Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: NDQ  (Read 2592 times)

Kenneth Sky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 463
    • http://
NDQ
« on: February 23, 2006, 02:25:43 pm »

Mark D Segal
Thanks for a very edifying article. How would you compare the time spent per negative vs. post production with dSLR? What if you were scanning 30 negs at a time on an Epson 4990 with Sliverfast ?
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
NDQ
« Reply #1 on: March 04, 2006, 06:24:17 pm »

Kenneth, sorry for delay replying to this, but I didn't notice you had started a new thread. There is another thread above where most of the traffic on this article has been occuring - anyhow no harm - just so you'll know I had no intention of ignoring you. I would say the average digital file that doesn't need much tinkering takes about 10% to 15% of the time that a scanning process would need to accomplish the same thing. The productivity differential is truly remarkable.

I don't know the Epson scanner at all - don't own one and never seen it in operation, so unfortunately I can't answer that question. Also, I've never done batch scanning. I work one image at a time. Maybe that's because I'm not in this to earn a living!

Mark
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
NDQ
« Reply #2 on: March 04, 2006, 09:49:20 pm »

I've got the Epson 4990. Rather soft on 35mm film I'm afraid. Even with MF film it's not as good as my Nikon 8000ED. This is a case where the high dpi specification can be misleading. I think the problem might be that the lens is designed to cover a maximum width of 8". This would be equivalent to using a 35mm film holder on an 8x10" field camera, I suspect, but I'm not sure about this.

Whatever the reasons, a dedicated 35mm scanner is going to give better results. I also experienced a problem with blocked shadows with the 4990, despite its purported high Dmax.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up