I find that if I resist looking at my slides until I have found time to scan
them then there is very little dust on them. Obviously doesn't help with
your current slide collection.
Also keep the scanner covered when not in use and as Roger Miller suggested
if you only use one slide in the holder at a time there are non waiting
outside the scanner collecting dust. It's a bit of a pain to work like
this - but is better than lengthy de-spotting.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barbara & Martin Greene" <martbarb@earthlink.net>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 3:00 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
> Steve
> Thanks for sending the link. As the old saying goes, "A picture is worth
a
> thousand words." I can see very clearly what you meant. Looking at these
> images, dust on the Nikon is more extensive and intensive. Also, the
grain
> does seem more exaggerated and there is a lot more 'noise' or some kind of
> breakdown of the pixels. The shadow detail is much better on the Polaroid.
> This has been most helpful, and, like you, I'm feeling that the Polaroid
> does a better job, making it the scanner of choice even without the
marvels
> of ICE. By the way, exactly what do you mean by, "I have discovered
however
> that by not
> > looking at
> >>> your images at all before scanning (I use slides) you can minimise the
> >>> de-spotting to about 5 minutes max."?
>
> Martin
> > From: "Steve Greenbank" <steve@gccl.fsbusiness.co.uk>
> > Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> > Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 02:23:40 +0100
> > To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
> >
> > There does seem to be a problem with the original page I posted (it used
to
> > have some buttons at the top I think). Anyway look at this direct
reference
> > (it's several MB).
> >
> >
> >
> > You can also see the more distinct dust on the Nikon.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Barbara & Martin Greene" <martbarb@earthlink.net>
> > To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 11:18 PM
> > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
> >
> >
> >> Rick
> >>
> >>
> >>> From: "Steve Greenbank" <steve@gccl.fsbusiness.co.uk>
> >>> Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> >>> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 16:40:03 +0100
> >>> To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> >>> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
> >>>
> >>> Rick Samco compared these two scanners here:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Up until I saw this I was quite keen to trade my Artixscan 4000T
(SS4000
> >>> clone) for a Nikon largely for ICE. After all de-spotting is a
nightmare
> >>> except on very clean images.
> >>>
> >>> I have yet to find any thing other than a clone tool that removes the
> > dust
> >>> spots from my A4000T scans. I have discovered however that by not
> > looking at
> >>> your images at all before scanning (I use slides) you can minimise the
> >>> de-spotting to about 5 minutes max. Obviously this isn't much good for
> > old
> >>> slides. I have some family slides ([not] cared for by my Dad) which it
> > would
> >>> take many hours to clean up. I only have a 17" monitor and have to
look
> > at
> >>> about 40 screen fulls to check one image for dust spots, but if you
have
> > a
> >>> huge monitor this is probably much easier.
> >>
> >> I use a nineteen inch monitor and in Photoshop I use the 'Print' and
> > 'Actual
> >> Pixels' views which lead to every spot showing up looking like a
pebble.
> >> While it makes it easier to find the junk, it leads to my seeing lots
more
> >> of it.
> >>>
> >>> On examining Rick's samples I decided that the Nikon seemed to have
very
> >>> slightly better sharpness and detail but turning on the ICE made it
very
> >>> slightly worse. This was reasonably acceptable, but the Nikon seems to
> > also
> >>> produce very grainy scans and the only cure is GEM which softens
images
> >>> quite badly. I have quite enough trouble with grain so I decided to
> > stick
> >>> with the A4000T.
> >>
> >> I think it is possible to compensate for the softening by through
careful
> >> adjustment of Unsharp Mask Filter. I'd really appreciate information
on
> > how
> >> you arrived at the conclusion that the, "The Nikon seems to also
produce
> >> very grainy scans." Grainy in comparison to what?
> >>
> >> Thanks, Martin
> >>>
> >>> Steve
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Barbara & Martin Greene" <martbarb@earthlink.net>
> >>> To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> >>> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 1:41 PM
> >>> Subject: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I've been told that the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 does not exaggerate
> > dust
> >>>> and crud to the same extent that the Nikon LS 4000 does. I've
examined
> >>>> Photo CD scans and found that, while there is much less, nevertheless
a
> >>> good
> >>>> deal of spots show up. Perhaps, dust is a problem in every scanner.
> > I'd
> >>>> appreciate if users of the Sprintscan would tell me just how much
stuff
> >>>> shows up in their slide scans. With a reasonably clean slide, just
how
> >>> much
> >>>> work has to be done using the rubber stamp in Photoshop to get a
really
> >>>> clean 13 x 19 print? Also, if you use a dust removal software
program,
> >>> such
> >>>> as Polacolor, Silverfast, or vuescan, how helpful is that? If such a
> >>>> program is used, to what extent does it soften the image and can that
> > be
> >>>> restored using unsharp mask.
> >>>>
> >>>> Martin
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
