epson 4990 for mf and 35mm?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ed Margiewicz, Mar 14, 2006.

  1. Hello,
    Anyone have any experience scanning mf and 35mm color transperencies with
    epson's 4990. I bought one to scan my 4x5's ( could'nt afford the drum
    scanners or creo models....maybe in the next life) but wonder if a dedicated
    film scanner is best for 35mm and 6x6. Any info or opinions are greatly
    appreciated as I'm new to the digital world.
    Thanks
    Ed
    www.tranquilimages.com
     
    Ed Margiewicz, Mar 14, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ed Margiewicz

    rafe b Guest

    On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:48:38 -0500, "Ed Margiewicz"
    <> wrote:

    >Hello,
    >Anyone have any experience scanning mf and 35mm color transperencies with
    >epson's 4990. I bought one to scan my 4x5's ( could'nt afford the drum
    >scanners or creo models....maybe in the next life) but wonder if a dedicated
    >film scanner is best for 35mm and 6x6. Any info or opinions are greatly
    >appreciated as I'm new to the digital world.
    >Thanks



    Get yourself a used Nikon LS-8000 for about $1k
    or a new Nikon LS-9000 for about $1800. There's
    no comparison. Yes, I have both. Scan snippets
    from both are here:

    www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Mar 14, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ed Margiewicz

    Mike Guest

    > Anyone have any experience scanning mf and 35mm color transperencies with
    > epson's 4990. I bought one to scan my 4x5's ( could'nt afford the drum
    > scanners or creo models....maybe in the next life) but wonder if a dedicated
    > film scanner is best for 35mm and 6x6. Any info or opinions are greatly
    > appreciated as I'm new to the digital world.


    It depends what you want it for. I find that an Epson 4990 35mm scan
    makes a passable 8x10" print, but thats about it.
     
    Mike, Mar 14, 2006
    #3
  4. Ed Margiewicz

    rafe b Guest

    On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 04:17:33 GMT, Mike <> wrote:

    >> Anyone have any experience scanning mf and 35mm color transperencies with
    >> epson's 4990. I bought one to scan my 4x5's ( could'nt afford the drum
    >> scanners or creo models....maybe in the next life) but wonder if a dedicated
    >> film scanner is best for 35mm and 6x6. Any info or opinions are greatly
    >> appreciated as I'm new to the digital world.

    >
    >It depends what you want it for. I find that an Epson 4990 35mm scan
    >makes a passable 8x10" print, but thats about it.



    I'll buy that. The 4990 is probably good
    for about 2000 dpi, and on 35mm, that's
    just enough for a decent 8x10" print.

    My very first filmscanner, back in 1998,
    was rated at 1950 dpi.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Mar 14, 2006
    #4
  5. Ed Margiewicz wrote:
    > Hello,
    > Anyone have any experience scanning mf and 35mm color transperencies with
    > epson's 4990. I bought one to scan my 4x5's ( could'nt afford the drum
    > scanners or creo models....maybe in the next life) but wonder if a dedicated
    > film scanner is best for 35mm and 6x6. Any info or opinions are greatly
    > appreciated as I'm new to the digital world.
    > Thanks
    > Ed
    > www.tranquilimages.com
    >
    >

    Here is my comparison.:

    Flatbed Scanners versus Drum Scan Comparisons
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/drum.vs.flatbed-scanners

    I use mine for 4x5 film.

    I've scanned 6x4.5 film with it from which nice 18x24 inch prints
    have been made, but it does take a lot of careful work.
    I would recommend a dedicated film scanner as Rafe suggested.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Mar 14, 2006
    #5
  6. How big a print can one reasonably expect to get with a nikon 9000ED scanner
    from 35mm and 6x6? I'm making the transition from ilfochrome from which I
    frequently made 30x40 prints (from 4x5).
    Ed M
    "rafe b" <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:48:38 -0500, "Ed Margiewicz"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Hello,
    >>Anyone have any experience scanning mf and 35mm color transperencies with
    >>epson's 4990. I bought one to scan my 4x5's ( could'nt afford the drum
    >>scanners or creo models....maybe in the next life) but wonder if a
    >>dedicated
    >>film scanner is best for 35mm and 6x6. Any info or opinions are greatly
    >>appreciated as I'm new to the digital world.
    >>Thanks

