Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Re: [Digital BW] scanners

Re: [Digital BW] scanners

2002-02-05 by SKID Photography

deoman2 wrote:

>  does a high quality  group exist for scanners/scanning like this group
> exists for b&w digital printing?
>
> thanks
>
> dennis
>

Dennis,
There are 2 groups on high end scanners in general:

A Yahoo group:
ScanHi-End@yahoogroups.com

And this other group (that I used to belong to, but somehow, currently there is
a 'conflict' between my ISP and the list's host:
filmscanners@...

A Google search will get you the lists' sign-up procedure.

Then...There are brand specific scanner groups like for Imacons, etc.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC




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

Re: [Digital BW] scanners

2002-11-12 by Ken Carney

Tim, for 35mm I have and can recommend the Nikon Coolscan 4000.  I think you can get one for around $1,500-1,600.  Since with 35mm you're doing a lot with a little, as they say, I wouldn't economize too much on the scanner.  I use my Holga(s) a lot, "converted" to 6 x 6 cm.   There is a surprising amount of tonal range (although not always in the same area from shot to shot).

  --Ken Carney
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tim Timmermans 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 7:07 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] scanners


  Hi gang,

  I was on this group for a couple of months and then have been gone 
  for 8 months. I missed the wealth of information here. I'm preparing 
  to take the giant leap into making the best prints I can make. I'll 
  be commiting to some kind of CIS, probably some profiles and 
  calibration tools, new camera gear, new monitor etc etc.

  First up though is a new scanner. I have some budget limitations to 
  around $1000 for a scanner. I'm looking at the Canon FS4000 and the 
  Nikon Coolscan in the same price range. Any opinons would be much 
  appreciated as well as suggestions for other scanners that might be 
  better. Right now I'm pretty much limited to the 35mm format with on 
  only medium format camera being a Holga. I have an epson 1200UPHOTO 
  that I can use for the Holga negs.

  So..Canon or Nikon or something else? Either opinions or links to pre-
  existing threads or URL's appreciated.

  It's good to be back

  Thanks, Tim Timmermans

  www.timtimmermans.com


  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


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

Re: [Digital BW] scanners

2002-11-12 by Tim Timmermans

Thanks Ken,

I was using the Canon FS4000 for a while and was pleased with the 
results but it was slow and seemed to crash a lot. I'm guessing the 
Nikon takes mulitple formats. Like the Canon it seems to have 4000 
DPI capability as well as 48bit feature. The Canon does have a neg 
cleaning feature that eliminates scratches and spots. The Nikon comes 
batched with Genuine Fractals which is nice. I've never used that but 
have heard good things about it.

I see them on ebay for around $1100-$1200 new but they are grey 
market. They come with an international warranty but the seller 
offers their own 1 year warranty.

Has anyone here ever dealt with some of these ebay stores? They're 
mostly based out of NYC. I'd be interested to hear stories good or 
bad. This place is called "Hot Buys Electronics."

Any other opinions on the canon vs nikon?

Thanks, Tim

www.timtimmermans.com




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Ken Carney" 
<kcarney1@c...> wrote:
> Tim, for 35mm I have and can recommend the Nikon Coolscan 4000.  I 
think you can get one for around $1,500-1,600.  Since with 35mm 
you're doing a lot with a little, as they say, I wouldn't economize 
too much on the scanner.  I use my Holga(s) a lot, "converted" to 6 x 
6 cm.   There is a surprising amount of tonal range (although not 
always in the same area from shot to shot).
> 
>   --Ken Carney

Re: [Digital BW] scanners

2002-11-12 by Jerry Olson

Canon's lens on that scanner was rated the sharpest lens of any desktop
scanner by one of the pro photo mags about 8 months ago. Quality wise,
the nikon 4000 and canon 4000 are very close. Check the software
packages before you buy to see if each gives you what you need.

