Nick Makris (nick@mcn.org)
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 05:40:50 -0800
Garet and All
Regarding the Agfa/Nikon scanner purchase.
Some more information is needed here; my plans include the printing of a
combination of 100+ images comprised of, in no particular degree, 35MM (no
negs), 120 & 4X5 formats in both slides and negs. These images have stood
up to the many culling tests performed all of us from time to time.
Although I have a well equipped darkroom, I have all but decided that
producing the larger format negs from film and chemicals is not in the cards
for various reasons. And, I have previously contemplated purchasing
Photoshop more than once. I currently have a very satisfactory flatbed
36bit scanner.
The full version of Photoshop 4.0 is included with both of these devices;
The Agfa Duoscan ($2700US) and the Nikon LS4500 ($5000US - Refurbished and
$6500 - New). While money is not the main issue, noone likes to spend money
on something they don't need and the difference between these two units is
more than small change.
While the Nikon has a sound reputation as a dedicated film scanner, the Agfa
is also touted highly and is in use in many photo service labs. The only
absolute spec that I could compare is the number of CCD elements in the
optics. The Nikon with 5000 and the Agfa with 8000. The others are not
fully comparable because the Nikon is stated in DPI and the Agfa in PPI - I
for one can not analogise. Not fully understanding the differences is the
reason for this thread.
The other factor that sets the Agfa apart from other flatbed scanners with
transparency adapters (I think) is that there is no intermediate glass layer
between the film and lens.
I hope we are all getting something out of this. More thoughts?
Nick
Garet Wrote
>I'm not really sure what the point is here. If you are going with a
>35mm original, then why not just get a small scanner dedicated to
>transparencies. If you are going with a larger format original, then
>why would you go through all those extra printing steps that introduce
>potential problems and increase contrast before getting a digital
>file? If you are starting with a large format then presumably you are
>interested in the highest quality. Why not get a high quality scan
>from the original. Am I missing a point here, or did you inherit a
>large format camera and/or have a fat wallet?
>
>Garet Denise
>garet@rmi.net
Nick Wrote
>
>>This subject has undoubtedly be discussed before, however, the
>thought keeps
>>returning.
>>
>>Has anyone ever printed a transparency on, say 8X10, RC paper,
>thereby
>>creating a continuous tone negative? Then scanning that negative as
>>reflective art; and then using, dare I say, standard output to create
>the
>>contact negative.
>>
>>This plays into my decision as to whether to buy a film scanner or
>use my
>>flatbed scanner as described.
>>
>>Any thoughts?
>>
>>Nick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:43