    >
    >
    > Get yourself a used Nikon LS-8000 for about $1k
    > or a new Nikon LS-9000 for about $1800. There's
    > no comparison. Yes, I have both. Scan snippets
    > from both are here:
    >
    > www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis
    >
    >
    > rafe b
    > www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Ed Margiewicz, Mar 14, 2006
    #6
  7. Ed Margiewicz

    Noons Guest

    Ed Margiewicz wrote:
    > Hello,
    > Anyone have any experience scanning mf and 35mm color transperencies with
    > epson's 4990. I bought one to scan my 4x5's ( could'nt afford the drum
    > scanners or creo models....maybe in the next life) but wonder if a dedicated
    > film scanner is best for 35mm and 6x6. Any info or opinions are greatly
    > appreciated as I'm new to the digital world.


    A good dedicated film scanner *will* be better than the 4990 for 35mm
    and
    mf, IME. All tests indicate so and so does my experience so far with
    commercially scanned 35mm slides compared to my own scans.
    I'm not so sure with mf, at least at the sizes I print: A4, A3. The
    results
    from 6x7 and a 4990 seem to be OK at that size as far as I'm concerned.

    One thing: I always overscan at 4800 indicated and then downrez to
    2400. I also scan at 16-bit and use vuescan to colour correct at
    that colour depth before I do the final output at 2400, 8-bit colour.
    So things tend to be a bit better than just plain 4800->2400.

    Having said all that, price/performance ratio is very high with the
    epson.
    Dedicated film scanners - particularly the Nikons - will set you back
    at
    least $1500 if not $2300 bucks, epay prices. A 4990 can be had
    new for around 700. And the new series V700 seems to be even
    better, check out:
    http://www.photo-i.co.uk/index.html

    I agree with the others: a 35mm scan on a 4990 can easily do a 8X10,
    but I wouldn't use it for anything larger. Of course, a 6X7 scan
    *will*
    do larger prionts.

    It is the equivalent of a mid-quality classic optical enlarger. You'd
    need
    top gear to go over that size anyway in the chemical days. And so you
    need a top scanner to go over that now.

    This of course will change in the near future: technology has the bad
    habit of catching up with all sorts of online tirades like the above...
     
    Noons, Mar 14, 2006
    #7
  8. Ed Margiewicz

    rafe b Guest

    On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 04:56:30 -0500, "Ed Margiewicz"
    <> wrote:

    >How big a print can one reasonably expect to get with a nikon 9000ED scanner
    >from 35mm and 6x6? I'm making the transition from ilfochrome from which I
    >frequently made 30x40 prints (from 4x5).



    "How big a print" is entirely subjective.
    Nobody can answer that except you.

    The best answer I can give is: how big
    a print would you expect from a good old-
    fashioned optical enlargement?

    Let that be your guide.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Mar 14, 2006
    #8
  9. Ed Margiewicz

    Scott W Guest

    Ed Margiewicz wrote:
    > How big a print can one reasonably expect to get with a nikon 9000ED scanner
    > from 35mm and 6x6? I'm making the transition from ilfochrome from which I
    > frequently made 30x40 prints (from 4x5).


    There is no one simple answer here since there is a wide discrepancy in
    what people will accept in a print.
    Max Perl did the best 35mm scan I have seen to date and Rafe happily
    has a crop from it on his site, you can find it here.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/Tabert_crop_1000.jpg
    Max used a very good prime lens along with a tripod and Velvia 100
    film, if I remember correctly. The scan was made with the Nikon LS-9000
    at 4000pp.
    >From what I have seen so far I would use this as a limit case, most

    scanned 35mm photos fall a fair bit short of this. You can get a good
    idea as to how large of a print you can make by what dpi you need to
    print this crop at to have it look good, at the viewing distance you
    would be looking at the full sized image.
    If you like this crop printed at 300 ppi for instance you could print
    it bit larger then 12 x 18 inches. At 472 ppi it would produce a
    print 8 x 12 inches. If you do a few test prints you should get a good
    idea how large you would be willing to print the full image.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Mar 14, 2006
    #9
  10. Ed Margiewicz

    rafe b Guest

    "Ed Margiewicz" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > How big a print can one reasonably expect to get with a nikon 9000ED
    > scanner from 35mm and 6x6? I'm making the transition from ilfochrome from
    > which I frequently made 30x40 prints (from 4x5).



