that he thought the Nikon Coolscan 
9000 was better for medium format.  That said, it should be as it's much 
more expensive, especially with a glass holder.

by the way, I hate to say it but the one she has and isn't satisfied
with is the 750...
Tyler

Tyler,

> I have a friend, not satisfied with her Epson flatbed for anything
> smaller than 4x5, and not rich enough to have me drum scan for her
> regularly, darn it.

> I'd suggest the Nikon to her, but there have to be many here 
scanning
> medium format negs for B&W output with useful opinions, all would be
> welcome. ...

I use the Nikon 8000 and am very happy with it.  I use the glass 
carrier for most B&W film, but it'll give Newton rings with color 
film and if too much Photo Flo is used on B&W.  I'd buy another if 
mine broke.  My impression is that the 9000's improvements dealt 
mostly with color.  So, a used Nikon 8000 might be worth looking for.

One thing I do have to do to avoid the Nikon software's assumptions 
is scan negatives as grayscale positives.

In terms of quality, I can take a 645 negative to 22 x 28 with 
essentially perfect sharpness.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

He's got a good point there. I forgot the 9000 and 8000 could be used 
with a glass carrier and Kami. With correctly exposed negs it could 
be ok. Really it is the only game in town in that price range besides 
the similar Microtek film scanner and I always found the Nikon to be 
a bit more reliable from the ones we had at school and I don't think 
you can fluid mount with the Microtek.

I didn't know about the newton rings. That would be tedious.

Tyler, there is actually a Nikon Scanner Yahoo list. I'd go over 
there and see what the past posts have to say about fluid mounting.

john


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
<pr_roark@...> wrote:
>
> Tyler,
> 
> > I have a friend, not satisfied with her Epson flatbed for anything
> > smaller than 4x5, and not rich enough to have me drum scan for her
> > regularly, darn it.
> 
> > I'd suggest the Nikon to her, but there have to be many here 
> scanning
> > medium format negs for B&W output with useful opinions, all would 
be
> > welcome. ...
> 
> I use the Nikon 8000 and am very happy with it.  I use the glass 
> carrier for most B&W film, but it'll give Newton rings with color 
> film and if too much Photo Flo is used on B&W.  I'd buy another if 
> mine broke.  My impression is that the 9000's improvements dealt 
> mostly with color.  So, a used Nikon 8000 might be worth looking 
for.

> 
> One thing I do have to do to avoid the Nikon software's assumptions 
> is scan negatives as grayscale positives.
> 
> In terms of quality, I can take a 645 negative to 22 x 28 with 
> essentially perfect sharpness.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

I'm using a 9000 Nikon with a fluid kit. It is pretty impressive and  
compares well with the lab. You can tell a difference but it is very  
minor when compared to Epson and others.

On Jan 19, 2008, at 5:39 PM, Peter De Smidt wrote:

> Ted Harris will have a review of the new Microtek in the January  
> edition
> of Viewcamera.  On the LF forum he said that it's better than the  
> Epson
> V750.  I seem to remember reading that he thought the Nikon Coolscan
> 9000 was better for medium format.  That said, it should be as it's  
> much
> more expensive, especially with a glass holder.

On Jan 19, 2008, at 3:26 PM, Tyler Boley wrote:

> I have a friend, not satisfied with her Epson flatbed for anything
> smaller than 4x5, and not rich enough to have me drum scan for her
> regularly, darn it.
> I'd suggest the Nikon to her, but there have to be many here scanning
> medium format negs for B&W output with useful opinions, all would be
> welcome. I have not been paying much attention to new products like
> this for some time, I hear there's a new Microtek?

The M1, I guess, Tyler. The only review I've seen is here:

<http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/M1/M1.HTM>

Sam

> She really does just scan B&W film, unfortunately comparing to my
> Howtek scans of same for her... there has to be some middle ground.
> Thanks,
> Tyler

Brian --

I'm using the Nikon scanner as well.  After reading an article about
fluid scanning in Photo Technique I ordered a kit from Scan Science. 
However, for some reason, I can't seem to get the negatives positioned
correctly on the glass.  There just seems to be air pockets that I can't
get rid of.  What kit are you using?  Do you have any recommendations on
getting rid of air pockets?  Or, do you recommend another fluid kit?