Jerry



Tim Timmermans wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> 
> Hi gang,
> 
> I was on this group for a couple of months and then have been gone
> for 8 months. I missed the wealth of information here. I'm preparing
> to take the giant leap into making the best prints I can make. I'll
> be commiting to some kind of CIS, probably some profiles and
> calibration tools, new camera gear, new monitor etc etc.
> 
> First up though is a new scanner. I have some budget limitations to
> around $1000 for a scanner. I'm looking at the Canon FS4000 and the
> Nikon Coolscan in the same price range. Any opinons would be much
> appreciated as well as suggestions for other scanners that might be
> better. Right now I'm pretty much limited to the 35mm format with on
> only medium format camera being a Holga. I have an epson 1200UPHOTO
> that I can use for the Holga negs.
> 
> So..Canon or Nikon or something else? Either opinions or links to pre-
> existing threads or URL's appreciated.
> 
> It's good to be back
> 
> Thanks, Tim Timmermans
> 
> www.timtimmermans.com
> 
> 
> 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 &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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/

Re: [Digital BW] scanners

2002-11-12 by bgs

I'm from the NY/NJ area. Whaddya need? Midnight sales daily!!! Hot Buys
Whatever----good luck.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Timmermans" <bugfoot7@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] scanners


> Thanks Ken,
>
> I was using the Canon FS4000 for a while and was pleased with the
> results but it was slow and seemed to crash a lot. I'm guessing the
> Nikon takes mulitple formats. Like the Canon it seems to have 4000
> DPI capability as well as 48bit feature. The Canon does have a neg
> cleaning feature that eliminates scratches and spots. The Nikon comes
> batched with Genuine Fractals which is nice. I've never used that but
> have heard good things about it.
>
> I see them on ebay for around $1100-$1200 new but they are grey
> market. They come with an international warranty but the seller
> offers their own 1 year warranty.
>
> Has anyone here ever dealt with some of these ebay stores? They're
> mostly based out of NYC. I'd be interested to hear stories good or
> bad. This place is called "Hot Buys Electronics."
>
> Any other opinions on the canon vs nikon?
>
> Thanks, Tim
>
> www.timtimmermans.com
>
>
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Ken Carney"
> <kcarney1@c...> wrote:
> > Tim, for 35mm I have and can recommend the Nikon Coolscan 4000.  I
> think you can get one for around $1,500-1,600.  Since with 35mm
> you're doing a lot with a little, as they say, I wouldn't economize
> too much on the scanner.  I use my Holga(s) a lot, "converted" to 6 x
> 6 cm.   There is a surprising amount of tonal range (although not
> always in the same area from shot to shot).
> >
> >   --Ken Carney
>
>
>
> 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
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Re: [Digital BW] scanners

2002-11-12 by Tim Timmermans

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson 
<jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> Canon's lens on that scanner was rated the sharpest lens of any 
desktop
> scanner by one of the pro photo mags about 8 months ago. Quality 
wise,
> the nikon 4000 and canon 4000 are very close. Check the software
> packages before you buy to see if each gives you what you need.
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 

I like that GF is packaged with nikon but I can get the canon (grey 
Market) for $700 something on ebay so I can just buy GF. DOes the 
nikon scan larger than 35mm though. that's the question.

Tim

Re: [Digital BW] scanners

2002-11-12 by Christopher Williams

I went with the CanoScan FS4000 because it does cost $400-500 less than the
Nikon 4000 scanner. Sure, it's a bit slower, but FARE works much better than
ICE. ICE softens up the image alot more than FARE does.

So far, negs scan just excellent, some chrome films take awhile to get
right.

My scans look better, and my prints from the Epson 2200 look amazing. I was
scanning with a 2700 dpi, 4000dpi is a BIG difference when printing 13x19
prints.

Canon's suggested price is $1,100. Do not buy a gray market scanner, Canon
will not fix it if it breaks.

Chris
New Orleans
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Timmermans
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] scanners


Thanks Ken,

I was using the Canon FS4000 for a while and was pleased with the
results but it was slow and seemed to crash a lot. I'm guessing the
Nikon takes mulitple formats. Like the Canon it seems to have 4000
DPI capability as well as 48bit feature. The Canon does have a neg
cleaning feature that eliminates scratches and spots. The Nikon comes
batched with Genuine Fractals which is nice. I've never used that but
have heard good things about it.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [Digital BW] scanners

2002-11-12 by Christopher Williams

Check out B&H Photo for Canon 4000 scanners at used(out of box)specials.
Last week they had one for $729.00 w/warranty.
Don't buy Gray on Canon, they will not fix it if it breaks.

Chris
New Orleans



I like that GF is packaged with nikon but I can get the canon (grey
Market) for $700 something on ebay so I can just buy GF. DOes the
nikon scan larger than 35mm though. that's the question.

Tim

.

