RE: Only slightly OT: scanners

Louis,

I know it doesn't come close to a film scanner but I just can't rationalize
spending so much money on a 2 1/4 scanner yet. I shoot a lot of 6x7 film so
this has to do for now. I'm still waiting for them to come down in price.
Hopefully that will happen within a couple of years.

Gerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Louis de Stoutz [mailto:loudest@attglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 4:01 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Only slightly OT: scanners

Thanks Gerry. I've been planning on getting one of those anyway, but
even then the 4870 won't get close to a dedicated film scanner, I'm
afraid. Though I guess I should test it first before taking the next step.

Louis

Gerry Giliberti wrote:

> http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mfholder.html
> http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mfholderintro.html
>
> Check this out. One of the worst features of the Epson Perfection scanner
> is the medium format film holder, which is oriented in the wrong
direction.
> Here's a little gizmo invented by photographers for about $30
>
> Gerry G
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Louis de Stoutz [mailto:loudest@attglobal.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 5:42 PM
> To: alt photo process list
> Subject: Only slightly OT: scanners
>
>
> Since most of you use scanners, may I ask:
>
> between the Nikon 9000ED and the Konica/Minolta Multi Pro, which one
> should I prefer for B&W 120? The Epson 4870 doesn't get quite close
> enough to the grain and an Imacon leaves my wallet too empty. "B&W" has
> to be stressed since ICE doesn't work there and the Nikon excels in
> reproducing dust.
>
> Any thoughts are welcome, thanks,
> Louis
>
>
>
Received on Wed Apr 20 14:10:50 2005