Hello,
I am negotiating the purchase of an Imacon 848. The seller wants 3500 Euro (4500 USD). I am presently using a V700 for scanning 6x6 and 4x5.
When looking the collaborative LF scanner comparison in this site, I noticed a not-so-big difference between the Epson 4990 (close to V700) and the 848.
It is then worthwhile to upgrade? Please share your experience.
Serge
The 848 results from the scanner comparision look suspect to me, either from operator error or it being a dud unit. I've volunteered to redo the test with my unit. Tests like these though are of limited use. For example, testing shadow detail by heavily ramping up the composite RGB curve is just plain dumb ... unless you want huge saturation and hue distortions.Originally Posted by Maretzo
I don't know what the market price of these is, but the figure you quoted looks pretty reasonable for a good unit (little use or recently serviced, no CCD dropout, good alignment etc).
I would keep the V700 and either learn how to use it, or learn how to develop yourself. I do develop myself and frankly I sell photos scanned by Epson 4490, now getting a wider one for 4x5" film.
CCD from recent scanners are better than old stuff.
Hello,
You seem to be well-informed about the capabilities of the V700 compared to the Imacon.
Could you post the same negs scanned with the 2 machines for comparison?
I wouldn't pay that much for a CCD scanner. The only benefit over a Nikon would be the ability to do 4x5. For that amount of money you can get a nice Howtek 4500 drum scanner.
Lenny
EigerStudios
Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing
I'm gonna guess that's a no ;-)
Where can you get these high end flatbeds... used?
I do not own both. If you expose and develop properly, you can use any decent scanners, as long as you know how to (many film people don't even undestand histograms). If you need a specific dynamic range, you have not exposed/developed properly and you have not used light properly. It is a science. No point in trying to look for more expensive equipment. Improve your technique, instead. I am sure your Imacon/Howtek is fantastic to scan photos of your cats.
I am going to disagree. Before I do, however, you make a reference to photos of cats. Mr. Maretz has a web site listed in his profile for all to see and I see no cats. There are numerous landscapes, some still life, etc. In some of these cases a scan would be easy, others not.
While it is true that scanning may be a science, there is no good book on the subject. There is no real information available anywhere. There are so many intangibles that trial and error on one's own film is necessary. I've been doing this for years and re-did a client's scan the other day as the first one didn't give me the result I expected. I would say it is more like a black art. All the professionals have their own approaches, it isn't consistent.
Scanners are different, and the difference shows up in a variety of ways. It depends the level of print quality one is after, the size of the original film and the size they intend to print. For one example, from the Aztek/Howtek scanners, one usually sharpens at a Radius of .2. This is very different from the flatbeds of .8-1.2. One can see, scientifically, that one is starting with better information...
I do agree that for folks taking pictures of their cats, that anything will suffice.
Lenny
EigerStudios
Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing
May be this book can help: "Scanning Negatives and Slides: Digitizing Your Photographic Archives" by Sascha Steinhoff (Paperback - Feb 9, 2007) - Illustrated."While it is true that scanning may be a science, there is no good book on the subject."
I have the German (original) one and found it very useful for basic knowledge about scanning.
Greetinx
Guido
www.pix-bavaria.com
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks