songster

Hi Matt,

I wasn't aware of the potential problem with LED light source, so I looked into it, and it

seems there are all sorts of opinions out there, but most are theoretical not practical.

My experience w Nikon 4000 is overall positive. Only complaint I have is that it takes a

long time to scan, and if set to multi-sampling, make sure you have a good book to read

while waiting. The scans are excellent from both B&W and chrome originals; color negs

are a little tricky for me and require some guess work; reminded me of the old days when I

used to make darkroom prints from color negs. As far as I can tell, the LED light source

does not cause problems when scanning the silver grains. I am able to extract much

information from the highlights and shadows. I don't want to go too far, but I feel that if

the information is on the film, with some practice, you should be able to scan it w/ the

4000ED. And, I scan directly into 16-bit grayscale b/c I haven't notice any advantage by

scanning a B&W neg into 48-bit RGB and convert back to grayscale. Some people insist on

scanning into RGB first, but it might be more of a personal choice and workflow issue.

When I was shopping around, I spent an entire afternoon trying both the Minolta 5400 and

SD III at the local shop (SDIII I actually bought and used for about a week before I decided

it won't do the job and returned it), maybe it was a software issue, but I just wasn't able to

get some of the details that existed in my darkroom prints. Talking to some of the local

pros who happened to be around, they suggested getting a scanner that can handle

kodachrome. OK! All this is just talk, I would gladly forward you my test scans from those

scanners if you would provide your email (not sure if I want to post them here).

I've read complaints about 4000ED scans being flat. This is probably due to the fact that

by recording more of the shadows and highlights, the software needs to compress the

midtone thus giving the impression of a flat scan. When working in digital, this is hardly a

problem, and one can simply increase the contrast by changing the curve w/in your

favorite image editing software. Nowadays, there is probably so much post processing

done in the scanner's software that it's hard to attribute the scan quality to either the

hardware or the software. Just keep in mind that if the information is in the files, you can

extract it. All this talk makes me want to go back to a traditional darkroom ;-)

That said, I think the best film scanner I've used is the Polaroid 45 Ultra (disclaimer:

haven't used any of the Imacon flextights and have only limited experience with drum

scans). However, those were 4x5 and 6x6 scans thus probably not a fair comparison.

Before I forget, with the example I stated, it didn't matter at all at what print size I output

the file as long as the pixel dimension / scanning resolution are the same. Keep in mind

that I meant from the same scanner. Using a 4000ppi scanner to scan at 2400ppi for the

file size that you want might be a waste, but can a 2400ppi scanner also give you the

highlights and shadows that you desire? As I stated earlier, I personally think that

3000ppi is about all you need for most films. There might be reasons to go higher if you

want to capture every single grain, but when I shop for a scanner, this is not the first

number that I look for.

My personal feeling is that manufacturers often use numbers to entice their customers

(ppi, Dmax...), but there are qualities that can't be expressed in numbers (especially

theoretical maximum that manufacturers often use). Kinda like saying that TechPan has

the finest grain and highest resolving power thus must be the best B&W film. While that's

true for certain applications, would anyone really want to shoot at 25 speed all the time

and take the care to develop TechPan very very very carefully? These numbers are

meaningless if the film doesn't give you the tonality that you seek! I personally prefer

APX100 or TX400 for their tonality (and shame on Agfa for discontinuing APX100 in 4x5).

OK, I am just rambling on and on, so I will stop. My best advice to you is still to try the

scanners out yourself in the store if possible. The internet contains vest amount of

information, but much is from people who have not use the product and aren't qualified to

give advices. Hope I didn't offend too many people, but fat chance of that, right!? ;-) Do

keep in mind that what I have written is just one man's opinion and experience. There are

certainly many people out there who have been very happy with the scanners that I

rejected. It's hard to know who to listen to until you have some hands on experience with

them.

More than my 2 cents ;-)

sw

I have gone through the exercise of finding a film scanner for B&W a couple of months

ago, and if the SD IV is anything like the SD III, I would avoid buying SD IV. I ended up

buying the Nikon Coolscan 4000. Although I ended up spending about 2-3X more for the

scanner, $800 quality scanner vs $300 paper-weight that took up too much space....

Digital ICE is not compatible w. B&W negatives, thus irrelevant. For me the most important

feature is good dynamic range to read both the shadow and highlight. Dimage SD III may

have attractive price and published spec, in reality, I have gotten better scans from a 5-

year old HP S20. Many manufacturers publish Dmax of 4.2, 4.8, but these are theoretical

Dmax and has no bearing on what the scanner is capable of. Optical resolution is

important to a point, but I doubt that most B&W negatives contain more than 3000ppi of

information unless you are using TechPan, APX25, or a very carefully processed Tmax100/

Fuji Acros.

In looking for a good film scanner for B&W negatives, I would find one that can scan

Kodachrom (when it comes to scanning, it's emulsion may have more in common w B&W

film than w color chrome/negatives).

As for scanning resolution, I typically scan at the scanner's max resolution b/c in many

cases I don't know by scanning at lower resolution, whether the scanner's optical system

actually zooms out to use the center of the CCD, or if the scaling down happens in the

software. BTW, I am not sure if I truly understand your question re. scanning resolution,

so I will try to answer the best I can:

Assuming I am using the HP S20 (2400ppi for 35mm frame of 24x36mm, or approx 1x1.5

in), I can output the file at 2400ppi for 1x1.5 in. dimension (2400 x 3600 pixels) or at

300ppi for 8x12 in. (still 2400 x 3600 pixel dimension). Long story short, the most

important numbers here are the pixel dimensions, the rest (ie output size) can be scaled

later without interporation. So, true optical resulution does matter. And just to make sure

that I understand you correctly, the published scanner resolution is what the resolution the

scanner is capable of seeing on the originals, not what the scanner can output.