Harold


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Brian Mikiten
<bmikiten@...> wrote:

> I'm using a 9000 Nikon with a fluid kit. It is pretty impressive and
> compares well with the lab. You can tell a difference but it is very
> minor when compared to Epson and others.
>
>




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

Tyler;

I'm using a Nikon 8000 with the glas AN carrier, and the results are 
quite good. The om=nly caveat is that wih the Nikon software you MUST 
scan all B&W negs as positives, and do the reversal in PS. I don't 
know if this shortcoming persists in the 9000 driver or not.

Steve Karafyllakis


-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> I have a friend, not satisfied with her Epson flatbed for anything
> smaller than 4x5, and not rich enough to have me drum scan for her
> regularly, darn it.
> I'd suggest the Nikon to her, but there have to be many here 
scanning

> medium format negs for B&W output with useful opinions, all would be
> welcome. I have not been paying much attention to new products like
> this for some time, I hear there's a new Microtek?
> She really does just scan B&W film, unfortunately comparing to my
> Howtek scans of same for her... there has to be some middle ground.
> Thanks,
> Tyler
>

Steven Karafyllakis wrote:
> 
> 
> Tyler;
> 
> I'm using a Nikon 8000 with the glas AN carrier, and the results are
> quite good. The om=nly caveat is that wih the Nikon software you MUST
> scan all B&W negs as positives, and do the reversal in PS. I don't
> know if this shortcoming persists in the 9000 driver or not.

Why exactly are you doing this?

I'm using an LS-9000 and have no problem (that I'm aware of)
scanning B&W negs as negs.

Dana

> 
> The M1, I guess, Tyler. The only review I've seen is here:
> 


So far the M1 only looks like it is slightly better than the Epson v750:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=27341&page=17

Yahoo will slaughter that link, so you'll need to cut and paste the
whole thing into your browser. That said I'm still in the market for
something slightly better like the Nikon 9000 or 8000.

What is her dissatisfaction?  Which model Epson does she have?  What
software used (Epson or Vuescan)?  Is she printing?  How big?


Richard S.
San Francisco

My Commute Photo Blog
http://shootingonthefly.blogspot.com/

My Flickr Page
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/



On 1/19/08, Tyler Boley <tyler@...> wrote:
>
>   I have a friend, not satisfied with her Epson flatbed for anything
> smaller than 4x5, and not rich enough to have me drum scan for her
> regularly, darn it.
> I'd suggest the Nikon to her, but there have to be many here scanning
> medium format negs for B&W output with useful opinions, all would be
> welcome. I have not been paying much attention to new products like
> this for some time, I hear there's a new Microtek?
> She really does just scan B&W film, unfortunately comparing to my
> Howtek scans of same for her... there has to be some middle ground.
> Thanks,
> Tyler
>
> 
>


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

--- 

So maybe they've fixed it? My Nikon scan 4.0 sets the black & white 
points so tightly that I lose detail at both ends, but especially in 
the shadows. It's a nuisance in B&W, but more of a problem in color, 
since you are still left with the orange mask to deal with.I'm not 
the only one either- a while back Ernst Dinkle circulated a petition 
among LS-8000 owners to pressure Nikon into fixing it.

Happy to hear it's no longer an issue, if that's the case.

Steve Karafyllakis

>>. The only caveat is that wih the Nikon software you MUST
> > scan all B&W negs as positives, and do the reversal in PS. I don't
> > know if this shortcoming persists in the 9000 driver or not.
> 
> Why exactly are you doing this?
> 
> I'm using an LS-9000 and have no problem (that I'm aware of)
> scanning B&W negs as negs.
> 
> Dana
>

Tyler, I use the Nikon scanner, a 9000 an dam quite happy with my results. I
had several years working with a Flextight II and have to say the Nikon does
a better job than it. Or perhaps I did with it. Years + experience + new
software etc.  I use both Nikon software and Vue Scan with it and am really
quite happy. I am on the Nikon 8000/9000 yahoo group. Glass carrier with wet
mount is hard to beat. Only down side for me is the size, I really wish it
was 4x5 too : (

 

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of john dean
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 6:35 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: B&W 6x6 neg scan suggetions please

 

He's got a good point there. I forgot the 9000 and 8000 could be used 
with a glass carrier and Kami. With correctly exposed negs it could 
be ok. Really it is the only game in town in that price range besides 
the similar Microtek film scanner and I always found the Nikon to be 
a bit more reliable from the ones we had at school and I don't think 
you can fluid mount with the Microtek.

