Has anyone found film scanners lacking when it comes to exposure latitude? The one I've been using seems unable to cover even film as narrow as Velvia.

Read 797 times

This discussion is locked and will not accept any more replies.

From richs2k1/Richard (895) on December 15, 2001 9:57:28 PM CST I had a mikrotek 35T Plus and it realllllllly sucked. Possibly I got a lemon, I don't know. I recently picked up the discontinued Polaroid SprintScan 35 Plus for around $300. I am really happy with the results. No, its not a $2000 Nikon scanner but it does a wonderful job, especially for the price. I believe it used to sell for around $1500-2000 brand new. In any case, the more you pay usually determines the end results. However, for $300 I bet it would be hard to find something comparable to the SprintScan. Richard Slomka

From mryding/Mark (332) on December 16, 2001 3:33:11 PM CST The one I borrowed is a CanoScan FS2710. I kinda figured that with 24 bit color, that it would be able to handle the latitude just fine. it took me a little bit of messing around (and about 200 slides or so) to figure out what was wrong. Something to remember. I'm hoping to get one that can handle medium format as well as 35mm. all I have to do is save up something like $3600.

From willis/Willis (3,440) on December 16, 2001 4:00:45 PM CST The numbers that you're looking for are the D-Max and D-Min numbers, which tell you the density ranges that the scanner covers. D-Max is more important because it's usually high density that is difficult to handle. Honestly I don't know that much about interpreting these numbers, but higher D-Max is almost always better. Are you primarily scanning for film or print? I have a CanoScan D2400UF, which is a flatbed scanner with a backlight so you can also scan transparencies (meaning film). It scans transparencies up to 4x5. It's okay at scanning 35mm frames, pretty good at scanning 6x6 frames, and awesome at scanning 4x5 frames. The bigger, the better, really. If I scan a 6x6 neg at 2,400 dpi and print it out at 8x10, I can, with very little effort, produce a print that rivals a C print made from the same negative. The C print is still crisper, but I also think that I could do a better job with the scan. I haven't tried too hard. Anyway, the great thing about the CanoScan D2400UF is that it only costs $500. Go over to Google (www.google.com) and do a search on "CanoScan D2400UF." There are lots of pages out there with information on this scanner.

From 169.v1/K (73) on January 10, 2002 3:52:52 AM CST It alway's come's down to you get what you pay for, I don't believe any of the consumer scanners are any good, full stop. Nikon claim high D-Max with their 4000 scanner but it's crap, In test's that I have done it's true DMax is only 3.6 not the 4. whatever it is they claim. I use a Imacon scanner for my scans as they are about as good as a cheaper drum scanner but costing 10,000 of 1,000 less. Still at $15,000 they are not cheap but if you want quality you pay for it. If you are not a professional and want to print from a epson then yes scanners like the Nikon are fine. Just llok for the Max Dmax they claim and then pick the highest knowing it's not really true

From mryding/Mark (332) on January 13, 2002 9:33:22 PM CST Does anyone have any comments about the Nikon 8000? TIA, Mark

From 1816.v1/Tim (2,120) on February 19, 2002 10:28:25 PM CST I would be very interested in what test you use to determine Dmax value. You might look at the thread posted on NG rec.photo.equipment.35mm titled Dmax Issues.

Return to forum