Just to reiterate, I'd avoid the Dimage SD IV for B&W negs. We might have different

requirements for scanners, but I personally prefer a 5-year old HP (discontinued, but may

still be available on ebay at great discount). The best thing to do is to take some of your

most challenging negs (both details and shadow/highlight) to your local store and try

them out. You may find out that Dimage SD IV is exactly what you need, and all I've said is

just BS ;-)

Hope this helps.

sw

This is no longer related to the original post, but after reading the posts about digital, I have the following question, and I hope someone can provide their opinions.

It is without question that digital backs will someday replace most if not all film. However, there is still a question of how much information/resolution can be obtained when the lenses become the limiting factor. If the lenses are the limiting factor, it seems to me that it would be easier to increase the CCD/CMOS size to obtain more information rather than to improve a lens�es resolving power to match CCD/CMOS resolution (right/wrong?) So, it's the same argument again; larger image size translates into better image quality (loosely speaking). Therefore, there is still some merit in improving MF design, assuming large enough sensors can be produced to take advantage of MF image circle, right?

This is purely a theoretical scenario, and I do apologize for wondering off the original discussion. Can someone share your opinions?

With regard to design, most people would agree that every camera is designed with specific purpose in mind. IMO, most if not all 35mm cameras are made for convenience to allow fast shooting. This (together with smaller format) may also contribute partially to the abundance and popularity of zoom lenses and auto-focus capability. The convenience and ability to shoot fast is important for many types of photography and for amateur day to day use. With the introduction of Contax and Mamiya AF MF cameras, some of the above may start to change, though I still don�t think an AF MF camera with 220 film loaded would be anywhere near a mid- to high-level 35mm system in terms of convenience as size and weight would always increase with larger film format.

I made the switch from Nikon AF 35mm to Rollei MF a couple of years ago, and I�ve never miss the ease of the 35mm AF system since I am never pressed for time when shooting MF. Of course film loading could have been easier at the beginning, but after about 5 rolls, it didn�t seem so cumbersome anymore. Of course the setup could be smaller, but I am getting >3X the film area. By slowing down, the MF system has actually improved some aspects of my photography. That does not mean MF has completely replaced 35mm as some tasks are more easily achieved with 35mm. I have recently ventured into LF, and I don�t think I have to discuss its �ease� of use.

With regard to quality, can an optimized 35mm produce better (sharper rather, since that�s how �quality� of photos are compared in this forum) pictures than a sub-par MF? I have recently seen the works of a local photographer shooting 35mm (Nikon or Canon I believe) on TechPan, and his prints (as large as 20x24/24x30) has less grain than some of my 6x6 shot on Tri-X. The 35mm+TechPan combo has less detail, though, probably due to the film having more resolving power than the lens. However, I agree with other posters that this kind of comparison is meaningless in most respects.

One final note, MF systems are getting more user friendly. In addition to AF, several new cameras can read the barcode on Fuji films, some record shooting data on film edge, and many systems have either standard or optional motorized film advance....

My 2 �fens�.

Song

I have this particular setup and will attempt to answer most of your questions from my experience (and memory, since I don't have it in front of me now.) I do apologize if I repeat previous posters' answers without appropriate acknowledgement.

(1&2). I've never had this exact same problem, but I did experience a similar problem with the 150 xenar pq. In that particular case, the camera body could not read the lens aperture setting at all, and the body displayed the "88 8888" error message. It turned out that the contacts/wiring within the lens was loose, and it had to be sent back the Germany for repair.

Based on your description, it sounds like 1 and 2 are related, and in agreement with Andy and Thomas' assessment, I think either the body or the lens is malfunctioning (more likely the lens). If possible, test with a different lens.

(3). I can't tell since I don't have the camera in front of me. I am sure that Andy and Thomas are correct.

(4). You should not have LOTS of dust between elements. I have seen dust within the lens before, but at most one or two specks. I could be wrong, but dust doesn't get between the elements that easily unless it has been disassembled (true/false??)

(5). I have actually tried this on 3 different 6008i bodies a while ago, and this is what I found: a) they don't all advance at the same rate without film. b) they don't all advance at the same rate with film. c) the firing rate is faster with film loaded (true with two bodies), which does get close to 2.5fps if not exactly.

I must say that I've never found the 2.5fps useful since I always use MLU unless I am using with studio flash.

Anyhow, to make a long story short, I would try with different lens and body to determine which component is at fault (probably lens), and I do think a repair is a must. I am sorry that you have to go through this (and I remember how much I hated it when it happened to me), but this is a good setup for a variety of applications.

Best of luck.

Song

I agree with the above posters and would like to add the following: An 1:1 macro reproduction of a given object will occupy the same area of film, whether it's 35mm, medium format or 4x5..... So, if your goal is to fill the entire frame, you will need higher magnifications, or you won't gain any advantage over 35mm. (this has been discussed here before)

I have used the following setups with the Rollei system (I don't own macro lenses, and I don't think any of the following will get you 1:1):

80mm + ET-17, 150mm/180mm + ET-17 depend on magnification and working distance I need. One of my favorite setup is 150mm/180mm + ET-17 + 1.4X longar, good magnification and reduced working distance (when space is limiting). You will be able to do a lot more with a couple more ET's (ie. ET-34).

I hope this helps. And may I suggest a view camera for table top macro......

Song

Hi,

Are there two different versions of ext tubes for PQ and non-PQ lenses?

I am looking for used ext tubes to work with PQ lenses. I have seen

some with "system 6000" marking and am wondering if these are for PQ

lenses.

Thanks

Song