Re: negative scanners (OT)

To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca, emanphoto@gmail.com
Subject: Re: negative scanners (OT)
From: Ryuji Suzuki <rs@silvergrain.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:35:36 -0400 (EDT)
Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
In-reply-to: <9527a22e0706271654u2d939a41vd68686c0cc3adb11@mail.gmail.com>
List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
References: <web-143920650@wavecable.net><20070627.180916.245164009.lifebook-4234377@silvergrain.org><9527a22e0706271654u2d939a41vd68686c0cc3adb11@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca

From: eric nelson <emanphoto@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: negative scanners (OT)
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:54:53 -0500

> Although I've heard of very slight improvements via the V-series
> epsons and wet mounting over their 4990, (which I have), the proof was
> in the pudding for me for using film scanners over flatbeds.
> http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=470241529&size=o

I'm not sure about that comparison photo. The two samples
differ significantly in contrast. A lot of comparison tests
I've seen don't factor in the difference in image contrasts
produced by various scanners and softwares.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: negative scanners (OT)
  - From: Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>

References:
- Re: negative scanners (OT)
  - From: jneuhauser@wavecable.com
- Re: negative scanners (OT)
  - From: Ryuji Suzuki <rs@silvergrain.org>
- Re: negative scanners (OT)
  - From: eric nelson <emanphoto@gmail.com>