Betterscanning film holder

[r.e.]

You know what a "beta tester relationship" amounts to?

Yes, I do know. In many cases, it is a lot closer than what you are saying is the case in this situation. In the computer world, specifically Apple and Microsoft, the relationship of beta testers to the manufacturer is a standing joke. I have no way of knowing what the relationship is in this case, and so thanks for explaining your position on the relationship.

I said that I am interested in objective evalutations from someone other than Mr. Fisher and the people who beta tested for him.

This is entirely normal, and is not a reflection on you or him. That said, I also know that it is normal for beta testers to declare that they have carried out that function when they talk about a product. Among other things, it is transparent, which is kind of a good thing, and therefore enhances the beta tester's credibility. I don't know, I guess that I just think that this is pretty much obvious.

As I said, I would love to see completely independent, user evaluations of Mr. Fisher's products, including his new wet mount. I suspect that he knows that this is not only in the consumer's interest, but in his interest. Ellis Vener's review of the ScanScience product had the cachet of independence, and has certainly benefited ScanScience.

Given that Mr. Fisher's products have now been on the market for some time, I am hopeful that we will see such an evaluation in the near future.

I have no idea why you chose to attack me on a personal basis. It was quite odd, and took a terribly predictable form, so I'll just let it go. My bet is that you, like me, were taught in junior high school that responding to a substantive question with an ad hominem attack is one way of dealing with a question, but perhaps not the best way.

Meanwhile, I'd like to thank Mr. Fisher for his comments in this thread on his products.

Cheers.

[Kirk Gittings]

Why don't you buy one and do the test yourself.

[r.e.]

Why don't you buy one and do the test yourself.

You know, I can't think of any reason why you would ask me that question other than as a continutation of your ad hominem trip. It's really kind of odd. I mean, I've gone out of my way to say that I'm not questioning your credibility, so why can't you just drop it?

The fact is, I have Mr. Fisher's product on my radar screen, but I want to see an independent evaluation of it. I don't think that that is complicated. Because I mostly use the scanner for which his products are designed for editing, it isn't like I have to make a decision tomorrow. In any event, I'm a consumer, not a tester.

As it happens, I do know of a serious photographic school that uses the Epson V750 that just might be willing to do a test. I don't know, I'd have to ask them. I do know one thing, if they agreed to do it, and I was involved in any way, the test products would go back to Mr. Fisher and any acquisition of the products would be via arms-length purchase. To me, that is just basic. Better yet, maybe Mr. Fisher should approach a school that is prepared to test his products. As far as I know, his products, which are not in fact cheap when you add it all up, have yet to be evaluated by anybody who is independent. If I am wrong about that, perhaps someone could give me a reference. If I am right, maybe it is time that his products were independently evaluated.

I honestly don't understand why any of what I am saying is controversial. If it is, perhaps you could enlighten me.

Cheers.

[sanking]

As far as I know, his products, which are not in fact cheap when you add it all up, have yet to be evaluated by anybody who is independent. If I am wrong about that, perhaps someone could give me a reference. If I am right, maybe it is time that his products were independently evaluated.

I honestly don't understand why any of what I am saying is controversial. If it is, perhaps you could enlighten me.

Cheers.

You are basically suggesting that because Kirk and I tested a prototype of Doug Fishers' mounting station we have sacrificed our independence.That is nonesense! I have absolutely no conflict of interest in this matter. I don't know Doug Fisher personally and received no compensation for my testing of his product. I agreed to the testing as a professional courtesy, and because I was myself interested in how well the product would perform. I reported my findings to Doug, and have expressed opinions here on the LF forum from time to time, and that is that. Moreover, Doug has not used anything in my report to him to advertise or promote his product.

I know for a fact that my evaluation of this product was completely independent of any personal or financial interests, as are the opinions about it I have expressed on this forum. I am fully confident the same goes for Kirk.

Sandy King

[Kirk Gittings]

When I am in need and curious about a product that I can't find a decent review of, instead of whining about the lack thereof, I buy the damn thing and test it. If it does not do what was advertised, I return it. If it isn't any better than what I already have, I put it on Ebay and sell it. Nobody owes me a so called "independent review" (though in all honesty that is already what Sandy and I did).

How hard is this?

[Doug Fisher]

In regard to reviews, I won't play the "game" that many (but not all) media outlets require to get a product review published. You would be surprised to know how much "you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back" goes on with this and then the so-called reviews are just a re-hashing of the media kits (mistakes and all). Besides, I think the best "review" is the trend line that develops when the comments from actual real-world users are taken in aggregate. A few users’ comments may be overly positive and some will be unfairly negative, but the overall trend line is usually accurate. There are a few users who say they are working on their own reviews of the mounting station although these take time and I have yet to get word that anyone has actually finished one.

As Sandy has said, I have never used their comments as a marketing tool. They were only used for internal development.

I don't mind a debate about my product or whether I took the right path for marketing my product but I am very sorry to see that (when taken in aggregate) this thread introduces questions in regard to Sandy and Kirk's integrity. I didn’t know either one of them personally but I approached them to be part of my beta testing group because of their reputation in the education community and photographic community for being both respected artist/educators and adopters of technology for their art. If you read their posts here and elsewhere, you will see they are very generous in sharing their time and knowledge. There are a lot of people who enjoy receiving help off of the internet but relatively few who consistently give back. Kirk and Sandy take the time to give back. I am going to be really sorry if this whole incident decreases their willingness to continue to help others in the future.