Re[2]: [Digital BW] scanners

2002-11-12 by Richard Sintchak

Monday, November 11, 2002, 7:57:43 PM, Christopher Williams wrote:

CW> I went with the CanoScan FS4000 because it does cost $400-500 less than the
CW> Nikon 4000 scanner. Sure, it's a bit slower, but FARE works much better than
CW> ICE. ICE softens up the image alot more than FARE does.


I went with Nikon for the exact opposite reason: that ICE works much
better than FARE.  I've never used FARE but George Lepp and John Shaw
both had and went with Nikon mainly because they found FARE to be very
inconsistent and downright poor in some areas like color transitions
and such.  George Lepp has been sponsored for years by Canon and when
the 4000 came out he and his crew tested it extensively as I imagine
they really wanted to use it.  In the end they went with Nikon instead
(much to Canon's chagrin). Tim Grey, who's George's "tech man" put it
this way:

"I do feel very strongly that it is worth the extra money to get the
Nikon scanner. It has a higher dynamic range than the Canon scanner,
has better software, and includes Digital ICE Cubed. The FARE
technology used in the Canon scanner does not work anywhere near as
well compared to Digital ICE. The Canon 4000 does produce great basic
scans, but the Nikon does a better job. If you need the 4000 dpi
resolution and the Nikon Super CoolScan 4000 ED simply isn't in your
budget, the Canon is a reasonable compromise, but the results won't be
as good as you would get with the Nikon scanner."

Glad you're happy with your Canon I just happen to hear others I
respect and who are well-known pros say otherwise so I went with the
Nikon.

And FWIW I find that using the ICE on normal does not soften the image much at
all, at least not something that cannot be easily compensated for very
well with unsharp mask.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

L i n k s  t o  m y  g a l l e r i e s:
http://fujirangefinder.com/document.php?id=246

Re: [Digital BW] scanners

2002-11-12 by Carolyn Frayn

> I like that GF is packaged with nikon but I can get the canon (grey
> Market) for $700 something on ebay so I can just buy GF. DOes the
> nikon scan larger than 35mm though. that's the question.
> 
> Tim
> 

As the Canon you first spoke of is, so are the  Nikon 4000 and the Polaroid
SS4000 (+) 35mm film scanners...the Polaroid is a Microtek Artixscan
scanner. If you want to go larger, then you're looking at the Nikon8000 etc.

I'd check out the polaroid (microtek) before deciding on a Canon.
I always hear comp's between the nikon and polaroid, discussing the merits
of the two light sources and which is best for BW scanning. The canon is
reputed to have more shadow noise than the n or p and is considerably
slower. If you can still find the SS4000 without the plus, it falls within
your price range I believe.

Read the archives in Tony Sleeps film scanner list... lots of user reports
on the nikon and polaroid, and a recent (last month) thread on the canon
FS4000.  

http://www.mail-archive.com/filmscanners%40halftone.co.uk/

http://www.halftone.co.uk  to subscribe etc.

Carolyn

Re: [Digital BW] scanners

2002-11-12 by Bob_Michaels

Tim:

I suggest you completely read Wayne Fulton's website "a few scanning
tips"  www.scantips.com before you plunk down real money on a scanner.
There is a tremendous amount of data presented very concisely there.
It will help you put into perspective how much scanner you need. Also
recommended is digital scanner reviews at
http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN1.HTM

My personal objective when I got into this a few weeks ago was to
generate reasonable looking b&w prints with the shortest learning
curve so I wouldn't get frustrated and lose interest. Then I would
have some basis to improve on. Budget was not the primary
consideration, but I only ended up spending about $650 (scanner,
printer, software, paper).

Bob Michaels
Apopka FL
 
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tim Timmermans"
<bugfoot7@a...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson 
> <jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> > Canon's lens on that scanner was rated the sharpest lens of any 
> desktop
> > scanner by one of the pro photo mags about 8 months ago. Quality 
> wise,
> > the nikon 4000 and canon 4000 are very close. Check the software
> > packages before you buy to see if each gives you what you need.
> > 
> > Jerry
> > 
> > 
> 
> I like that GF is packaged with nikon but I can get the canon (grey 
> Market) for $700 something on ebay so I can just buy GF. DOes the 
> nikon scan larger than 35mm though. that's the question.
> 
> Tim

RE: [Digital BW] scanners

2002-11-12 by Ton Guiking

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Bob_Michaels [mailto:Bob@...] 
> Verzonden: dinsdag 12 november 2002 13:18
> Aan: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Onderwerp: Re: [Digital BW] scanners
> 
> 
>(...)

