Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance

[Gordon Tassi <gtassi@erols.com>]

Art:  I have a LS-30 and mostly use Vuescan.  There are times when I have 
failed to
use its version of ICE and wish I had done so. I would rather not see the dust,
specks, scratches, etc. on the neg. or slide at all.  Any softening can be
corrected by using the USM.

It sure beats the process of black and white printing and then spotting the 
print.
I have been in some pretty clean darkrooms and no matter how we tried we were
alsays doing some spotting to get rid of the artifacts.  The digital system, 
even
if you do not have ICE, is is a lot easier and faster.

Gordon

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I find it very interesting just how defensive most of the Nikon scanner
> owners are on this list.
>
> The question below was a reasonable one.  Do the new Nikon scanners tend
> to amplify the dust and dirt when dICE is off, as they do on the older
> scanners?
>
> All the sudden all these Nikon scanner owners are in love with dust,
> dirt, fingerprints and scratches, and want to see them as clearly as
> possible. ;-)
>
> When the LS 2000 and LS 30 came out MANY of the owners mentioned that it
> was a good thing the Nikon's has dICE because the scans without them so
> amplified the dust, etc, that the scanner would be very difficult to use
> without the dICE feature, compared to other scanners they had used.
>
> Somehow, dust and dirt and scratches have become some sort of virtue, or
> badge of courage that Nikon scanner owners proudly wear.
>
> When lighting sources for photographic enlargers were introduced that
> reduced these bugaboos with minimal loss of resolution, everyone was
> happy to have them (well, except a few that preferred to spend half
> their lives doing retouching in color, and were using condenser lighting
> for color) but somehow its not the same with scanners.
>
> The Nikons do slightly improve resolution (at least in the middle of the
> image) by using LED light sources and a unfiltered CCD, but, in so doing
> they make dust, et al, more obvious, unless you turn on the dICE, at
> which point you have a result that is likely softer than the equivalent
> scanner with a non-LED light source.
>
> So, it appears there's no free lunch, but that doesn't mean my menu is
> better or worse than yours.  I do know that yours is more expensive.
>
> Art
>
> Isaac Crawford wrote:
>
> > Rob Geraghty wrote:
> >
> >> Dave wrote:
> >>
> >>> Nikon scanners.  Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans
> >>> performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems
> >>> with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this
> >>> has been improved, and if so, by how much.
> >>
> >
> >
> >       Hmmm... was the scanner *adding* the dust and scratches? I would 
>rather
> > have a scanner that gets as much info off of the film as possible, and
> > if there are dust and scratches on the film, they should be resolved...
> > I'm funny that way...;-)
> >
> >
> > Isaac