    FWIW, as my big printer at home is an Epson 7000,
    I'm limited to prints 24" wide.

    I've made a number of 24x30" prints from scans of
    LF (4x5) made on my Epson 4990 and they are
    tack-sharp. My LF scans are done at 2400 spi.

    I've also made prints of about that same size from
    Nikon-scanned 6x7 cm MF film. I get the same
    number of pixels, oddly: MF 6x6 @ 4000 spi
    vs. LF 4x5 @ 2400 spi. Guess which prints
    look better?

    "Maximum enlargement" is quite subjective.
    There are some folks here who don't believe film
    should ever be enlarged beyond 4x or 6x.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Mar 14, 2006
    #10
  11. Ed Margiewicz

    Peter Chant Guest

    Noons wrote:

    > I agree with the others: a 35mm scan on a 4990 can easily do a 8X10,
    > but I wouldn't use it for anything larger. Of course, a 6X7 scan
    > *will*
    > do larger prionts.


    That leave me with a quandry. Now I have a 4990 do I ditch my elderly ACER
    Scanwitt? The jury is still out on what is sharpest, probaly the Scanwitt,
    but things have moved on and the DMAX of the Scanwitt is poor compared to
    the 4990 and this clearly shows up on the trickier transparencies. I'll
    have to make my mind up!


    --
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk
     
    Peter Chant, Mar 15, 2006
    #11
  12. I appreciate your continued patience with my questions....I have a huge
    learning curve ahead. I pretty much decided to get a dedicated film scanner
    so I called Calumet and one of their sales people suggested I buy the
    Microtek artixscan 120tf. Its cheaper~$1300 vs $1800 for the Nikon 9000 and
    he felt it did a better job. Since it had a $200 rebate perhaps he was just
    trying to clear them out...I don't know. So here I am again trying to ask
    more hyppothetical questions to you guys that know a whole heck of alot more
    than me. I am not afraid to pay more for the the Nikon 9000ed but would
    like to know what you think about the microtec artixscan120tf vs the nikon
    9000. My goal is to print up to 16x20 from 35mm (which I have done with
    some good slides with masking on Ilfochrome ) and 20x24 or 20x20 from 6x6
    (again done easily with masking on ilfochrome). So is the microtek worth it
    or is it better to spend a little more for the Nikon? Thank you again.
    Ed M

    "Noons" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Ed Margiewicz wrote:
    >> Hello,
    >> Anyone have any experience scanning mf and 35mm color transperencies with
    >> epson's 4990. I bought one to scan my 4x5's ( could'nt afford the drum
    >> scanners or creo models....maybe in the next life) but wonder if a
    >> dedicated
    >> film scanner is best for 35mm and 6x6. Any info or opinions are greatly
    >> appreciated as I'm new to the digital world.

    >
    > A good dedicated film scanner *will* be better than the 4990 for 35mm
    > and
    > mf, IME. All tests indicate so and so does my experience so far with
    > commercially scanned 35mm slides compared to my own scans.
    > I'm not so sure with mf, at least at the sizes I print: A4, A3. The
    > results
    > from 6x7 and a 4990 seem to be OK at that size as far as I'm concerned.
    >
    > One thing: I always overscan at 4800 indicated and then downrez to
    > 2400. I also scan at 16-bit and use vuescan to colour correct at
    > that colour depth before I do the final output at 2400, 8-bit colour.
    > So things tend to be a bit better than just plain 4800->2400.
    >
    > Having said all that, price/performance ratio is very high with the
    > epson.
    > Dedicated film scanners - particularly the Nikons - will set you back
    > at
    > least $1500 if not $2300 bucks, epay prices. A 4990 can be had
    > new for around 700. And the new series V700 seems to be even
    > better, check out:
    > http://www.photo-i.co.uk/index.html
    >
    > I agree with the others: a 35mm scan on a 4990 can easily do a 8X10,
    > but I wouldn't use it for anything larger. Of course, a 6X7 scan
    > *will*
    > do larger prionts.
    >
    > It is the equivalent of a mid-quality classic optical enlarger. You'd
    > need
    > top gear to go over that size anyway in the chemical days. And so you
    > need a top scanner to go over that now.
    >
    > This of course will change in the near future: technology has the bad
    > habit of catching up with all sorts of online tirades like the above...
    >
     