I didn't know about the newton rings. That would be tedious.

Tyler, there is actually a Nikon Scanner Yahoo list. I'd go over 
there and see what the past posts have to say about fluid mounting.

john

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
<pr_roark@...> wrote:
>
> Tyler,
> 
> > I have a friend, not satisfied with her Epson flatbed for anything
> > smaller than 4x5, and not rich enough to have me drum scan for her
> > regularly, darn it.
> 
> > I'd suggest the Nikon to her, but there have to be many here 
> scanning
> > medium format negs for B&W output with useful opinions, all would 
be
> > welcome. ...
> 
> I use the Nikon 8000 and am very happy with it. I use the glass 
> carrier for most B&W film, but it'll give Newton rings with color 
> film and if too much Photo Flo is used on B&W. I'd buy another if 
> mine broke. My impression is that the 9000's improvements dealt 
> mostly with color. So, a used Nikon 8000 might be worth looking 
for.
> 
> One thing I do have to do to avoid the Nikon software's assumptions 
> is scan negatives as grayscale positives.
> 
> In terms of quality, I can take a 645 negative to 22 x 28 with 
> essentially perfect sharpness.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

 



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

Hey Richard -- Came over from the Fugi Rangefinder site I see.  You must be a pretty busy guy!
   
  Harold Jackson




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

I'm exhausted!  ;-)


Richard S.
San Francisco

My Commute Photo Blog
http://shootingonthefly.blogspot.com/

My Flickr Page
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/



On 1/19/08, Harold Jackson <harold@...> wrote:
>
>   Hey Richard -- Came over from the Fugi Rangefinder site I see. You must
> be a pretty busy guy!
>
> Harold Jackson
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 
>


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

Tyler Boley wrote:
> by the way, I hate to say it but the one she has and isn't satisfied
> with is the 750...
> Tyler

:-)

There are three scanners here: the Nikon LS8000, the Epson 
V700, the Umax Mirage II. The size increases from left to 
right and the quality decreases from left to right. With wet 
mounting on the first two and tweaking the focus on both you 
can get good results on both but the Nikon needs less work 
afterwards (sharpening), has a wider dynamic range and still 
more resolution. So 35 mm up to 6x9 is scanned on the Nikon. 
All are driven by Vuescan with the multi-sampling, 
multi-exposure on board. I think a tweaked Nikon LS9000 new 
or secondhand with wet mounting is equal or better than an 
Imacon and has ICE aboard. Above that a good, serviced, drum 
scanner with a good operator.

http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/index.php/Publications/Testreports

about multi-exposure but based on Silverfast

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

Ernst Dinkla wrote:

> There are three scanners here: the Nikon LS8000, the Epson 
> V700, the Umax Mirage II. The size increases from left to 
> right and the quality decreases from left to right. With wet 
> mounting on the first two and tweaking the focus on both you 
> can get good results on both but the Nikon needs less work 
> afterwards (sharpening), has a wider dynamic range and still 
> more resolution. So 35 mm up to 6x9 is scanned on the Nikon. 
> All are driven by Vuescan with the multi-sampling, 
> multi-exposure on board. I think a tweaked Nikon LS9000 new 
> or secondhand with wet mounting is equal or better than an 
> Imacon and has ICE aboard. Above that a good, serviced, drum 
> scanner with a good operator.
> 
> http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/index.php/Publications/Testreports
> 
> about multi-exposure but based on Silverfast
> 

Samples of LS8000 wet mount scans, frames from 6x6 and 6x9 
folders:

http://www.pigment-print.com/tijdelijk/Iskra-and-Monitor2.jpg

On the new Microtek M1: there was a delay in releasing it 
that had to do with ICE support and I do not know whether it 
now has ICE aboard or not. It is available on the Nikons and 
several Epsons but on the last not for any file size scanned 
if I recall it correctly.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

I used a friend's kit - a homemade holder with a glass insert. I have  
the scan science kit on order and expect it here any day. I selected  
them because of the owner's knowledge and other good comments I'd  
heard in the past. I was scanning 6x17 negs and had a few bubble  
issues as well. We ended up putting the film down center out and it  
seemed to help. I know that you have to be careful of the amount of  
fluid used as well.

