mattb1

Sorry, both the scanners were set to their highest resolutions. Minolta at 5400 and Nikon at 4000. I'll see if I can find time to re-scan with the Minolta at 4000.

And, ya, I need to play around with the ROC, I don't know if its necessary on most photos. GEM however shouldn't be throwing off the color, should it?

This is by no means a scientific comparison, its just a quick

comparison with the same slide using a lot of the automated settings

that I may use in batch scanning. The photo its self has a lot of

flaws, like too much polarization, but it is pretty sharp. (It

looked pretty good under a cheap 15x loupe) It is an E6 slide.

I put the scans in a folder here: <

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=415297>

I used the ROC/GEM on the Nikon, which could explain the color

difference? Both used ICE. And both used auto focus. The scans on

the Minolta did use the grain diffuser, so maybe that contributed to

its softness.

On the Minolta I had to scan three times before the auto focus gave a

result close to the Nikon. And, I did not try to manually focus the

Minolta.

The details pics are at 100%.

To me the Nikon looks sharper. Also the Minolta had a LOT more

noise, which the Minolta had been on for a few hours doing batch

scans and the Nikon had just been turned on.

The Nikon looked to blow out the highlights a little, but that may be

due to the ROC post processing. And the shadow area?s are debatable.

The Nikon is much faster.

I had bought the Minolta because the Nikon was back ordered. I was

hoping that the higher resolution of the Minolta would make me want

to keep it, after all I want to get as much detail as possible out of

my 35mm?s. However, now I?m not sure if I should keep it. The Nikon

however I?ll keep because I plan on shooting 6x9 for quite a while.

I've had the scanner for about a month now, and have made a few scans in that time. Overall I really like it. Maybe I haven't figured out how to use the pixel polish feature yet, but so far I haven't found a use for it. To me it does too much 'polish'.

I LOVE the ICE, and it appears to get almost as much detail as a drum scan at the same resolution. It does a pretty good job of picking up info in the shadows, but I still have to double scan those problem slides. The color looks pretty good. Most of my experience so far has been just batch scanning in my 35mm's, using mostly the fully automatic settings. Maybe this winter I'll scan in my favorite 35mm?s and then play around with manual controls a little more.

I just don't relate to the Minolta scan software, it just doesn't make sense to me. The layout is not well done, unrelated actions are grouped together and breaks between buttons and other windows interfaces don't follow any logical order. But, it works...

Overall, so far it looks like a great tool to digitize my 35mm slides. I don't think I wasted my money.

Get an external hard drive, it will be a lot faster and easier to transfer to a new standard when it comes along? I just picked up a USB 2.0 drive with 120 Gig and a 8MB buffer for $140 at Walmart, that's about 30 DVD's worth of data... So its fairly close in price and you don't have to worry as much about the hard disk as you do with cd/dvd's.

I had gotten a DVD drive, and when I backed photo's on them it all seemed to work fine. I had used the verify mode, but still one of the DVD's can't read some of the photo's I put on it. Now they are lost forever... So personally I gave up on cd/dvd's.

You may want to use PKZIP to see if you can compress your RAW files when you archive them.

When you do start to build your printer profile, a word of warning is to let the prints from your printer COMPLETELY dry before scanning them. Wait a least a couple of hours if not overnight. Ink jet prints color shift during the drying process, and you don't want to profile them until the ink is in the 'final' state.

I have the Monaco system and have been frustrated because of this issue, the software kind of leads you to believe that you need to scan right after printing the target. Which I tried several times before someone on this forum pointed out the drying issue... I think you can print several targets, on your different papers, at one time by just going back and forth through the process. Not sure if its easy to then re-use these targets latter with out re-printing, I haven't tried this in a couple of months so I can't remember...

Unfortunately, using this system hasn't lived up to expectations for me. Probably because of the ink drying issue, the times I've tried it I haven't had great results. I get better results using generic printer profiles right now, but that could be because I have an error in the way I'm doing things. So the moral of the story could either be have realistic expectations or make sure you need a profiling system before wasting the time and money.

I still hope to get it working, mostly because I would like to send out large print jobs with out having to pay for them to do the color adjustments...

Could this be the well known magenta ink shift problem? The problem is due to air pollutants. Put the prints under glass after they dry if you must use glossy. Otherwise, the Epson color life paper and their Matte paper have much less of a problem with pollutants interacting with the ink. I have never heard of a buy back program, Epson?s answer to the problem was the color life paper.

Of course this is only true if your using Epson inks. Are you using another brand of inks? If so, I would think you would have much less of a problem with Epson inks. I have only had very rare color shits using Epson inks, maybe a couple of prints over the years.

What I think is pathetic is how a lot of people are down on Steve for wanting more out (or for less) of the current state of MF digital. Whats wrong with that? Isn't that what drives innovation that benefits us all? The position that the current capabilities is ok and therefore had better be ok for everyone else is absurd to say the least. If you have a camera that you are fond of, great, just don?t bad mouth people who are not also in love with your camera.

Sure, 35mm sensors are limited by physics to about 21mp. But whats wrong with having 21mp's? And don?t say ?my computer can't handle it? like you won't be buying a new computer in two to three years. If you really want less pixels, then you will still be better off as you can make the files any size you want. If you want more pixels, all the more reason that a 645 or 6x6, or even a 6x9 sized sensor. Personally, I'd love to have around 251mp, which is probably a little beyond my current 6x9's resolving power. However, I'd like to have it with great contrast and color rendition, and with no noise. Will this happen anytime soon? NO, but whats wrong with getting there eventually? And yes, manufacturing and chip design could get us there someday on a MF sized chip. Why would I want this? For cropping, for extreme detail in some situations, because that's what I see in my vision. Even if no one else is interested in seeing my vision.

Also, to put it down to telling which print is digital and which is analog from an other photographer is nearly absurd. Each process has an enormous amount of places for variation that will effect the final print, and its nearly impossible to tell which of those control steps the photographer or printer made in producing the print. Sure, a lot of errors are self evident like USM halo's, but minor changes are not as easy to tell. Not to mention what the photographers vision of the final print will be different than your own. Where it does make sense to compare the finial print is with in a photographer's own work and their own expectations.

I totally agree that different systems have their limitations and applications and that it is up to us to work with in those criteria. Sometimes the limitations are in themselves great motivations for creativity. However, what is wrong with wanting better tool's so that the boundaries of those limitations and applications are wider?

Still, the most important thing is to be taking pictures and having fun. I have fun and get satisfaction from everything from a cell phone camera to my 6x9. But whats wrong with wanting a cell phone camera that could be 6mp?

I just don't like anyone saying that your crazy for wanting more, people were saying that with 4mp's?

I use my 1270 very infrequently. With non-OEM pigmented inks it clogged all the time, I don�t think I got a single good print out of the whole ink cartridge. These clogs are not Epson�s fault. With OEM ink I use to get an occasional clogged head. Since I did this procedure on the 1270 I have only had one clog in six months, and that was because I left it on for a few days� Apply a small amount of windex to the pad where the print head parks when its off. Too much will cause a problem as well I have heard so be conservative in how much you put on. You can add more if needed, but removing it would be really hard I would imagine.

Also, turn it off when your not using it! That�s my biggest sin