Compared to what I can get from an enlarger, my Nikon 4000 is a god-send-no
problem with depth of focus problems either.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------
respond to bdplikaytis@bellsouth.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shunith Dutt" <shunith@vsnl.com>
To: <bdplikaytis@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 2:13 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Black and white scans onLS4000EDandotherissues
No problem here either :)
SD
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce M. Burnett" <buddybru@msn.com>
To: <shunith@vsnl.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 8:48 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Black and white scans onLS4000EDandotherissues
Austin,
You assume that everyone with a Nikon scanner has depth of focus issues.
But not me nor the three others that I personally know who use them. No
depth of focus problems. I am not saying that there isn't an issue with
depth of focus, but that some units(or maybe we just have flat film)do
not exhibit the problem.
Bruce Burnett
-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Austin Franklin
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 8:51 PM
To: buddybru@msn.com
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Black and white scans
onLS4000EDandotherissues
Hi Todd,
> Most of the sources I've seen discuss the Callier effect show the same
neg
> printed through the two light sources. Unfortunately, what they've
done is
> taken a neg that was tailored to print well on a coldlight and printed
it
> with a condenser, then claim the highlights burn out...DUH.
> Likewise if they
> print a neg that was tailored to a condenser and print it with a
coldlight
> it will look flat.
Well, it has been well proven that you can get the same density range
from
the same negative with a cold light or a point light source, using
appropriate exposure time, aperture and grade of paper (or filter), so
that
is a non-issue. The other issues are the "Callier effect", sharpness,
dust,
scratches and tonality (dynamic range).
> the
> Callier effect is predicable, and in some cases useful, and can be
> compensated for as needed.
What about the limited depth of focus, as well as scratches and dust?
How
do you compensate for that?
> Not sure if depth of focus is of any real relevance.
Snark, snark...ask people who own Nikon scanners if depth of focus is an
issue or not ;-)
> Anyway, just my experience, not out to tell anyone theirs is wrong.
Understood. Me too.
Austin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
title or body
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ().
Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 13/06/2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