    Ed Margiewicz, Mar 15, 2006
    #12
  13. Ed Margiewicz

    rafe b Guest

    On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:33:41 -0500, "Ed Margiewicz"
    <> wrote:

    >I appreciate your continued patience with my questions....I have a huge
    >learning curve ahead. I pretty much decided to get a dedicated film scanner
    >so I called Calumet and one of their sales people suggested I buy the
    >Microtek artixscan 120tf. Its cheaper~$1300 vs $1800 for the Nikon 9000 and
    >he felt it did a better job. Since it had a $200 rebate perhaps he was just
    >trying to clear them out...I don't know. So here I am again trying to ask
    >more hyppothetical questions to you guys that know a whole heck of alot more
    >than me. I am not afraid to pay more for the the Nikon 9000ed but would
    >like to know what you think about the microtec artixscan120tf vs the nikon
    >9000. My goal is to print up to 16x20 from 35mm (which I have done with
    >some good slides with masking on Ilfochrome ) and 20x24 or 20x20 from 6x6
    >(again done easily with masking on ilfochrome). So is the microtek worth it
    >or is it better to spend a little more for the Nikon? Thank you again.



    Hopefully a real LS-120 owner will offer an
    opinion.

    Sharpness-wise, the Microtek 120 is a bit behind
    the Nikon LS-8000. There are objective results
    (measured in MTF-50) here for a few samples of each:

    <http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html>

    The LS-120 does not have digital ICE, and in
    my mind that's a big problem. Suffice to say:
    there's essentially no penalty for using it,
    all the time, and it's a *tremendous* time saver.

    Plus, I've had overall less than wonderful experiences
    with two Microtek film scanners with regard to banding --
    and that problem is totally absent on the Nikon.

    Count me as an unabashed Nikon partisan, though.

    I paid nearly $3K for mine about five years ago,
    and never once regretted it. You'll be getting
    an even better machine, at 2/3 the price.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Mar 15, 2006
    #13
  14. Ed Margiewicz

    Neil Gould Guest

    Hi Ed,

    Recently, Ed Margiewicz <> posted:

    > I appreciate your continued patience with my questions....I have a
    > huge learning curve ahead. I pretty much decided to get a dedicated
    > film scanner so I called Calumet and one of their sales people
    > suggested I buy the Microtek artixscan 120tf. Its cheaper~$1300 vs
    > $1800 for the Nikon 9000 and he felt it did a better job. Since it
    > had a $200 rebate perhaps he was just trying to clear them out...I
    > don't know. So here I am again trying to ask more hyppothetical
    > questions to you guys that know a whole heck of alot more than me. I
    > am not afraid to pay more for the the Nikon 9000ed but would like to
    > know what you think about the microtec artixscan120tf vs the nikon
    > 9000. My goal is to print up to 16x20 from 35mm (which I have done
    > with some good slides with masking on Ilfochrome ) and 20x24 or 20x20
    > from 6x6 (again done easily with masking on ilfochrome). So is the
    > microtek worth it or is it better to spend a little more for the
    > Nikon? Thank you again.
    > Ed M
    >

    At the level of these two choices, any differences in the results that you
    get will more likely be rooted in your skill as a scanner operator than in
    the capabilities of the hardware. I have gotten quite good results with my
    120tf. At the time, the choice for me was between the 120tf and Nikon
    8000, and the Nikon 9000 is a newer design that corrects some of the
    issues that plagued Nikon 8000 users. As I am using the 120tf on a system
    along with another ArtixScan flatbed, the integration was simpler with the
    120tf.

    Something that I discovered that could bite an unsuspecting user is that
    Silverfast Ai software behaves oddly when more than one scanner is
    installed on the system if the scanners can't use the same interface (SCSI
    or Firewire). In such a case, Silverfast may not load for the scanner you
    want to use it with. If one is forced to work this way because the
    scanners must use a different interface (for example, one is SCSI, the
    other Firewire), the only solution may be to buy an extra copy of
    Silverfast Ai for the other scanner(s), and at the cost of that software,
    any price advantage between the 120tf and Nikon 9000 disappear.

