ted_c

<p>I suggest Hahnemuhle German Etching - a great paper. Get the Hahnemuhle paper samper and check out several of the options.</p>

<p>The Epson 3800 is too big for my existing desk space, so I'm in the market for a table for the Epson 3800 to rest on. Besides the printer, what else would naturally go on this table? Paper (I'm using a roll currently), replacement ink, drafting brush, dust cover (when not in use), anything else? I was thinking about a foldable table potentially, since I will be using the printer in two locations in the next 4 months. Would a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Lifetime-Utility-Table-Molded-Granite/dp/B0002U3V8Q/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=furniture&qid=1242004366&sr=1-4">table like this</a> work or would it be too instable? When the Epson is printing is there a lot of movement/vibration in the printer? Any suggestions on stands/table?</p>

<p>Thanks. I bought Hahnemuhle German Etching in roll for my Epson 3800 and will hand cut each sheet according to the aspect ratio I need for each print (in my past I've shot 35mm, 645, 6x6, and 6x7 so I'm all over the map.) 17x25 is a really nice sized print to get out of the 3800. Archival storage boxes and presentation cases seem to be lagging in support of this size though. Clear Bags supports it now, so that's one less piece of the puzzle to wait for.</p>

<p>Does anyone make the metal edge archival storage boxes for 17x25 prints? I've checked out Light Impressions and Archival Methods but don't see anything.</p>

<p>I just picked up the 23" HP w2338h which has a nice design, nice screen, HDMI, does 1920x1080 and I got it for $245. I plugged it into my MacBook Pro. First I tried the included VGA cable, but I noticed that at the top resolution the image was not centered, it was off to the right some. I was concerned... The I plugged a HDMI-DVI cable and it worked perfectly. Calibrated it with Pantone Huey which worked without a problem. Have only used it for less than 24 hours, but so far I'm happy...</p>

<p>Thanks for the suggestions. The idea of tennis balls may not work so great if I were to get saltwater on the legs along with the sand - shooting surf/beach shots for example. Other than cost (the 458 is notably more expensive than other Manfrotto legs like the 055 or 190), is there any other downside to the 458 or upside down leg design in general? Are they less stable this way?</p>

I am exploring tripods that would work in the sand where the bottom legs are the largest rather than the slimmest and therefore don't feed

into the upper legs. That way I would avoid sand getting into the tripod - in theory. I see Manfrotto sells the 458 legs like this. Are there other

tripods like this?

West Coast Imaging says for its drum scan with BW that 8 bit delivers better results than 16 bit... Seems counter intuitive but

they know what they are doing... Does this relate to what should be done with the Nikon scans?

Thanks for these tips. So one clear glass on the bottom and etched on top is the way to go? That makes sense. Is the non-

rotating glass holder better than the rotating one or are they equal in quality but the non-rotating one is superior because it

offers scanning multiple frames? IMPORTANT QUESTION: I have some long strip negs... Will the non-rotating one work with

long strips or does it have a problem like the 869S? Is the focal point solution possible to do without damaging or

permanently modifying the carrier?

 

Is there a way in Nikon Scan to batch multiple scans one after the other with little intervention? Is batch not a good idea if

I'm trying to get the best scan of each image?

<p>Thanks. How about ICE or Scan Image Enhancer, LCH Editor, Color Balance, and Curves? All off? Autofocus?</p>

<p>I see that there are a few options for using glass to maintain flatness of 120 negatives. After only a couple of scans last night with the standard 869S I haven't noticed any problems, but I'm anticipating them based on comments from this forum. Using glass is to avoid focus problems, right? Or is it to avoid Newton Rings? Or both? Or does using glass potentially introduce Newton Rings and that's why you then need a special type of glass to avoid Newton Rings?<br>

Nikon offers the FH-869GR Glass Rotating Holder, which is available for purchase online (in stock at retailers, around $340ish). This is a nice quality holder that allows the scanning of one image at a time, and can handle a longer negative strip (as in 5-6x4.5 images in a strip - the standard holder can only load a negative with 4 or less 6x4.5 images because of the sprockets on the end that would do damage to a longer negative strip.) This holder also obviously rotates but I haven't utilized that capability yet.<br>

Nikon also offers the FH-869G Glass holder, which has a larger glass area (non-rotating) that can handle 3 - 6x6. It would sell for about $100 less than the 869GR but doesn't seem to be in stock anywhere. I don't have any experience with this one.<br>

<br /> I've see that another option is to take the standard 120 holder (FH-869S) and buy glass from Focal Point for it.<br>

http://www.fpointinc.com/glass.htm<br>

Seems like a lot of people like this solution and it is more cost effective than spending $340 on the 869GR. I have a couple of questions to the people who have gone with this solution. Is making this modification to your 869S reversible, in that if you wanted to return the 869S to the original condition you could or are you making a permanent modification to the 868S? What is the best way people have found to put glass into the 869S? And what glass do you recommend, the AN glass or the clear glass? I assume one needs a piece of glass on top and below to sandwich the negative, right? If so, is it AN glass on both, AN glass on the bottom and clear on top, etc.?</p>