Brian

On Jan 19, 2008, at 7:46 PM, nocannibals wrote:

>
> Brian --
>
> I'm using the Nikon scanner as well.  After reading an article about
> fluid scanning in Photo Technique I ordered a kit from Scan Science.
> However, for some reason, I can't seem to get the negatives positioned
> correctly on the glass.  There just seems to be air pockets that I  
> can't
> get rid of.  What kit are you using?  Do you have any  
> recommendations on
> getting rid of air pockets?  Or, do you recommend another fluid kit?
>
>
>
> Harold
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Brian Mikiten
> <bmikiten@...> wrote:
>
>> I'm using a 9000 Nikon with a fluid kit. It is pretty impressive and
>> compares well with the lab. You can tell a difference but it is very
>> minor when compared to Epson and others.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other  
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages  
> to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or  
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed  
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital  
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be  
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and  
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group  
> Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the  
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE  
> “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL  
> NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,  
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,  
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE  
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH  
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE  
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR  
> ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR  
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP;  
> OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO  
> GROUP.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Tyler, I have been very pleased with the Nikon 9000
series(can't remember exact # at present [?9800] and I
am in Seattle now and not in St. Paul where it sits at
present).  I have used it for 6X7 and 6X6 cm with
verygood result -- including some from old Tech-Pan
and Agfa 25 negatives -- quite sharp and with good
tone. My studio-mate in St. Paul had also wanted to
use it for panoramic negs but alas it will NOT do
these even when we try tricks.  It broke once for no
apparent reason but they (Nikon) fixed it free -- but
that took a while... BTW, Steve from First Hill
Diagnostic Imaging where I work in Seattle is a mutual
acquaintaince -- y0u and I should meet face to face
someday... I might want to bring the Nikon Scanner to
Seattle and leave it at someone's studio... if I could
use it from time to time, since I'm only in St. Paul
now about 1 week a month and needing to let my studio
space there go.

Michael Vendrell (MD)


--- Tyler Boley <tyler@...> wrote:

> I have a friend, not satisfied with her Epson
> flatbed for anything
> smaller than 4x5, and not rich enough to have me
> drum scan for her
> regularly, darn it.
> I'd suggest the Nikon to her, but there have to be
> many here scanning
> medium format negs for B&W output with useful
> opinions, all would be
> welcome. I have not been paying much attention to
> new products like
> this for some time, I hear there's a new Microtek?
> She really does just scan B&W film, unfortunately
> comparing to my
> Howtek scans of same for her... there has to be some
> middle ground.
> Thanks,
> Tyler
> 
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

Tyler,

I usually sit quietly and listen and learn from others.  Now I may
have an idea that could help.

I recently got a 2x3 view camera and got a 4870 to scan B&W negs with.
 I haven't liked the 4870 at all for medium format.  My old FS2710
gave better crispness and detail with 35mm than the 4870 does with 120
negs.  My sister gave me a Umax Powerlook 3000, and I love the scans I
get from it.

The Powerlook was marketed toward high-end pro graphic artists who
needed drum quality scans, but couldn't justify the expense of a drum
scanner.  It was the first flatbed to claim to rival drum scanning.  I
think the claim borders on justifiable.  It uses a second "lens" for
3000dpi scanning (really, a second sensor array - I think the latest
"V" series Epsons are starting to do this too), and will easily take
120 neg strips in the part of the glass the 3000dpi scanning works in.
 The second "lens" approach really does provide superior scan results.
 Since it was marketed toward the pro graphic arts crowd, the plane of
focus is right on the glass.  Wet scanning onto the glass works
excellently with this machine.

I am extremely happy with my scans, and no longer wish for a better
scanner.  I print from an R2400 so that my finished prints are never
bigger than 13x19.  Nevertheless, I know I could print the files much
larger with perfect clarity, since my testing involved printing
enlargements from crops of very small, highly detailed areas within
the image.

