james_wilcox Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Belatedly, if you take a look at my portfolio, I have uploaded a comparision between three scanners: Imacon 848, Nikon 4000, Minolta 5400. The Imacon and Nikon belonged to a shop and I used them, the Minolta I bought. The three scans have not been touched in Photoshop, and the only adjustments made during scanning were to the exposure value. Hope this is of some help to those considering a new purchase. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_wilcox Posted June 27, 2004 Author Share Posted June 27, 2004 I shuld add that I'm a total novice to scanning and digital imaging, so bear this in mind when evaluating the scans; I'm sure more could be pulled out of each scanner. I also posted another scan from the Minolta that does it a little more justice as I've got to know how the machine works. All photos were taked with an M6 with Tri-x. As an aside, they all appear darker on photo.net than on my monitor. Any ideas why? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oskar_ojala Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 <i>As an aside, they all appear darker on photo.net than on my monitor. Any ideas why?</i> <p>Different gamma/color calibration difference in the image editor and browser? <p>A suggestion: post a 1:1 crop of the image so that we can get an idea of resolution and sharpness of focus, as well as try another film type too (preferably finer grain) to compare. I have no doubts that any of these scanner can produce a good result at the size you're posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig_Cooper11664875449 Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 James, I agree that different resolutions confuse the issue a little but my biggest concern here is the quality of the scans on each machine. In the examples shown, the Imacon and Minolta offer very high contrast next to the Nikon but in doing this the shadow detail is non existent - with reference to whats achieved in the Nikon example. Although not familiar with output from the Minolta, there is no way you couldnt extract more detail out of this image from the Imacon if the Nikon can manage it. regards Craig / Beijing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stepan_pylyp Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 James, take a look at the histograms of the images in Photoshop and you will see that they are all very different. The histogram of the Nikon scan shows that the darkest areas have been "lifted" to about 20 (on a scale of 255) and under this there is nothing. This just means that the darker areas are easier to "see into" but I doubt there is any more detail in there. The Minolta scan shows indication of some automatic adjustment, particularly in the highlights. If this is correct then I suspect that you will obtain better detail in the highlights and most likely also in the shadows if you turn all automatic features off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 thats a useless test on the web.....especially the way you did it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stepan_pylyp Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Grant, what's your problem? I've read a lot of impolite answers on Photo.net but yours tops them all. James wanted to be as helpful as possible by sharing his experiences. What were YOU trying to achieve? Was your contribution useful? Not at all! Did you do it well? Not at all! If you have nothing to contribute then please refrain from commenting in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 thanx stepone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jan_brittenson Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 For what it's worth (probably not much is my guess), all the film scans in my Samples portfolio were made on my Imacon. But it's just web size stuff, not something to judge resolution by. I'm sure if you scanned something <b><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2475063&size=md">like this</a></b> using any of the scanners mentioned I'm sure they'd all look pretty much the same in web sizes. I scan to print (Epson 7600) though, and for that the Imacon works great. (BTW, is an older model I bought used for $4000 in 2002.) Mainly from 4x5, 6x12, 6x7, 35mm, and like to do things like put a 120 strip from the Mamiya 7 in the 135 strip holder and scan the central portion for a 24x70 image. Also 4x5 reflectives (Polaroid Type 59) to reproduce in larger sizes. So for my needs it's a great tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johann_fuller Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Unless you apply a minus value of 120 in the USM control of the Imacon scanner software it will automaticaly apply USM even if you untick the USM control box - this will always make scans from any Imaon look more impressive in any comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now