<p>What do people think of the wet-mount options for the 9000? Is it worth the effort and expense for great quality scans (to get close to a drum scan quality)? ScanScience or KAMI?<br>

Are there other options I'm not aware of?</p>

<p>From your experience, what are the best scanning settings for scanning 35 mm and 120 BW negatives on a Nikon 9000 ED in Nikon Scan?<br>

*Scan in Neg Color, Neg BW, or Positive?<br>

*Scan in 8 bit or 16 bit?<br>

*Scan in RGB or Grayscale?<br>

*Scan with multi-sampling (1x-16x)?<br>

*Scan with Unsharp Mask?<br>

*Super Fine Scan?<br>

Other settings? Tips and tricks?</p>

<p>Thanks! I hasn't started using the masks and didn't realize that the holder wouldn't register at all without masks since the standard holders work without any masks.</p>

<p>I just got a Super Coolscan 9000 ED and bought the FH-869GR glass rotating negative holder at the recommendation of folks on this forum. I'm on an Intel Mac (10.5) with Nikon Scan. I'm having the strangest experience. I can load, preview and scan 120 negs with the standard neg carrier (FH-869S), but when I insert the FH-869GR into the scanner, it doesn't bring up any preview window, and neither the preview or scan button is active. Anyone else seen this problem? Any solution? Could there be some incompatibility I'm not aware of? The 869 is useless to me unless I figure this out...</p>

<p>I just got a Coolscan 9000 and installed the Nikon Scan 4.0 software and the 4.0.2 update on my Mac (Intel MacBook Pro with 10.5.x). I copied the Nikon Scan plugin into my Photoshop CS4 folder. I started Photoshop and I DO NOT have a Nikon Scan menu item under File/Import. Shouldn't I? I restarted the computer, made sure the scanner was on before opening Photoshop, etc. but no fix. Also, I looked for some other generic TWAIN plugin solution online and found nothing. I saw some mention of a TWAIN plugin in the Photoshop "Goodles" install disc folder but I can't find that. I really hope there is a way to scan from within Photoshop because the Nikon Scan 4.0.2 software app is so dated! I'm surprised I've seen no mention of this on the board from others.</p>

<p>So this confirms that with Epson Scan and an Epson 4490 you can do a batch of multiple scans as described: "I expect the end result are the same number of files on my hard drive as I selected in Preview pane."</p>

<p>Does SilverFast SE and AI work that way too (minimal interaction needed to get scans of every or at least multiple images on a film strip)? I saw some posting that indicated it might not be possible, or requires extra effort.</p>

<p>And one more...</p>

<p>BATCH SCANNING: The Epson 4490, V500, V700 and V750 all get great reviews for their print and film scanning (as far as I can tell.) Going up in price from the cheapest (the 4490) to the most expensive (the V750) what is the cheapest model that is capable of allowing me to capture MULTIPLE 120 images (6x4.5, 6x6, or 6x7) an MULTIPLE 35 mm images without human interaction? What I'm imagining is that I put the film strip in, and the software automatically identifies the images, scans the images and saves them in separate TIFF files, named in series. Is that a realistic expectation? If I can't do this with 4490 with the original 4490 neg carrier and bundled software, can it be done with the 4490 with the right negative carrier (Betterscanning.com) and the right software? If not the 4490, then the V500? If neither of those, then the V700, V750? Clearly I need batching to save time scanning...</p>

<p>Digital ICE: OK, so Digital ICE isn't useful for black and white negs. That's good to know.</p>

<p>Film Carriers: I've read several places that the Epson 4490 negative carrier is really badly designed and hard to use (are both the 35 mm and 120 carrier bad, or just the 35mm?) I'll be scanning hundreds of images on negatives over time so the negative carrier issue could be a problem. What is the solution? Is there a 3rd party negative carrier that is better than what comes with the Epson 4490? Betterscanning.com?</p>

<p>Software: Is the software that comes with the 4490 any good on a Mac? I've read that SilverFast is the best scanning software. What makes it so good, and should this influence the buying decision?</p>

<p>Thanks for these suggestions. The V500 seems like a great value at under $200. The Nikon 9000 is more than $2,000 so there is a huge $$ gap between them. Are there other scanners to consider between $100 and $2,000 that are really good?<br>

Requirements:<br>

* Scan 35 mm slides and neg strips and 120/220 neg strips<br>

* Digital ICE<br>

* Resolution and crispness for scanning output to produce rich 11 x 14 prints<br>

* Easy to use interface, good software - SilverFast a requirement?<br>

* Good scan speed - would be great if it could scan multiple images in sequence without intervention (such as a full film strip)</p>

<p>Other scanners I've read about:<br>

Epson V700<br>

Epson V750-M Pro<br>

CanoScan 8800F<br>

CanoScan 9950F<br>

What other models are worth considering?</p>

<p>Anyone with experience with 35mm/120 scanners (either flatbed or film scanners) in the $100-$800 range please share your thoughts.</p>

<p> </p>

Thanks Les and Dave. Les - could you give me an idea of max image dimensions you'd find acceptable for a great BW or

color print?

