There are lots of things that cost $100 a pop that I like that I cannot justify. I would get a drum scan, but then I might be spoiled. I will be very interested to see how the scans from the 1800 compare. If I were making bigger prints, I would do more selective sharpening and would blur the skies. I think the Qimage algorithm is better than I can do tinkering in PS while looking at a monitor. It works for me, and the counter examples which have been posted involving digicam files do not convince me that what I am seeing on the paper is wrong. It feeds the printer with the optimal rez and it does print time sharpening based on the image size and print size. At print time, I use Quimage to process the images. I use a small amount of sharpening on some images, and none on others. Flatbed scans need sharpened, and sharpening can make everything worse. That may also affect the noise issue, or I may not be picky enough.:-) I use a modified zone system and keep negative density mostly under control, so Dmax is not an issue. There is nothing at 4x that is not in the scans, and I do not have a 10x magnifier. There is detail I can see at 20x in the negatives that I cannot see on the scans. It is within the scanner DOF, at least as far as my tests show.
I scan emulsion down - makes a difference - with a single sheet thickness of Manila folder paper as a shim to prevent Newton's rings if the film pops down. Vuescan will do this, but Silverfast does not.
My workflow is to scan for max info and do tuning in PS or PWP. Vuescan for the Canon got a lot better about 4 months ago. The canon software is terrible for LF, you have to use Silverfast or Vuescan. > perhaps Ed could do a little experimentation to see what happens and fill us in on the results. If the microtek wins that one then I will go the microtek route. I assume the microtek is 1800 dpi non interploated and the canon and epson are 4800 dpi non interpolated (until hear proof otherwise). The one test I would like to see is the canon (and epson) scanned without interpolation compared to the microtek scanned with interpolation to the same dpi as the canon (and epson). When you and paul get your testing done I will be keen to hear the results as I am with Kirks comaparative testing of the epson and microtek. Medium format is important for me hence my reticence to go with the microtek but it may be a better option. Then enter the microtek and there is a three way choice. However, in the absence of any real comparative testing which is becoming available for the epson then at least with the epson I would know what I was getting. I read the review some time ago and based primarily on the medium format film holders but also the apparent lower noise I would probably have gone for the canon over the epson.
0 kommentar(er)
