tlitody
Well-known
Just a thought.
Most of the images posted from film scans here look pretty good and some really good scans. But occasionally there are a few which look like bad scans, often b+w but not always.
So we can get an idea of which are the good scanners, it would be useful if people could include the scanner make/model when they post scan images.
Most of the images posted from film scans here look pretty good and some really good scans. But occasionally there are a few which look like bad scans, often b+w but not always.
So we can get an idea of which are the good scanners, it would be useful if people could include the scanner make/model when they post scan images.
ZeissFan
Veteran
I'll add the information to my signature.
tlitody
Well-known
What a good idea.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
What about people who are not particularly competent scanners ... or have poor post processing skills? It could confuse the issue a little IMO!
tlitody
Well-known
Do you really think no information is the better option? Just leave anyone interested guessing?
Besides if some from one scanner model are really good then that would show the capability when done properly. And scanning isn't exactly difficult.
Last edited:
franswa
Orbiting
It all starts with a good capture on the negative. Scanning is only a small portion of the big picture.
That said, I use a Minolta Scan Multi II, but just recently acquired an Epson V750.
That said, I use a Minolta Scan Multi II, but just recently acquired an Epson V750.
divewizard
perspicaz
I get all mine scan at Precision Camera or North Coast Photo. I do not have the time to do it myself, and their scans are great.
goffer
Well-known
Scanner: Epson v500
Scanning Software: Epson Scan
Post Processing: Lightroom 3, I usually bump the contrast a bit.
April_R4A_tmax400_959 by akagoffer, on Flickr
Scanning Software: Epson Scan
Post Processing: Lightroom 3, I usually bump the contrast a bit.
April_R4A_tmax400_959 by akagoffer, on Flickr
tlitody
Well-known
I think the idea is to put your scanner in your signature rather than everyone to post a message in the feedback forum about which scanner they use. That way whenever you post an image people have a fair idea about what was used to scan it. They'll never remember from what is posted in this thread. i.e. the thread is a forum suggestion rather than a scanning discussion.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
I consider myself competent enough to add the info to my tag
ruby.monkey
Veteran
Between VueScan and Flickr, it's taken care of for me.
tlitody
Well-known
Steven Veit
Newbie
Seems to me that there are way too many variables in play to be able to make much sense out of knowing what scanner someone used. I can't really even say that I learn all that much from knowing what camera, lens or film someone used. I've come to believe that it's the photographer's vision together with skill in communicating that vision that account for most of the variation in what we find appealing in photographs.
tlitody
Well-known
Well I give people the benefit of any doubt. I mean, if they can operate a camera, get correct composition, exposure and focussing, I think scanning isn't going to present much of a problem.
tlitody
Well-known
I really don't see any harm in it. If you don't read anything into it, which you're not obliged to do, then what's the harm. Those that want to include their scanner in sig can but it's never going to be obligatory.