Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 50

Thread: Nikon 9000 vs. Imacon vs. Creo Iq3

  1. #31

    Re: Nikon 9000 vs. Imacon vs. Creo Iq3

    Quote Originally Posted by mrladewig View Post
    It seems to me that you're trolling at this point. I am reluctant to address your question, but in the best interest of dispelling false information, I think its necessary.

    An Epson scanner can produce an excellent scan and so can the Nikon. You can easily make prints from digital files from those scanners that look as good or better than the drug store frontier prints. Keep in mind that RA-4 printing just like the frontier is an output option for any scan from home. You just need to work with a lab that prints on a Chromira, lightjet, etc...

    So what does it take to get there? Time to learn how to master the process, get the most from the scanner software and photoshop. Fluid mount scanning on an Epson can give most of the same clarity that it offers on a IQ3, Cezanne or Aztek. It won't have the resolution of the drums or pro flatbeds, but it can produce a solid 16X20 on inkjet or RA-4.
    I need to get prints from you and others around here so I can see just what is possible with an Epson or other machines being used by operators that know what they are doing. It would help me understand what exactly people are saying since I have nothing to go on but a couple people's examples along with my own. I don't care to put a person down or come on the board and say this user sent me photos and they look like crap. Anyone else have anything better? Examples I have said I have in hand are from members on this board, but I need to get my hands on more prints by people well known enough around here with the experience level so I can know just what can be expected.

    Do you or anyone else want to send some prints if I buy the paper or prints? I don't need some fine art print being sold for rediculous money off a website, but I would like an excellent example of what is capable from these scanners and whatever printer of choice is being used.

    Any takers for this troller? Send a PM. I'd love to have examples to look at. And again, I don't write and say this looks like junk or post on the board how user this sent me prints that look like junk. I will be satisfied enough having reference material if anyone around here has some to offer. I send back what I receive unless a person like the others do not mind me holding onto the prints for future reference.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,487

    Re: Nikon 9000 vs. Imacon vs. Creo Iq3

    With exception of an 8X10 contact print, nothing 4X5-8X10 scanned/printed with an Epson or anything digital looks as good as even 35mm negative film processed/scanned/printed at a local grocery store that has the system on automatic.
    You must be looking at some really lousy prints.

    BTW, most grocery stores' in-house processing does the film wet, scans it, and makes prints.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    2,094

    Re: Nikon 9000 vs. Imacon vs. Creo Iq3

    Quote Originally Posted by Findingmyway4ever View Post
    Do you or anyone else want to send some prints if I buy the paper or prints? I don't need some fine art print being sold for rediculous money off a website, but I would like an excellent example of what is capable from these scanners and whatever printer of choice is being used.
    My inkjet prints look like platinum prints - its how I like it. Are you in some far-off place so that you can visit someone?


    Lenny
    EigerStudios
    Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing

  4. #34

    Re: Nikon 9000 vs. Imacon vs. Creo Iq3

    Quote Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger View Post
    My inkjet prints look like platinum prints - its how I like it. Are you in some far-off place so that you can visit someone?


    Lenny
    Unfortunately 6 hours roundtrip from Portland Oregon, but if all goes as planned, I will be down your way along the way to Yosemite at the 1st of May-May 9th or so. We could hopefully get together then. In the meantime, if you know anyone up this way, that would be great as well since we will be heading into Portland area next weekend.

    Thanks Lenny!

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,952

    Re: Nikon 9000 vs. Imacon vs. Creo Iq3

    Quote Originally Posted by Van Camper View Post
    Paul Droluk (owner of Fotoman) also uses a Polaroid Sprintscan 120 for 612 all the way up to 624. [[/url] ...seePaul Droluk
    I find myself agreeing with Van Camper (or what ever his/her real name is) here.

    I also scan with the Polaroid Sprint Scan 120 (aka Microtek 120 or something like that),
    it is an excellent performer. Relatively inexpensive. Probably slower than a Nikon 8000/9000 but hey if you want fast shoot digital.

    Don Bryant

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,952

    Re: Nikon 9000 vs. Imacon vs. Creo Iq3

    Quote Originally Posted by Findingmyway4ever View Post
    Unfortunately 6 hours roundtrip from Portland Oregon, but if all goes as planned, I will be down your way along the way to Yosemite at the 1st of May-May 9th or so. We could hopefully get together then. In the meantime, if you know anyone up this way, that would be great as well since we will be heading into Portland area next weekend.

    Thanks Lenny!
    Tyler Boley in Seattle.