> My personal objective when I got into this a few weeks ago 
> was to generate reasonable looking b&w prints with the 
> shortest learning curve so I wouldn't get frustrated and lose 
> interest. Then I would have some basis to improve on. Budget 
> was not the primary consideration, but I only ended up 
> spending about $650 (scanner, printer, software, paper).
> 
And now the next question is of course: what did you buy (and why)?
Really interesting to know!!
Best,
Ton Guiking

Re: [Digital BW] scanners

2002-11-12 by Jerry Olson

No. The coolscan 4000 is a 35mm scanner.

Fred Miranda's Stair Step action filter is slightly better than genuine
fractals, ten times faster, and only costs $9.50 from his site, fredmiranda.com

Try it, you'll love it! 

Jerry 

Tim Timmermans wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson
> <jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> > Canon's lens on that scanner was rated the sharpest lens of any
> desktop
> > scanner by one of the pro photo mags about 8 months ago. Quality
> wise,
> > the nikon 4000 and canon 4000 are very close. Check the software
> > packages before you buy to see if each gives you what you need.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> >
> 
> I like that GF is packaged with nikon but I can get the canon (grey
> Market) for $700 something on ebay so I can just buy GF. DOes the
> nikon scan larger than 35mm though. that's the question.
> 
> Tim
> 
> 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 &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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/

Re: [Digital BW] scanners

2002-11-12 by Julian Thomas

But the Miranda action doesn't reduce the size of the archive file  and uses
PS bicubic interpolation which gives softer results on many subjects (I've
tried it).

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] scanners


> No. The coolscan 4000 is a 35mm scanner.
>
> Fred Miranda's Stair Step action filter is slightly better than genuine
> fractals, ten times faster, and only costs $9.50 from his site,
fredmiranda.com
>
> Try it, you'll love it!
>
> Jerry
>
> Tim Timmermans wrote:
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson
> > <jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> > > Canon's lens on that scanner was rated the sharpest lens of any
> > desktop
> > > scanner by one of the pro photo mags about 8 months ago. Quality
> > wise,
> > > the nikon 4000 and canon 4000 are very close. Check the software
> > > packages before you buy to see if each gives you what you need.
> > >
> > > Jerry
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I like that GF is packaged with nikon but I can get the canon (grey
> > Market) for $700 something on ebay so I can just buy GF. DOes the
> > nikon scan larger than 35mm though. that's the question.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > 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
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > - 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/
>
>
> 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
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Re: [Digital BW] scanners

2002-11-12 by Jerry Olson

Julian, all my tests indicate that Mirandas action produces sharper
results than Genuine fractals. Not by much, but noticeable. You are
right about the file sizes.

Jerry

Julian Thomas wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> 
> But the Miranda action doesn't reduce the size of the archive file  and uses
> PS bicubic interpolation which gives softer results on many subjects (I've
> tried it).
> 
> Julian
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 5:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] scanners
> 
> > No. The coolscan 4000 is a 35mm scanner.
> >
> > Fred Miranda's Stair Step action filter is slightly better than genuine
> > fractals, ten times faster, and only costs $9.50 from his site,
> fredmiranda.com
> >
> > Try it, you'll love it!
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> > Tim Timmermans wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson
> > > <jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> > > > Canon's lens on that scanner was rated the sharpest lens of any
> > > desktop
> > > > scanner by one of the pro photo mags about 8 months ago. Quality
> > > wise,
> > > > the nikon 4000 and canon 4000 are very close. Check the software
> > > > packages before you buy to see if each gives you what you need.
> > > >
> > > > Jerry
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I like that GF is packaged with nikon but I can get the canon (grey
> > > Market) for $700 something on ebay so I can just buy GF. DOes the
> > > nikon scan larger than 35mm though. that's the question.
> > >
> > > Tim
> > >
> > > 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
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > > - 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/
> >
> >
> > 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
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > - 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/
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 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 &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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/

Re: [Digital BW] scanners

2002-11-13 by Bob_Michaels

Ton:

I bought a Minolta Dual Scan II for around $280, an Espon 1280 for
around $370 (after $100 rebate) got Photoshop LE free with the scanner
and Photoshop Elements free with the printer, (all from B&H) spent $11
for a package of Epson heavyweight matte paper and I was off working.
Now I'm happily scanning and printing, knowing that if I later need to
upgrade hardware, I won't be out too much original investment. Most
important I ended up with prints that I was not embarassed about in a
matter of a few nights. Most of that was installing hardware and
software. My first print was satisfactory. 

