[rollei_list] Re: OT Re: Scanning 120 film
- From: "Eric Goldstein" <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 08:33:56 -0500
No arguments, Jim, just adding some facts from the working world. I
agree that the Polaroid/Microtek should be considered for Rollei/MF
scanning, and as I said I assisted a working pro in getting one,
particularly as they can be had for about a third of the $1500 price
point and half the price you mentioned, which to me makes more sense
for acquiring a 6+ year old design...
There are other used high quality scanners which should also be
considered... any number of people I know still use a Leafscan 45s as
their weapon of choice for very high quality MF and LF. Slow like the
Polaroid/Microtek and needs a dedicated legacy Mac setup but with time
and care the results are truly impressive with more format options...
Also around $500 total investment...
Imacon was mentioned... the 343 can be had used for safely under the
specified price point and this is truly a top end device... in a
league apart from the other options discussed...
Eric Goldstein
--
On 12/25/07, Jim Brick <jim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It will scan to RAW (.dng), which is read in directly by PS. That's
> what I do. Actually, I mostly use LightRoom. LightRoom also reads-in
> the RAW files created by Vue Scan. Vue Scan RAW files are the RAW
> output from the scanner hardware and therefore can be fully
> manipulated by PS or LR. It's like RAW from a camera. LR was built
> specifically for RAW, therefore, LR and my Vue Scan RAW files get
> along perfectly.
>
> I use a Rollei for 80% of my photography, my Linhof Technikardan 45S
> for the other 20%. I scan probably 40% of my Rollei images, maybe 10%
> of my LF images. I actually print them in my darkroom (Ciba's) and
> scan them when I want to print larger than 20x20 / 20x24. I have a
> local lab with a LightJet printer, and one with a Chromira printer.
> They both produce the same quality work.
>
> I have several Hasselblads. The flagship models. 205FCC, 203FE,
> 903SWC, FlexBody, and lenses galore. But I find that my old Rollei
> SL66 does more for me than any of the Hasselblads (save the SWC). The
> majority of my best 6x6 images were taken with my Rollei. I have come
> to the conclusion that it's not how advanced one's hardware is, it is
> how the hardware performs for the user thereof.
>
> I am not arguing with anyone, just stating my facts. I use and really
> like my Microtek 120tf scanner. It competes equally with my
> colleagues Nikon 8000. It probably is old technology (as is my SL66)
> but it is definitely possible that, since it is still being
> manufactured, upgrades have been introduced over the years. I
> personally do not care if they have or have not. Mine simply works.
> It typically produces 525MB .dng (Digital NeGative) files, which are
> basically the same as camera RAW files. 525MB files are a whopping
> lot of data! and I can say without reservation, they are able to
> produce razor sharp prints as large as a LightJet printer can print,
> that is, 50"x50" (keeping it square).
>
> Someone asked about a MF scanner $1500 or less. I'm simply answering
> that question relating my personal experiences.
>
> :-)
>
> Jim
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
