Re: negative scanners (OT)

To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca, emanphoto@gmail.com
Subject: Re: negative scanners (OT)
From: Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:20:50 -0400
Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca

I agree with Ryuji. I have seen many real world comparisons between drum, Imacon, high-end flatbeds and the consumer Epsons and the results simply are much less persuasive than the comparison at http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=470241529&size=o

And as Ryuji notes, the samples differ a lot in contrast. Also, one can never be sure what type of sharpening, if any, was done in the scan.

Sandy King

At 8:35 PM -0400 6/27/07, Ryuji Suzuki wrote:

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.