It took a lot of research to conclude that I was going to be happy
with this low budget approach as I was prepared to spend much more. 

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Ton Guiking" <guiking@x>
wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> 
> 
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: Bob_Michaels [mailto:Bob@B...] 
> > Verzonden: dinsdag 12 november 2002 13:18
> > Aan: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
> > Onderwerp: Re: [Digital BW] scanners
> > 
> > 
> >(...)
> 
> > My personal objective when I got into this a few weeks ago 
> > was to generate reasonable looking b&w prints with the 
> > shortest learning curve so I wouldn't get frustrated and lose 
> > interest. Then I would have some basis to improve on. Budget 
> > was not the primary consideration, but I only ended up 
> > spending about $650 (scanner, printer, software, paper).
> > 
> And now the next question is of course: what did you buy (and why)?
> Really interesting to know!!
> Best,
> Ton Guiking

Re: [Digital BW] scanners

2002-11-13 by knightmaer35@aol.com

In a message dated 11/11/02 7:58:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
leicachris@... writes:


> Canon's suggested price is $1,100. Do not buy a gray market scanner, Canon
> will not fix it if it breaks.
> 

Are you sure about that? They will honor the warranty on their cameras, 
regardless of whether it is USA or gray.


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

Re: [Digital BW] scanners

2002-11-13 by Christopher Williams

According to last month's mail, Nikon or Canon will not repair any gray market products. 

Chris
New Orleans
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: knightmaer35@... 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 4:00 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] scanners


  In a message dated 11/11/02 7:58:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
  leicachris@... writes:


  > Canon's suggested price is $1,100. Do not buy a gray market scanner, Canon
  > will not fix it if it breaks.
  > 

  Are you sure about that? They will honor the warranty on their cameras, 
  regardless of whether it is USA or gray.


   



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

RE: [Digital BW] scanners

2002-11-13 by Jonah, Jim

I see a lot of people suggesting the Canon. 
 
When I researched this a while back, a lot of the reviewers rated the
Nikon Scanners the best. Including, to Canons chagrin (spelling?),
George Lepp (who is a Canon Contract photographer).
 
I bought the Nikon scanner. It's worked great. The batch slide scanner
attachment is also very useful. (does cannon offer this now? They didn't
in the past) The 16x over scanning produces awesome shadow detail. ICE
works great. You can apply Unsharp Masking at scan time (most people
suggest doing it lightly), and the workflow works well. 
 
I've seen some people complain about the scanning software. It's worked
fine for me. That said, I've profiled my entire workflow. During
scanning I have the image saved without any color space conversion
(raw). I then apply the Scanner profile to the image when opening it in
Photoshop and have the color space converted to AdobeRGB. Generally I
don't need to do any pre-scan adjustments (levels, white point/black
point, curves, etc.) However, if the image is off very badly, then the
NikonScan software works well for that (level, curves, etc)
 
Even though the Nikon scanner costs more, I'd take a hard look at it.
 
You know the old saying about tools: buying it cheap the first time
costs more... (because you end up buying the "better" tool anyway in the
long run).
 
My opinion.
 
Jim
Show quoted textHide quoted text
	-----Original Message-----
	From: knightmaer35@... [mailto:knightmaer35@...] 
	Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 5:00 AM
	To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
	Subject: Re: [Digital BW] scanners
	
	
	In a message dated 11/11/02 7:58:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
	leicachris@... writes:
	
	
	> Canon's suggested price is $1,100. Do not buy a gray market
scanner, Canon
	> will not fix it if it breaks.
	> 
	
	Are you sure about that? They will honor the warranty on their
cameras, 
	regardless of whether it is USA or gray.
	
	
	[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
	
	
	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
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
	- 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 the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . 
	



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

Re: [Digital BW] scanners

2003-01-13 by Jerry Olson

Marcell, Microtek always made the Agfa duoscanners.

I have a T2500 Duo Scanner; it does 2500 Optical.