    Don Bryant

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,505

    Post Re: Nikon 9000 vs. Imacon vs. Creo Iq3

    Quote Originally Posted by Findingmyway4ever View Post

    I guess I have to figure out why I am shooting with even 5X7 film when it seems rather overkill since I don't print that large, though I do have the 4X5 back and can always add in roll film holders.
    Unless you are paying the bills from photography you can use any rationale you like to figure out why you are using 5X7, or any other format. I use several camera systems that from the pure logic of optimum image quality at a print size of 11X14", or even larger for that matter, would make no sense at all. I use these systems because they are interesting to work with, and challenging for one reason or another. And this is because photography for me is primarily a passion, not a profession, and whatever logic I want to use works for me.

    But if all you want to do is make 11X14" prints at 300 dpi then most any film camera of 6X4.5 or larger, or any digital camera of 12-15 mp or greater, should satisfy all of your requirements in terms of pure image quality.

    Sandy King
    For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
    [url]https://groups.io/g/carbon

  8. #38

    Re: Nikon 9000 vs. Imacon vs. Creo Iq3

    Quote Originally Posted by sanking View Post

    But if all you want to do is make 11X14" prints at 300 dpi then most any film camera of 6X4.5 or larger, or any digital camera of 12-15 mp or greater, should satisfy all of your requirements in terms of pure image quality.

    Sandy King
    I agree with you about the means of use vs. ultimate IQ. The experience of the viewfinder for me is what does it vs. the puny formats where my eye gets blurred out and it's annoying looking through such a puny finder. Heck, even with a larger than 4X5 piece of glass, the 4X5 glass can look dinky. I like the entire "process" vs. just the simple basic process so LF, as difficult or easy as it can be, is for me, end of story.

    This said, I'd love to see "any" digital print I like as much as a film print. I've used Pentax/Olympus/Nikon/Kodak/Canon/Panasonic/and that should be a long enough list for DSLRs. I don't see it. To my eyes, in even a 4X6 print (though easily seen when it's at 8X10), it looks flat and poor vs. film. Of course there is a digital camera around the house since it is a bit costly to use film especially during those spur of the moment shots where a digital cam just makes more sense. But for anything from photographing my wife in model type shoots to industrial/architecture/landscape (I love things with structure/lines/detail/etc.), I'll shoot with different film sizes.

    I have tried my very best to do photoshoots of my wife with both digital and film, attempting many times to get it right (look at the list of all the DSLRs), and also of the genres I enjoy photographing, but I put a digital print up to a film print and it's just lacking big time.

    Note: I have only used DSLRs up to early year 2009. Now we have a point and shoot for the spur of moment shots and for family get-togethers where we can use the shots as web shots only.

    This said, my dad and others said I should market my digital work done some 4 years ago, so I know as a fact the majority out there would never see what I am seeing and not care as long as there is a nice exposure, photo looks clean/sharp/detailed, etc. which digital can indeed do. It just cannot leave that lasting expression/feeling film can, though I will ALWAYS be open minded because if I can find someone to proove me wrong and show me digital work that looks even as good/meaningful as the film work I've done, I'd gladly shoot digital, but definitely keep the 5X7 due to the workflow of it.

    Hope this makes sense and sorry for rambling a lot throughout this thread.

  9. #39

    Re: Nikon 9000 vs. Imacon vs. Creo Iq3

    Quote Originally Posted by D. Bryant View Post
    Tyler Boley in Seattle.

    Don Bryant
    Was just in Seattle, would rather go South than North if I had to go any direction though a trip to Rainier or Olympic National Parks along with Seattle would be nice. Something to definitely consider. Thanks and thanks for posting what you scan with. I thought you shot digital though?

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,505

    Re: Nikon 9000 vs. Imacon vs. Creo Iq3

    Quote Originally Posted by Findingmyway4ever View Post
    It just cannot leave that lasting expression/feeling film can, though I will ALWAYS be open minded because if I can find someone to proove me wrong and show me digital work that looks even as good/meaningful as the film work I've done, I'd gladly shoot digital, but definitely keep the 5X7 due to the workflow of it.
    Have you ever heard of APUG?

    You would perhaps have more kindred souls over there than here. Just saying.

    Sandy King
    For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
    [url]https://groups.io/g/carbon

Similar Threads

  1. Nikon 9000 with Windows 7 ?
    By rjphil in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 1-Mar-2010, 20:19
  2. Nikon 9000 scanner or Epson V750?
    By Cesare Berti in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 5-Jan-2009, 11:56
  3. New Nikon Coolscan 9000 or Used Imacon Flextight II?
    By Craig Joiner in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 14-Jul-2008, 21:48

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •