wallace
Well-known
You can save a lot of money if you buy a second hand Polaroid sprintscan 35plus and a SCSI card for your PC. It's a wonderful little machine with soft light that won't show scratches and dust as much as the Nikons. It gives 2700 dpi (real) resolution, needs only 30 seconds for one negative and works very fine with traditional b/w films like Tri-X or APX100. It has very big dof, so bended negs are no problem. I have already purchased 2 of them from the USA where they can be found for next to nothing!
Thomas (wallace)
Thomas (wallace)
Svitantti
Well-known
Its good to remember that the real maximum resolution is not the biggest resolution you can choose with the software.
iridium7777
Established
can the minolta iv be used with an intel mac?
can the minolta iv be used with an intel mac?
i've found this:
http://ca.konicaminolta.com/support...s/dimage-scandual_4/compatibility/detail.html
but it doesn't seem to go up to 10.4.6 which is the intel mac?
can the minolta iv be used with an intel mac?
i've found this:
http://ca.konicaminolta.com/support...s/dimage-scandual_4/compatibility/detail.html
but it doesn't seem to go up to 10.4.6 which is the intel mac?
dfoo
Well-known
PPC apps can be used on intel macs. Nikon scan, for example, is a PPC app.
iridium7777
Established
that's for the reply, but what does that mean?
that's for the reply, but what does that mean?
that i have to have a windows partion and that's the only way to use it?
so no "real" intel mac integration where i can do everything in the mac os and cs3?
that's for the reply, but what does that mean?
that i have to have a windows partion and that's the only way to use it?
so no "real" intel mac integration where i can do everything in the mac os and cs3?
dfoo
Well-known
What? Please read again what I wrote. You can use PPC apps on an Intel mac, so there is no issue.
If you want to use the Windows app, however, for whatever reason you could use fusion.
If you want to use the Windows app, however, for whatever reason you could use fusion.
iridium7777
Established
sorr, my confusion is with...
sorr, my confusion is with...
what does ppc mean?
sorr, my confusion is with...
what does ppc mean?
dfoo
Well-known
ppc = power pc (ie: not intel).
Svitantti
Well-known
Vuescan also helps with some of the driver problems... Because it has its own drivers or something like that (dunno, I'm using Windows XP).
dfoo
Well-known
I use mac, but for the coolscan 5000 ED I use nikonscan for XP under Fusion. The mac version crashes all the time. Sucks.
nitrogen28
Member
I just started shooting film and it would be nice to have digital copies of my pictures on my laptop.
I don´t really care about the highest resolution, for that I will do wet-prints. I want something that scans my prints and films that gives good result for small prints and everyday application. The scanner should also be capable of catching the film style/grain.
What should I look for? I m a student so my budget is very limited. Would a Epson V500 do it? or even a V300?
I don´t really care about the highest resolution, for that I will do wet-prints. I want something that scans my prints and films that gives good result for small prints and everyday application. The scanner should also be capable of catching the film style/grain.
What should I look for? I m a student so my budget is very limited. Would a Epson V500 do it? or even a V300?
Last edited:
Svitantti
Well-known
Cheap, versatile and good doesn't come in the same package. I would just buy a used Minolta or Nikon for the film and then a cheap flatbed for the prints.
cwatgo1970
Member
No matter how carefully one may try to word them, SCANNER threads just always seem to turn into................
In the end however, everyone is left with making the best use of the tools they have at hand. I made this thread because I felt I needed something better (not best) than the much outdated Epson RX500, and most of you have made suggestions which could only move me upwards. With which ever scanner I choose....a newer model flatbed or an old dedicated film....I don't feel I can loose eitherway. I would only have improved. Therefore, I hope you all can agree that the goals of this thread have been made satisfied and should now be concluded.
If however the flatbed vs dedicated MUST persist, I shan't suggest the following... Not even as a last resort.
In the end however, everyone is left with making the best use of the tools they have at hand. I made this thread because I felt I needed something better (not best) than the much outdated Epson RX500, and most of you have made suggestions which could only move me upwards. With which ever scanner I choose....a newer model flatbed or an old dedicated film....I don't feel I can loose eitherway. I would only have improved. Therefore, I hope you all can agree that the goals of this thread have been made satisfied and should now be concluded.
If however the flatbed vs dedicated MUST persist, I shan't suggest the following... Not even as a last resort.
Last edited:
cwatgo1970
Member
While making do of what I have on hand, It seems I can at least attain a passable 35mm scan using the RX500. Save of course for my poor and blatant use of the dodge-n- burn tools in PS. While I feel it's passable, I know I could be getting much better with something more current. Even within my low budget range.
Taken with 90mm f/4 Collapsible Elmar and M2, both 1958.