It is GREAT for 645 and larger negatives. For 35mm, I would stick with a 
Canon, Nikon, or Minolta destop
film scanner.  You really do need the higher dpi if you want excellent 
quality 35mm scans.  Howver, the 2720 DPI
scanners can give you a pretty decent 12x18 inch inkjet print. The 4000 
DPI models would be better though.

Jerry

and no, the Agfa could not give you better 35mm scans than any current 
3000 dollar desktop scanner.



Marcel Laufer wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Again, I'm relatively inexperienced and unsophisticated (no this is 
> not one of those porno lines).  I have been unhappy with my B&W scans 
> and noticed that a friend had better results with his 
> now-out-of-production Agfa duoscan HiD than I do with my approx. $3k 
> desktop film scanner.  I've been scouring around on ebay and noticed 
> an Agfa T2500 for sale (at a not particularly cheap price) and did a 
> little research and have seen that it was there 'top of the line' 
> professional scanner.  Capable of 2500 DPI optical res. with pretty 
> good numbers.  I now know that the software is at least as important 
> as the specs and, as I said the Agfa seems pretty good on that count.
> Question:  Anybody familiar with this scanner and its software?  Are 
> there any reasons to believe that this type of scanner (dual) can 
> compete with a Nikon or Polaroid or Minolta film scanner for B&W 
> scanning bragging rights?  Any comments on it?  Lastly, the newer 
> Microtek bears a strong family resemblance to the Agfa (someone 
> actually said that when Agfa left the scanner business Microtek 
> employed their designer) model 1800f; would that be a better unit 
> than the Agfa?
> Thanks
> Marcello

Re: [Digital BW] scanners

2003-01-13 by penland.walpen@mindspring.com

i chose Umax scanner   have a Umax Powerlook III   because the company i
worked for used them (a high line art mag publisher)   no one here has
ever mentioned them   i have been pretty happy with mine  (upgraded from
the 2000s or something, still Umax)   any feedback?  jno

Re: [Digital BW] scanners

2003-03-11 by sdmey4@aol.com

In a message dated 3/11/2003 12:59:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
mark@... writes:
Snip>
> Just keep in mind that these bargain drum scanners like my Howtek are about
> >10 years old at this point and repairs are expensive. Someone recently
> >bought one with loading station and software for $1,300 but it died almost
> >immediately and had to be shipped off to be repaired. Shipping is not a
> >trivial matter since they are heavy beasts. Mine weighs 150 pounds and is
> >about 24" by 36".
> Hey Martin that was me! Just checking in. The main reason It died 
Immediately was because it was shipped to me improperly and the alignment got 
out of whack so it couldn't calibrate! Got the scanner back from Aztek 
finally Last Week, I bought the scanner in Dec 2002. Shipped from Texas to 
Seattle, and Seattle round trip to Southern California. You can't just put 
them in a box and Ship. They are very, very sensitive to rough handling. If 
the original shipping crate from Howtek was available that would make me feel 
much better about buying another that needed to be shipped.
The standard Howtek Service is 900.00 That got it going and up to spec. I 
added one of the more expensive fans that was making noise that cleaning 
didn't help so that was another 150.00 Shipping was 460.00 round trip. A 
major Hassle.
But Now I'm up and running and actually think it was worth it! I was tempted 
to write it off many times. 1500.00 for the scanner, 1500 in repairs and 
shipping and close to 2000.00 for DigitalPhotoLab Howtek software. So I'm at 
5k 
I would suggest buying from a dealer that has them guaranteed or if you buy 
on the cheap just have it sent directly to Aztek for a Maitenance Service 
@900.00
Finally all is good.
For scanner buyers out there, and I'm sure Martin will agree, Buy the best 
scanner you can afford, or you'll be replacing you budget models on a regular 
basis.
Steven Meyers



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

Re: [Digital BW] scanners

2003-03-12 by Martin Wesley

----- Original Message -----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: <sdmey4@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] scanners


> In a message dated 3/11/2003 12:59:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> mark@... writes:
> Snip>
> > Just keep in mind that these bargain drum scanners like my Howtek are
about
> > >10 years old at this point and repairs are expensive. Someone recently
> > >bought one with loading station and software for $1,300 but it died
almost
> > >immediately and had to be shipped off to be repaired. Shipping is not a
> > >trivial matter since they are heavy beasts. Mine weighs 150 pounds and
is
> > >about 24" by 36".
> > Hey Martin that was me! Just checking in. The main reason It died
> Immediately was because it was shipped to me improperly and the alignment
got
> out of whack so it couldn't calibrate! Got the scanner back from Aztek
> finally Last Week, I bought the scanner in Dec 2002. Shipped from Texas to
> Seattle, and Seattle round trip to Southern California. You can't just put
> them in a box and Ship. They are very, very sensitive to rough handling.
If
> the original shipping crate from Howtek was available that would make me
feel
> much better about buying another that needed to be shipped.
> The standard Howtek Service is 900.00 That got it going and up to spec. I
> added one of the more expensive fans that was making noise that cleaning
> didn't help so that was another 150.00 Shipping was 460.00 round trip. A
> major Hassle.
> But Now I'm up and running and actually think it was worth it! I was
tempted
> to write it off many times. 1500.00 for the scanner, 1500 in repairs and
> shipping and close to 2000.00 for DigitalPhotoLab Howtek software. So I'm
at
> 5k
> I would suggest buying from a dealer that has them guaranteed or if you
buy
> on the cheap just have it sent directly to Aztek for a Maitenance Service
> @900.00
> Finally all is good.
> For scanner buyers out there, and I'm sure Martin will agree, Buy the best
> scanner you can afford, or you'll be replacing you budget models on a
regular
> basis.
> Steven Meyers
>
Steve,

Glad to hear you got the scanner back without having to do any major
repairs. At this point you should be in really good shape with it. Let me
know how you like DigitalPhotoLab. I passed in favor of Silverfast strictly
for economic reasons. $1,300 vs. $2,100 at the time.

The scanner game is a lot like the enlarger game. Start out with a small
35mm enlarger, then trade it for a medium format, then a 4x5 each time
taking a loss. All together I am probably out of pocket close to $10,000
over 3 years for scanning solutions. Of course 3 years ago the Howtek would
probably have set me back $10,000+ proving that the bleeding edge does
indeed bleed you dry!

Martin Wesley

Re: [Digital BW] scanners

2003-03-12 by Ernst Dinkla

----- Original Message -----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] scanners


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <sdmey4@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 1:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] scanners
> > For scanner buyers out there, and I'm sure Martin will agree,
Buy the best
> > scanner you can afford, or you'll be replacing you budget
models on a
> regular
> > basis.
> > Steven Meyers
> >
> Steve,
>
> Glad to hear you got the scanner back without having to do any
major
> repairs. At this point you should be in really good shape with
it. Let me
> know how you like DigitalPhotoLab. I passed in favor of
Silverfast strictly
> for economic reasons. $1,300 vs. $2,100 at the time.
>
> The scanner game is a lot like the enlarger game. Start out
with a small
> 35mm enlarger, then trade it for a medium format, then a 4x5
each time
> taking a loss. All together I am probably out of pocket close
to $10,000
> over 3 years for scanning solutions. Of course 3 years ago the
Howtek would
> probably have set me back $10,000+ proving that the bleeding
edge does
> indeed bleed you dry!
>
> Martin Wesley

One could learn another lesson from the enlarger story: digital
is taking over !  That made enlargers obsolete and it will make
scanners obsolete. Durst Laboraters are very cheap nowaday, drum
scanners get cheaper every day. Heidelberg is no longer producing
them. Buy the best budget scanner available now and check whether
you need another one 3 years later. If so you will get a far
better one then, if not you spend the money on the best digital
camera. The threads that I have seen on drum scanner maintenance,
drivers that are getting too old for the OSses around and the
price of the software to keep them running (if possible) do not
justify the gain in quality (if available). Most list members
here are not printing above A3 size. Your advice was a good one
five years ago but then the drum scanner price was also higher,
could be that there is some relation between the two.

