They are available on ebay for a reasonable price. You might find it cheaper for filters to buy a step up ring for Rollieflex Bay 1 to a conventional screw filter. With respect to other scanners the Epson V600 has been recommended to my a couple of different people. Hopefully a new significantly faster processor will help. I plan to replace it after the first of the year. Part of this is due to my geriatric 2010 17″ MacBook Pro. Each 120 negative frame takes about 5 minutes. It works but it is cumbersome and somewhat quirky.
It forced me to move on to SilverFast 8 SE. Canon doesn’t support negative scanning with this scanner anymore. Have you ever had or considered having the photos drum scanned? This is supposedly a much higher quality.
A relatively more inexpensive longer sensor for document and photographs in the base. Three, it would be cheaper to manufacture a relatively short sensor to put in the lid for film scanning. Two, the resolution required for scanning documents or photographs is much lower. Otherwise you end up with a softer photo and any printed items in the image backwards. In a traditional wet darkroom you always place the negative with the emulsion side down toward the paper. One, given that you place the film in the holder with the emulsion side up, if you are scanning downward you are scanning through the film base. I believe the sensor for film scanning is actually in the lid.
#CANOSCAN 9000F MARK II SCANNER SOFTWARE FOR MAC OS PROFESSIONAL#
I was wondering if your Rollieflex work was going to make into your professional portfolio. Martin – I really like you minimalist photo in the example. I’d be happy to evaluate software if someone provides me with it, but there is no incentive for me to buy anything because I have no problems to fix. Maybe the software has improved since you used it, but I am very happy with the software I’m currently using, which is why I mentioned that I’m not really looking at other options at the moment. If I increase this to less cropping, all four edges of the negatives are visible, unnecessarily leaving more work to do later. I’ve found that the standard cropping works perfectly, and in fact, occasionally leaves a bit of the actual frame showing. The ScanGear software that comes with the printer does a fine job, and you can set how much cropping you want it to do. Note though that everything I’m talking about is related to scanning 6 x 6 medium format images, and the post you linked to focusses more (though not entirely) on the results of 35mm film scans, where their findings are more relevant. It’s slightly overkill, as I mentioned, but not much. The resulting images that I’m seeing at 4800 dpi scans are sharper than at 4200 dpi and 3800 in similar steps, which is why I’ve settled on 4800 dpi for scanning images on good quality film from a good quality vintage camera. I might be missing this information on their page, but stating the resolution of the scanner without taking this into consideration is a bit of a slippery slope. I have also noticed that ILFORD XP5 film is lower resolution than their DELTA film. As I mentioned in this post, the Yashica-D shot much lower “resolution” images than the Rolleiflex does. Although this might be longer for 48bit color, I can’t imagine it taking 45 minutes.Īlso, regarding resolution, they are getting their 1700 dpi from the resolution of a shot of a test chart, but I cannot find a mention anywhere of what camera/lens or film, developers they have used. A 6 x 6 cm negative is only taking 2 to 3 minutes for me. Firstly, the scans for a 6 x 7 cm negative at 4800 dpi shouldn’t be taking 45 minutes with the ScanGear software. I’m not buying many of the statistics that I see on that page.
0 kommentar(er)