Taken with 90mm f/4 Collapsible Elmar and M2, both 1958.
Last edited:
venchka
Veteran
Hang in there! I may have finally seen the light. I am getting B&W scans from 6x6 originals that don't require any "Help" in Lightroom. A year ago I was ready to swear off scanning altogether.
Svitantti
Well-known
cwatgo: Yes you can get acceptable webscans for about any flatbed that is able to scan film. But it is much different when you want A4-A3 prints from your films...
cwatgo1970
Member
Svitantti: Agreed! At least with the RX500 that is, as I've no experience with the others. I'm generally five years behind the current trends, but from what I've observed of black and white prints made with inkjets, I'm not sure if I will ever give up darkroom printing. I like to print my images on FB matte paper and tone them in sepia toner. I also like useing the easel blades of my Durst M600 to burn a rustic and shadowy border around my images. The final outcome renders a look I find marvelouse. It's the same look I tried to emulate into the scanned 35mm image. To date, I think the best method for achieving this look (and please educate me if I'm behind on the times) is still through traditional darkroom printing. I don't think I will use a scanner much for making prints.
However, I agree there is no reason one should avoid making scanned images which could also be good enough for quality printing, should such technology be feasably withing their grasp. Giving the large time investment one puts towards the post editing of each individual scanned image alone I think well makes the case that one should get the BEST scanner they can afford. This is probably the main reason you have me sold on the Minolta IV scanner. It has a history for a few quirks, but for the price and resolution, may well be worth the gamble. Since I'm still using Windows XP it should work out fine...I hope.
I will also have to get a flatbed at somepoint for scanning of my medium and large format negs. It seems evident that most (as most have noted) are quite capable and only marginally limited. Printworthy or not, the most effective means in which even the average amature photographer can make their images more viewable to the world abroad, is through posting of them on the internet. Perhaps the sum of scanned images should be edited and modeled primarily for presentation onscreen...IE the internet.
However, I agree there is no reason one should avoid making scanned images which could also be good enough for quality printing, should such technology be feasably withing their grasp. Giving the large time investment one puts towards the post editing of each individual scanned image alone I think well makes the case that one should get the BEST scanner they can afford. This is probably the main reason you have me sold on the Minolta IV scanner. It has a history for a few quirks, but for the price and resolution, may well be worth the gamble. Since I'm still using Windows XP it should work out fine...I hope.
I will also have to get a flatbed at somepoint for scanning of my medium and large format negs. It seems evident that most (as most have noted) are quite capable and only marginally limited. Printworthy or not, the most effective means in which even the average amature photographer can make their images more viewable to the world abroad, is through posting of them on the internet. Perhaps the sum of scanned images should be edited and modeled primarily for presentation onscreen...IE the internet.
Last edited:
dfoo
Well-known
Have you tried inkjet printing with a custom black and white inkset? I use the UT14 inkset from MIS. I really like the results I get with this combination on the Epson 1400 on matte paper.
Compared with my darkroom prints, I think the inkjet prints are better with this setup. Now, I'm not the worlds greatest printer in the darkroom, but I'm not terrible either. Of course, the fact that my enlarger got trashed when I moved back from China means I cannot print at all until I get a new one...
Compared with my darkroom prints, I think the inkjet prints are better with this setup. Now, I'm not the worlds greatest printer in the darkroom, but I'm not terrible either. Of course, the fact that my enlarger got trashed when I moved back from China means I cannot print at all until I get a new one...
cwatgo1970
Member
dfoo: No, I haven't seen any modern inkjet b&w prints lately, but would like to. I should also add that I find whitening of teeth far easier with a mouse than I did using the putty-tipped dodging stick inside my darkroom.
Last edited:
Matt(1pt4)
Established
I'm not sure I'd be put off by one person's bad experience with a used Scan Dual IV. Mine's scanned 500 rolls over the last three or four years, and I hope to get another 500 out of it. I've thought of buying a second used one, just in case.
That said, before I bought my scan dual, I used and epson 3170. It wasn't bad at all, and you could load it up with two strips up of 6 frames, which meant half as much futzing with the negative carriers. I think some of the newer epsons will even hold four strips.
If I was really on a budget, I'd take a look at Epson's clearance center. Most of the goods are refurbs, but I've had good luck with them. Right now they have V700s for $400 or a V350 for $100. The latter might do everything you need.
That said, before I bought my scan dual, I used and epson 3170. It wasn't bad at all, and you could load it up with two strips up of 6 frames, which meant half as much futzing with the negative carriers. I think some of the newer epsons will even hold four strips.
If I was really on a budget, I'd take a look at Epson's clearance center. Most of the goods are refurbs, but I've had good luck with them. Right now they have V700s for $400 or a V350 for $100. The latter might do everything you need.