Ernst

Re: [Digital BW] scanners

2003-03-12 by Martin Wesley

----- Original Message -----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "Ernst Dinkla" <E.Dinkla@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 12:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] scanners


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 7:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] scanners
>
(snip earlier)
> >
> > The scanner game is a lot like the enlarger game. Start out
> with a small
> > 35mm enlarger, then trade it for a medium format, then a 4x5
> each time
> > taking a loss. All together I am probably out of pocket close
> to $10,000
> > over 3 years for scanning solutions. Of course 3 years ago the
> Howtek would
> > probably have set me back $10,000+ proving that the bleeding
> edge does
> > indeed bleed you dry!
> >
> > Martin Wesley
>
> One could learn another lesson from the enlarger story: digital
> is taking over !  That made enlargers obsolete and it will make
> scanners obsolete. Durst Laboraters are very cheap nowaday, drum
> scanners get cheaper every day. Heidelberg is no longer producing
> them. Buy the best budget scanner available now and check whether
> you need another one 3 years later. If so you will get a far
> better one then, if not you spend the money on the best digital
> camera. The threads that I have seen on drum scanner maintenance,
> drivers that are getting too old for the OSses around and the
> price of the software to keep them running (if possible) do not
> justify the gain in quality (if available). Most list members
> here are not printing above A3 size. Your advice was a good one
> five years ago but then the drum scanner price was also higher,
> could be that there is some relation between the two.
>
Ernst,

I agree. The drum scanners were the expensive and labor intensive workhorses
of the prepress service bureau that moved images from film to digital for
commercial printing for the last 20 years or so. The cost and turn around
time of drum scans  has probably been one of the biggest economic factors in
prompting commercial photographers to spend big bucks for the high end
digital cameras. As costly as they initially were the return on investment
was definitely there.

I am sure the high end enlargers (always wanted an 8x10 Laborater!) like all
traditional processing equipment, are suffering from digital as well.

Regarding the drum scanners though I have to disagree somewhat. Once you get
a well running machine they should last you quite awhile. They were built
like tanks to handle the round the clock production demands of service
bureaus. They generally do not require device drivers since they are SCSI
devices. Also like myself many people set them up with an older dedicated
computer just to run the scanner. Mine is run with a 5 year old PC and Win
98. There doesn't seem to be any shortage of new software either. Both
Silverfast and Aztec keep releasing new versions. There are probably
problems with some of the lesser known brands though.

As to quality, if none of my negs were larger than medium format I would
have been content to stay with my Polaroid 120. In fact I kept it for quite
awhile planning to continue using it for MF and 35mm film since it was more
convenient than the Howtek. However, once I tried some 35mm and MF on the
Howtek I quite using the Polaroid altogether as I found the quality
improvement while small to still be worth taking the trouble to use the
Howtek. I did a scanning comparison of my 2400, Polaroid 120 and the Howtek.
If I rate the Howtek scan at a "10" the 120 scan would be a "9" to "9.5" and
the 2400 scan a "7" to "7.5". The issue for me is in the capture of very
fine detail and this may not be important to everyone. The fact does remain
that you get less and less improvement in quality as you move up into the
higher end scanners.

The big scanning problem remains with large format negs, 4x5 and up. Even at
A3 sizes a print from a 4x5 neg is different than the same shot from say a
6x7cm neg. I find this to be true whether the print comes from the darkroom
or my 1280. While there are excellent desktop film scanners for MF there is
not much available for 4x5. What turned me to the Howtek was the realization
that a new Polaroid 45 would have cost about as much as I spent on the
Howtek. The Imacons are great but out of my price range although if I had
gotten one in the first place my cost would have been about the same.

Someday I hope to have a 4x5 scanning back from my view camera that can be
used for backpacking and costs less than a new car but I suspect I am in for
a long wait. Hopefully the Howtek will hold up that long!

Martin Wesley

Re: [Digital BW] scanners

2003-03-12 by John Vitollo

I'm another member of the list that has a Howtek Drum Scanner. I purchased it on eBay last year for $2900 dollars. Came with two drums, mounting station, fluids and Trident 3 software. One of the biggest factors for purchasing it was the seller was only a 35 minute drive from me so saved $300 plus on shipping charges and could test the scanner before I handed over the check. The lab that was selling the scanner spent about 2 hours with me showing me how to mount and scan film. I got really lucky with this purchase had months of great scanning! 

But!

A few months latter I noticed banding in the shadows and tried fixing it myself but to no avail. So it's going to Aztek to be serviced - hopefully with the $900 service treatment that Steve M. got will do the trick. If all goes well I'll have a scanner that can scan up to 8X10 for $3800! The scanner is built like a tank and once fixed should last a few more years of reliable service. It's much more versatile  than a medium format scanner for $3000. Drum scans have a three dimensional quality that CCD scans do not have and now I rarely want to scan on anything else.

Would I do it again? For sure...I'm a little smarter now know what to look for. If you can find one for under $3000 I'd go for it.

John V.

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.