Re: filmscanners: Enlargements & Film Sacnners

["John Bradbury" <bradbury@on.aibn.com>]

I shot some hockey pictures this last season, and from that experience would
recommend the longer lens. I used 2 types of film Fugi 800 and Kodak portra
400. I have a Nikon Coolscan 3 and the 800 film scanned with huge grain
making it impossible crop the negs to gat the expressions on the kids faces
I was looking for. The Kodak was OK and using Genuine Fractals i could get
the "digital zoom" with some effort. I was using a f2 80mm lens If I would
have had the longer one the I could have got the lose up without the fuss.
Around here (In Ontario) a lot of photographers are shooting digital and
selling prints as the kids leave the arena.
John Bradburu
----- Original Message -----
From: <GNUNEMAKER@aol.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 6:33 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Enlargements & Film Sacnners


> We are new into the film scanner environment and looking for some
assistance
> in advance of making of decision on several issues.  As amateur ice hockey
> photographers we shoot in very poor light.  We are currently contemplating
a
> Nikon 4000 scanner to work in concert with Photoshop 6.0.  We currently
shoot
> with Nikon F5's and lenses at 200/2.8 and 300/4.  Our question is will our
> scanner provide the ability to crop and enlarge clearly our negatives (say
to
> 11x14), or do we need to invest in a 400/2.8 lens.  Our options appear to
be
> either the 400/2.8 or 300/2.8 at half the price.  In either case we will
be
> acquiring the scanner -- just hate to overspend if we can accomplish the
same
> result with a new scanner.
>
> Thanks