I've been looking at the Nikon 9000 ED at the high end and the Epson V500 or V4490 on the lower end, which made me wonder, for prints

up to 11 x 14 from 35 mm and 120 negs (mainly BW), what scanner (among any that are available today for $100-$2,000) would be the best

bang for the buck (factoring output quality, reliability, speed, and ease of use)? I would probably not wet mount for sake of speed. Also, do

any of the good ones have batch capability, like capturing multiple images all at once or in sequence from the same strip without human

interaction? Do I want to avoid a layer of glass between the scanner element and the neg or is glass ok?

 

Thanks for the great feedback!

<p>At 300-360 dpi print output, what would you recommend as the max print size for a really good, uncompromised print from a Nikon 9000 ED scan of a 35 mm neg or a 120 neg? And what would be the max print size for 35 mm or 120 BW negs scanned by ScanCafe.com using a Nikon 9000 ED (paying for TIFF output, 4,000 dpi)? If I wanted to print these images in a book, would Scan Cafe be suitable? Do any pros or artists take ScanCafe seriously for volume work?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Does a drum scan or Creo flatbed scanner produce noticeably superior scans to the Nikon, Minolta, Imacon, and Epson options? I've read that Newton's Rings are to be expected with 120 film on a Nikon 9000. Also read that there are problems with most other scanners that use a glass layer between the negative and the scanning sensor. I didn't realize there was a fluid mounting option for the Nikon 9000. Is that commonly done? Is fluid mounting a key part of the process to maximize scan quality, not just on drum scanners but others too?</p>

<p>I'd like to get a scan that is as close to what I would produce with a film enlarger as possible and don't want to introduce and "byproducts" in the scan process such as Newton's Rings, Moire, etc. I'd like to get the most detail in the shadows, midrange and highlights. Film grain is something I find attractive, not something I'd like to minimize.</p>

<p>The total pixels and dpi are less important that the visual quality of the scan. May be 5,000 dpi is just fine and 10k dpi is not necessary. Then the question for me is, what's the best quality scan at 5,000+ dpi I can get of a 35 mm neg and 120 neg? What's the second best? What's the third and fourth best? Then evaluate these 4 options based on cost. From my research so far, it seems an oil-mounted drum scan is considered the best quality, but it's the most expensive. Second best quality might be a scan from a Creo flatbed scanner? Is this oil mounted or not? Do people with a broad range of experience with these scanners agree with this assessment? What are the third and fourth best options? And what distinguishes each of these - what makes one superior to another? (THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR RESPONSES TO THIS QUESTION. THIS IS ACTIONABLE INFORMATION I NEED.)</p>

<p>I have B&W and color negs in medium format (6x4.5, 6x6, and 6x7) and 35 mm and am interested in scanning several dozen negatives for use to print digital prints possibly as large as 30" x 40".<br>

I'm trying to figure out what scanning hardware/method is needed to create suitable scans of these negatives for exhibition quality prints. <br>

For a 30" x 40" print, what resolution do I need? Doing the math: @300 dpi that would be 9,000 x 12,000 right? So 24 mm (converted to .944 inches - the short dimension) of a 35 mm neg would need to produce 9,000 dots, right? Which would mean I'd need a scanning resolution of about 9,500 dpi. For medium format with 45 mm as the short dimension yielding 9,000 dots that's about 5,100 dpi.<br /> <br>

Is a Nikon 9000 acceptable? If not, why not? Is it the curvature of the negative or the extra glass surface that hurts the scan results? Newton's Rings? I've heard from people with a lot of experience in this area that neither the Nikon 9000 nor anything else in the sub $2,000 price range is acceptable for exhibition quality work. Do I need to go to oil-mounted drum scans? I've seen mention on this forum of Imacon (which is now Hasselblad right?), Creo flatbed (which is now Kodak), Minolta, Epson Perfection, and Microtek Artixscan, and don't know if any of these are really that good quality. <br /> <br>

Is there any option other than an oil mounted drum scan that would yield that resolution? <br>

Could I scan at a lower resolution and still get a great quality print at 30" x 40"?<br>

Given that I'd like to scan at a minimum 50 images, I'm willing to spend $2,000 on a good scanner film scanner if it will do the job, but if it will not, then is my best option to just pay $75-$125 for a service to do Creo or drum scan?<br>

May be I should rent time using a drum scanner or Creo flatbed? Is it hard to learn to use these? Should I take a class to learn how to use these first? I'm in NYC so if there is a good rental place that would provide access and a little trainin on a great scanner that would be an option.<br>

I would appreciate anyone who has experience with scanning 35 mm and 120/220 to print large digital prints weighing in on this.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>