    There are some considerations that may make a difference to you since you
    are purchasing new at this time. As rafe pointed out, the Microtek doesn't
    have dICE, a good tool for automatically removing dust and scratches from
    non-silver-based film. The Nikon uses RGB LED illumination, while the
    Microtek uses a single diffused light source. This may account for the
    slight differences in sharpness that the tests on the James Photography
    site present, though I suspect that those differences could also reflect
    differences in the skill of the users. For example, only the user with the
    Polaroid SS 120 (which is basically the same scanner as the 120tf) used
    manual focus, and he reported a technical problem that affected the
    results he got. The two 120tf users only employed auto focus, and given
    the significant differences in the appearance of their scans, I suspect
    that neither result was optimal for the scanner.

    So, to sum up, I think you could get good results from either choice,
    certainly for your intended print sizes. However, the Nikon 9000 may be a
    better choice if you feel you can benefit from dICE and considering that
    the price difference is not an issue for you.

    Regards,

    Neil
     
    Neil Gould, Mar 15, 2006
    #14
  15. Ed Margiewicz

    rafe b Guest

    On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:42:17 GMT, "Neil Gould"
    <> wrote:


    >At the level of these two choices, any differences in the results that you
    >get will more likely be rooted in your skill as a scanner operator than in
    >the capabilities of the hardware. I have gotten quite good results with my
    >120tf. At the time, the choice for me was between the 120tf and Nikon
    >8000, and the Nikon 9000 is a newer design that corrects some of the
    >issues that plagued Nikon 8000 users. As I am using the 120tf on a system
    >along with another ArtixScan flatbed, the integration was simpler with the
    >120tf.


    <snip>

    Occasionally it happens, Neil, that I have no
    need to argue with your post(s). This was one
    such. Imagine that <grin>.

    In fact, I'd like to ask a favor -- ie., if you'd
    be so kind as to submit a standard "snippet" or two
    from your LS-120, for inclusion on my scan samples site.

    I have a couple already from Karl Winkler, but I can
    always use more -- especially, competent scans of
    sharp images.



    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
    scan snippets
    www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis
     
    rafe b, Mar 15, 2006
    #15
  16. Ed Margiewicz

    Neil Gould Guest

    Recently, rafe b <rafebATspeakeasy.net> posted:

    > On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:42:17 GMT, "Neil Gould"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> At the level of these two choices, any differences in the results
    >> that you get will more likely be rooted in your skill as a scanner
    >> operator than in the capabilities of the hardware.

    [...]
    >
    > Occasionally it happens, Neil, that I have no
    > need to argue with your post(s). This was one
    > such. Imagine that <grin>.
    >

    It shouldn't be too surprising... I suspect that many of our differences
    derive from our uses of scanned images, a factor that usually gets
    overlooked in these threads.

    > In fact, I'd like to ask a favor -- ie., if you'd
    > be so kind as to submit a standard "snippet" or two
    > from your LS-120, for inclusion on my scan samples site.
    >
    > I have a couple already from Karl Winkler, but I can
    > always use more -- especially, competent scans of
    > sharp images.
    >

    When I get a chance, I'll try to do something compatible with your
    presentations.

    Neil
     
    Neil Gould, Mar 15, 2006
    #16
  17. Thanks all for your help(Rafe, Scott, Mike, Neil, Noons, Peter, and Roger)!
    I really appreciate all the valuble information you shared. I did it. I
    bought the Nikon 9000 from KEH and hope to get it by this weekend. I also
    bought "Mastering Digital Printing" by Harald Johnson.
    I hope you guys won't mind if I post a few more questions in the near future
    about scanning file size, down sizing, scanning in 16bit but printing in 8
    bit, etc. These are things I heard of but don't understand yet, but will try
    to research.
    Appreciatively
    Ed M
    "Neil Gould" <> wrote in message
    news:JYTRf.43698$...
    > Hi Ed,
    >
    > Recently, Ed Margiewicz <> posted:
    >
    >> I appreciate your continued patience with my questions....I have a
    >> huge learning curve ahead. I pretty much decided to get a dedicated
    >> film scanner so I called Calumet and one of their sales people
    >> suggested I buy the Microtek artixscan 120tf. Its cheaper~$1300 vs
    >> $1800 for the Nikon 9000 and he felt it did a better job. Since it
    >> had a $200 rebate perhaps he was just trying to clear them out...I
    >> don't know. So here I am again trying to ask more hyppothetical
    >> questions to you guys that know a whole heck of alot more than me. I
    >> am not afraid to pay more for the the Nikon 9000ed but would like to
    >> know what you think about the microtec artixscan120tf vs the nikon
    >> 9000. My goal is to print up to 16x20 from 35mm (which I have done
    >> with some good slides with masking on Ilfochrome ) and 20x24 or 20x20
    >> from 6x6 (again done easily with masking on ilfochrome). So is the
    >> microtek worth it or is it better to spend a little more for the
    >> Nikon? Thank you again.
    >> Ed M
    >>

