Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid

[rafeb <rafeb@channel1.com>]

At 01:17 AM 7/14/01 -0400, Dave King wrote:

>If there are no mirrors in either, what would explain better sharpness
>in the Imacon (assuming flat film in the Polaroid and Nikon)?


A good question, Dave, and I don't have an answer.. 
just an observation.

In the last Traveling Portfolio that I participated 
in, there were some prints -- printed on an Epson 
3000, no less -- that very much stood out in terms 
of sharpness and tonality.  I asked the author of 
those prints about the specifics, and was told that 
they were from large negatives (6x7, I think) and 
scanned on an Imacon.  That may have been one of 
the factors that led me to pursue larger film sizes, 
and all the extra aggravation and expense.

Since then, I'm happy to say -- a few of my 645 shots, 
scanned on the 8000, come pretty close to reproducing 
that sharpness and tonality.  Certainly a big step up 
from 35 mm stuff, scanned on the SprintScan.  Whether 
it's up to "Imacon" quality, I can't say.  Idle 
speculation, mostly, considering the Imacon's cost.

Now if I could only get my subjects and compositions 
to match those that came so easily on my old Nikon FE, 
I'd be even more pleased.


rafe b.