The Powerlook 3000 is older SCSI equipment.  This means an e-bay hunt,
but you should find one for quite a bit less than a new Nikon scanner
(I think $500 range last I looked - they went for $5000 new).  Because
of the need for a SCSI card, it won't run on OS X (the reason my
graphic artist sister gave it to me in the first place), and I'm not
sure it will really work any better under Win XP.  But I have enough
older computer equipment from upgrading to put together a Win 98SE
machine which runs SCSI and therefore the Powerlook and my old FS2710
just fine and without extra expense.  A dirt cheap thumb drive allows
me to transfer the files to the XP machine where all the good software
and the R2400 live.  I think this idea qualifies best as "lower
budget" only if your friend has enough old computer equipment on hand
to put together an older OS machine to run it from.  Or perhaps if she
has friends with older equipment they don't know what to do with
anyway and will give it to her.

Perhaps the need for older equipment and the e-bay search would make
this an unhappy choice for some.  Nevertheless, for good, sellable
quality on little money, the approach works well for me.  I hope the
suggestion helps.

-Gary Gervin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@...> wrote:

>
> I have a friend, not satisfied with her Epson flatbed for anything
> smaller than 4x5, and not rich enough to have me drum scan for her
> regularly, darn it.
> I'd suggest the Nikon to her, but there have to be many here scanning
> medium format negs for B&W output with useful opinions, all would be
> welcome. I have not been paying much attention to new products like
> this for some time, I hear there's a new Microtek?
> She really does just scan B&W film, unfortunately comparing to my
> Howtek scans of same for her... there has to be some middle ground.
> Thanks,
> Tyler
>

On 20/01/2008 minoltaretrobug wrote:
> My sister gave me a Umax Powerlook 3000, and I love the scans I
> get from it.

Just to be clear : do not confuse with the Umax Powerlook 2. I have one, 
it's very handy for doing contact sheets from 6x 6.ex strips of 35mm in a 
cannibalised Paterson frame, but 6x6 scans for enlargement/printing are lousy.
-- 
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk

While we are on the subject, anyone have a Microtek 120tf film
scanner? About the same price as the Nikon 9000 so I'm not sure if it
is worth the risk.

Thanks to everyone for the suggestions. Interestingly, when the 8000 first came out I had use 
of one for some time and those scans still hold up. Also of interest, the old Umax comments. 
I have many old scans made with an Agfa T2500 that also still hold up. And I print bigger 
these days. If the prints look good I don't see the point in rescanning with the Howtek just 
because I have it. Sounds like advances have been few to none.
Michael, bring some prints by some day. Steve should be around soon also. Ernst, always a 
huge help.

Tyler

On 21/01/2008 Greg wrote:
> While we are on the subject, anyone have a Microtek 120tf film
> scanner? About the same price as the Nikon 9000 so I'm not sure if it
> is worth the risk.

I'm sure I've seen a comparitive review on the web that answers this in 
detail. The Microtek 120 is allegedly a similar overall quality standard 
to the Nikon 8000/9000, but a different balance of strengths and 
weaknesses and no clear cut advantage to either as far as I can remember.

The Polaroid 120 (now defunct) is a clone Microtek, built for Polaroid 
under contract until they ceased selling scanners so also worth thinking 
about, but they didn't sell many in the short period they were available.

-- 
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk

I have a 750 pro. I took the glass whoe-dinger that you put negs on  
and ripped off the frame. Then I used that as the "myler" and put Kami/ 
Film/Kami below it. I can get a sharp 20x24 print from a 6x7 with this  
with just a bit of sharpening. 4x5 (for some reason) is comparable to  
a drum scanner. Blew me away frankly. When I was mounting on top of  
the frame, everything was blurry. Thanks Epson for your wonderfully  
bad engineering.

Best part about using glass as the "sealer" is you don't need any tape  
(the glass is heavy enough) and there's no myler smearing. All you  
have to do is buff the glass with a cell-phone emery cloth and it's  
totally clean in a few secs. This is great if you need a quick good  
quality cheap scan for an artist who doesn't want drum-scan prices.

take care,
Walker

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

> All you have to do is buff the glass with a cell-phone emery cloth and it's
> totally clean in a few secs.

What is cell-phone emery cloth???


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