    > At the level of these two choices, any differences in the results that you
    > get will more likely be rooted in your skill as a scanner operator than in
    > the capabilities of the hardware. I have gotten quite good results with my
    > 120tf. At the time, the choice for me was between the 120tf and Nikon
    > 8000, and the Nikon 9000 is a newer design that corrects some of the
    > issues that plagued Nikon 8000 users. As I am using the 120tf on a system
    > along with another ArtixScan flatbed, the integration was simpler with the
    > 120tf.
    >
    > Something that I discovered that could bite an unsuspecting user is that
    > Silverfast Ai software behaves oddly when more than one scanner is
    > installed on the system if the scanners can't use the same interface (SCSI
    > or Firewire). In such a case, Silverfast may not load for the scanner you
    > want to use it with. If one is forced to work this way because the
    > scanners must use a different interface (for example, one is SCSI, the
    > other Firewire), the only solution may be to buy an extra copy of
    > Silverfast Ai for the other scanner(s), and at the cost of that software,
    > any price advantage between the 120tf and Nikon 9000 disappear.
    >
    > There are some considerations that may make a difference to you since you
    > are purchasing new at this time. As rafe pointed out, the Microtek doesn't
    > have dICE, a good tool for automatically removing dust and scratches from
    > non-silver-based film. The Nikon uses RGB LED illumination, while the
    > Microtek uses a single diffused light source. This may account for the
    > slight differences in sharpness that the tests on the James Photography
    > site present, though I suspect that those differences could also reflect
    > differences in the skill of the users. For example, only the user with the
    > Polaroid SS 120 (which is basically the same scanner as the 120tf) used
    > manual focus, and he reported a technical problem that affected the
    > results he got. The two 120tf users only employed auto focus, and given
    > the significant differences in the appearance of their scans, I suspect
    > that neither result was optimal for the scanner.
    >
    > So, to sum up, I think you could get good results from either choice,
    > certainly for your intended print sizes. However, the Nikon 9000 may be a
    > better choice if you feel you can benefit from dICE and considering that
    > the price difference is not an issue for you.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Neil
    >
    >
     
    Ed Margiewicz, Mar 15, 2006
    #17
  18. Ed Margiewicz

    rafe b Guest

    On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:22:37 -0500, "Ed Margiewicz"
    <> wrote:

    >Thanks all for your help(Rafe, Scott, Mike, Neil, Noons, Peter, and Roger)!
    >I really appreciate all the valuble information you shared. I did it. I
    >bought the Nikon 9000 from KEH and hope to get it by this weekend. I also
    >bought "Mastering Digital Printing" by Harald Johnson.
    >I hope you guys won't mind if I post a few more questions in the near future
    >about scanning file size, down sizing, scanning in 16bit but printing in 8
    >bit, etc. These are things I heard of but don't understand yet, but will try
    >to research.



    When you get your scanner and start needing
    questions answered, join the yahoo coolscan
    forum:

    <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coolscan8000-9000/>

    There are a lot of knowledgeable and helpful
    folks there.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    rafe b, Mar 16, 2006
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    371
  2. edmarg1

    epson 4990 or microtek i900 ?

    edmarg1, Jun 25, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    640
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
    Jul 3, 2005
  3. MTBike1970

    Epson 4990 questions

    MTBike1970, Nov 22, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    500
    Gregory Blank
    Nov 23, 2005
  4. Terry Smith

    Dmax for my Minolta Film Scanner vs. Epson 4990 ?

    Terry Smith, Apr 25, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    810
    Terry Smith
    Apr 27, 2006
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,225
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page