[Bjorn Nilsson]

Hi all!
I got both the MF holder and the new mountingstation and I'm very pleased with both of them.
With my V700 the calibration was off, so the adjustment feature of these holders was very welcome indeed. I don't think that I would have considered these purchases "a waste of money" even if the scanning height of the scanner would have been spot on. The scanner may change with use and having the adjustability gives confidence.
The BetterScanning holders are in a totally different league when it comes to stability. It's like comparing a proper book with a paperback version.
Every time I used the Epson holders I wondered if this was the time a snap lock would break of if I would be in luck this time too. OK, it has not happened yet and probably newer will, as I'm using the BetterScanning products instead. I havn't read about anyone whose holder have broken down, as I havn't looked for any such reports. But again we're talking confidence.
Then there is the issue of film flatness. Some films are curlier than others in which case the MF holder does a better job than the Epson holder. (I havn't made any measurements, just pure eyeballing.) But for those really bitching (read curling Efke) pieces of film, wetmounting with the Mounting Station did the trick.
For LF film I think the Mounting Station is superb. As I also do 5X7" where the alternative would is to either just drop the film to the scanner glass "as is" or to very carefully wetmount the films to the scanner glass, the mounting station solution feels much better.
The wetmounting feature really was a confidence boost. Once I got the hang of it, I knew the film was flat and in the exact plane of focus. Also I knew that this is the best the scanner will perform. BTW, I'm also very pleased with the V700 scanner now that I have proper holders. :-)
Any downsides? Yes, the Mounting Station is slower to use than the regular holder. (The MF holder is as fast as, or faster than the Epson holder.) Also, I've managed to ruin a couple of these small nylon adjustment screws.
In all I'm very pleased with these holders. (If you havn't figured that out already...)

[sparq]

I would like to know your experience with dry mounting on the ANR glass - how good film flatness can you achieve with film sizes 5x7 and up? Do you have any tricks? Thank you.

[Martin Miksch]

I would like to understand why this holders arent made for Canon scanners, can I use another one on my 9950?
Regards
Martin

[audioexcels]

Some questions have gone unanswered, but I want to jump in here and ask just a few things more:

Sanking pointed out something relevent and irrelevent in a way, regarding the way the big time flatbeds use the glass. I am not sure that there was relevency here because, if I recall correctly, Sanking stated that Doug's system does not utilze the same procedure as the one used in the very sharp scans from the higher end flatbeds.

1) I'd like to know if there is a way to get this same system into an Epson or similar flatbed or if there is a way to improve this scanner in any way aside from what we have available at this time?

2) Regarding medium format and that the Epson cannot do as well as the Nikon 9000. Did the Brittish guy's review of the V750 not show that the two scanners are basically identical with "some" better shadow rendition by the Nikon 9000??? Why can't the shadows just be photoshopped and brought out more? I did this even with 35mm film and turned an image that I "wanted" to capture, into the one I did capture...well...who knows what I captured, but I was able to pull out the information in the dark areas without blowing out the background areas. So is the Epson just not at the same level as the 9000 and where exactly does one see this difference???...very large prints?...even in smaller prints? Or is the Nikon 9000 pricetag the illusion of final image quality achievement? I've seen, yes, not real life, scans of a 9000 and scans of a V700...the photos look identical. I see no difference in them at all..maybe I wasn't looking at the tiny specs of shadow detail though?

3) If the Nikon 9000 is indeed better, how much better or what exactly do people see that makes one buy a 9000 over the V750 or other Epson?

4) What size film negative from MF can the Epson match the 9000 or can it never match it?

5) Regarding LF images, exactly how much better is the best scan from an Epson vs. a drum scan? Same question from above...exactly what is it that people see in a print from say, a 5X7 negative through Epson and printed at 30X40 Vs. the same 5X7 negative printed from a Howtek scan at 30X40?


In terms of how this discussion generated:

1) If a "professional school photo place" uses the V750, what is an extra $100 when the scanner is already $10K less than a "professional drum scanner"???

2) If the better-scanning device doesn't do anything for you, sell it and lose $25...plain and simple. It's a $25 risk, not a $100 risk. These things will be bought by people for $75 vs. $100 if it is in the same condition or barely used, etc. I know I'd pay $75 even if it's only $25 more to get from Doug...it's still $25.

3) Why would people like Sanking and was it Gettings? use Doug's devices when they sell their work for a living??? Is any advertising involved when these two photographers, at least from what I have learned about Sanking who holds workshops around the globe, are world known photographers???...in other words, why does Sanking even post information on his techniques using the V series scanner...why would "anyone" that has the ability to teach workshops in interesting places around the globe even have an Epson to begin with??? What's the point owning such a piece of garbage when you can have the very best? Obviously, the scanner, the proof of these excellent photographers, and the fact that they contribute their ideas and help about how to properly do or just how to do the different techniques that they "personally" use themselves should be enough for "anyone" considering not just the scanner, but the possible alternatives on the market to get the best out of the Epsons.

Sanking stated that there is Scanscience and Doug Fisher's holders to choose from for use with the Epson scanner. He never said, look into Doug Fisher's holders and leave out the other options...he stated the available options, with no favoring and no suggesting one over the other. Actually, I was more inclined to look over at the Scanscience side of things because I have followed Doug's incarnation into this stuff since close to day 1.

On a final note, who gives a flying f if they were promoting the holders. "If" a professional is willing to risk their integrity and make a claim about a product knowing it is non-beneficial and a waist of money, they don't look too good afterwards now do they? I know if I had a name in LF world, I would not even say a word if I didn't feel that something I was using was benefiting my work. If anything, you just don't say anything and leave it at that...anyone asks how the product is, you can be honest and say it didn't do anything for me, or you can just tell the person to ask someone else.

Sorry for this long and drowning post.