.
  Lightstalkers
* My Profile My Galleries My Networks

looking for 35mm neg scanner to buy

I need to find an inexpensive used negative scanner to bring with me to Brazil next Monday March 21st. I am located in nyc so I could pick it up, or it would have to be shipped by this weekend. It needs to be firewire compatible, or if you know that a scsi to firewire adapter would work that might be okay too. Please email me at kate@projectilearts.org or call 917-923-6753
thanks.

by [a former member] at 2005-03-16 08:35:26 UTC (ed. Mar 12 2008 ) Brooklyn , United States | Bookmark | | Report spam→

Kate:
Get yourself a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV.  I just bought one.  It is great and NOT outrageously $$$$$

Glen

by Glen Converse | 09 Aug 2005 19:08 | Tuxedo Park,NY, United States | | Report spam→
I also have a Diamge SCan Dual IV and it is a pretty good value….

Damaso
www.damaso.com

by [former member] | 15 Aug 2005 10:08 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
I have a Canon scanner that might interest you. It’s very good but is USB2, not firewire and runs on Mac classic only. Interested?

by Paul Treacy | 15 Aug 2005 10:08 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
I just made a scan from the Dimage III, which puts out a 20meg or more file and I have made a print of 10 x14 that I think is reasonable quality……I don’t think I would go any larger that that on the 2200, but that size looks pretty good, regardless of the cost of the scanner.

.I can only imagine that the Dimage IV is better……

by [former member] | 15 Aug 2005 14:08 (ed. Aug 15 2005) | new orleans, United States | | Report spam→
I just bought the Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IVand for 200 bucks you cannot do better, it has gotten extremely good reviews and my experience so far has borne this out. But it cannot give you panoramic (unless maybe you fiddle with it somehow?) and is only for 35mm, but all in all a superb package—which btw if like Alan Chin you like to shoot film on the road and convert it there and then for immediate transmission, this thing is light, portable and fairly sturdy.

by Jon Anderson | 15 Aug 2005 16:08 | St Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
Jon:
I agree with you 100%. I too have the Dual Scan IV and find it superb: a workhorse, sturdy, honest reproduction.

by Glen Converse | 15 Aug 2005 20:08 | Tuxedo Park,NY, United States | | Report spam→
how does the dual scan iv handle slides with deep shadows? d max sounds pretty impressive at 4.8, does it live up to it? If this thing is as good as it sounds, it’s gotta be a steal at $200.

by Brady Fontenot | 15 Aug 2005 20:08 | New York, United States | | Report spam→
I’ve had no real problem with slide shadows. As I’ve said, I am completely satisfied with the Dual IV. C’mon! The price is right! Just my opinion.

by Glen Converse | 15 Aug 2005 20:08 | Tuxedo Park,NY, United States | | Report spam→
I’have had the Dual scan IV for more some time and I agree with everything said here. You can not get a better scan for $200 Unless!!!!!!!! ………….. you use the Silverfast software which is superior to the Minolta or Vuescan software.
The prices are Silverfast SE $49, Silverfast AI $218 and Silverfast AI Studio $277 !.
I tried the demo version that give you the scans with watermarks and you can tell the superiority of the software.
http://www.silverfast.com
But the price of the software is the price of the scanner.TO BAD!

by Alex Reshuan | 15 Aug 2005 21:08 (ed. Aug 15 2005) | Miami, United States | | Report spam→
Yeah, I dont know what sort of “deep shadows” you are talkinng about Brady, but I just scanned some old slides I had taken in India with lots of what I suppose you could call deep shadow (faces in sidelighting with large portions obscured, deeply dark backgrounds, etc) and the shadows look superb. But as I have just stated on another thread, and to second what Alex just wrote, I would like to get my hands on Silverfast, at least for my black and white negs, because the Minolta and Vuescan software are not as good—though, in my limited opinion, perfectly fine for the slides I am scanning.

by Jon Anderson | 16 Aug 2005 06:08 | St Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→
what do y’all think of the nikon coolscan 4000? that’s what i’m using and i like it pretty good. very pricey but can put out 75mb+ scans. it’s reasonably fast and that digital ice is a lifesaver! i really like the slide feeder. handles negs and slides. thoughts from the group?

by Jason Sangster | 16 Aug 2005 08:08 | Atlanta, United States | | Report spam→
Deep Shadows, just talking about dark dense areas on the slide. I have an old canon fs2710 and it has problems with darker slides. I have the same problem scanning med format with an epson flatbed 3170. They can’t pullout detail in the shadows that are present on the slide and it just ends up black. and if i try to pull out the detail with software I just end up with lots of noise.

by Brady Fontenot | 16 Aug 2005 09:08 | New York, United States | | Report spam→
I have the updated Canon and it too has difficulty with the shadows. It’s because the DMax on the Canons’ is only 3.6. The Konica Minolta gets 4.8 DMax. That’s really something.

I gotta get me one.

by Paul Treacy | 16 Aug 2005 11:08 (ed. Aug 16 2005) | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
Brady:

One workaround, though somewhat time consuming, is to make two scans, one for the shadows and another normal scan, combine them onto separate layers, and use a layer mask and paintbrush to carefully burn in just as much shadow detail as you need.

Other than that for a critical scan only a Imacon or Scitex are going to really get the detail you need.

by [former member] | 16 Aug 2005 11:08 | new orleans, United States | | Report spam→
Yeah that is true, but maybe I should go ahead and make a good scan for everyone with deep shadow areas and then we can all judge. As I am new at this, I am not sure that what satisfies me would satisfy all of you, who know better what to look for. If I get some time I will try to do so. Meanwhile, I have to agree with Andy, high quality scans are to be had from the more expensive scanners; the Minolta is a 200 buck scanner, and for the money it performs extremely well, but you cannot expect it to perform miracles. I bought mine mainly to be able to build up a digital library adequate for most publishing uses, nothing more.

by Jon Anderson | 16 Aug 2005 13:08 | St Domingo, Dominican Republic | | Report spam→

Get notified when someone replies to this thread:
Feed-icon-10x10 via RSS
Recommended
Icon_email via email
You can unsubscribe later.

More about sponsorship→

Participants

Glen Converse, Registered Nurse Glen Converse
Registered Nurse
Tuxedo Park,Ny , United States
Paul  Treacy, Photographer Paul Treacy
Photographer
(Photohumourist)
London , United Kingdom ( LGW )
Jon Anderson, Photographer & Writer Jon Anderson
Photographer & Writer
Ocala Florida , United States
Brady Fontenot, Photographer Brady Fontenot
Photographer
New Orleans , United States ( AAA )
Alex Reshuan, Photographer Alex Reshuan
Photographer
Guayaquil , Ecuador
Jason Sangster, Jason Sangster
[undisclosed location].


Keywords

Top↑ | RSS/XML | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | support@lightstalkers.org / ©2004-2014 November Eleven