RE: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...

["Jawed Ashraf" <Jawed@cupidity.force9.co.uk>]

I agree - I was just about to write as much.

I don't really know how big a 645 neg is, but the thought of a 4000 dpi scan
across two or three inches (guess) of film makes the mind boggle.  Hmm, are
you prints 36 inches square?  Crikey

Lawrence, have you verified that you *need* to do multi-scanning?  Surely
the DMax of the 8000 is way beyond any negative you might be scanning.  And
have you evaluated a scan with no multi-scanning to see if it has banding?

Of course this doesn't actually excuse the banding.  I've been having my own
"problems" with the LS40 and my solution has become a degree of wilful
ignorance mixed with some corrective techniques that I think are
good-enough.  I feel Nikon Scan could be better implemented and Vuescan
doesn't work for all the old films I'm trying to scan, so I'm compromising.

And as final thought, 30 minutes per image of scanning costs you real
time/money.  Whatever saving you're achieving by not using third-party drum
scanning is offset by you having to sit around feeding negs.  What hourly
rate do you put on your time in the digital darkroom?

I liked the photos from Cuba on your website, by the way.  Particularly the
clothes lines and street basketball.

Jawed

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Preston Earle
> Sent: 18 July 2001 23:43
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Link to Nikon 8000 banding example...
>
>
> "Lawrence Smith" <lsmith@lwsphoto.com> wrote:
> "As my prints sell for hundreds of $ they need to be perfect."
>
> Preston wonders:
>
> If your scans need to be perfect, why are you trying to scan them on a
> $3,000 scanner?  Send them out to someone who has a high-end drum
> scanner or
> even a high-end flat-bed (like a Scitex Eversmart).  Those scans will be
> "perfect".  There is a reason why some scanners cost $500, some
> cost $3,000,
> and why some cost $30,000.  You don't really think that these three
> price-level scanners give the same quality, do you?
>
> If your prints sell for "hundreds of $", then $30 to $50 for a
> high-end scan
> can't be too expensive.
>
> Preston Earle, who is now ducking.
> PEarle@Triad.rr.com
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> I've known lots of trouble in my life, most of which never
> happened.---Mark
> Twain
>
>