coolscan scanners

[LouisB]

I'm thinking about returning to film photography (an odd step because I
currently use digital). The thing that would swing it for me is the ease and
quality of home scanning. I am not a professional photographer but I am a
serious amateur. I would like to be able to scan and print without the pain
of finding a studio to do it for me.

I am totally out of touch with current scanning technology. A search of
google suggests there is really only one game in town: Nikon Coolscan.

If this is the case then the decision is between the LS-50 and the 5000-ED
(hope I've got that right). There seems to be a sizeable difference in price
between the two (in the UK at least).

Nikon seem to imply that if all you need are pictures for web pages then go
for the LS-50 whereas if you require "professional" use then you need the
5000-ED. Is this marketing hype or would I find the LS-50 lacking if I want
quality enlargements?

Finally, am I out of my mind and should I just accept that the world has
gone digital and buy a better digital camera?

TIA if anyone cares to post a response

LouisB

 

[LouisB]

Hi there LouisB! Well, I'm an amateur photographer myself, and

reading many photography mags, and subscribing to numerous newsgroups,
I would have to say that film photography is dying out, and digital is
the way to go. There are so many pluses with digital that it only
makes sense to me to go with digital.
What type of digital camera do you use now? If you also use film
cameras, what would make you want to stay with film? I have used both
film and digital cameras, and my film camera hasn't seen the light of
day since I got my first digital camera.(an Olympus C2500 L). I now
use a Canon Digital Rebel, but am thinking about moving up to a 5D.
Is there something about film that you like that you feel isn't
available with digital?

Talker

Talker, thanks for the response. I'm beginning to come round to your way of
thinking. I am currently using an Epson digital rangefinder, the RD-1 and
the only upgrade is to go for the Leica M8, unless I consider going film.
However, I am rapidly reconsidering and have to admit defeat. It seems that
all the advice I am getting both here and in other groups is to go digital.

Thanks for your interest

LouisB

 

[Philip Homburg]

Nikon seem to imply that if all you need are pictures for web pages then go
for the LS-50 whereas if you require "professional" use then you need the
5000-ED. Is this marketing hype or would I find the LS-50 lacking if I want
quality enlargements?

If you are going to scan lots of film, speed will be quite important.
It is hard to say whether multi-sample scanning is really required or not.

As far as I can tell from the specs, those are the main differences between
the LS-50 and the LS-5000.

Finally, am I out of my mind and should I just accept that the world has
gone digital and buy a better digital camera?

I like film, so I going to stay with film for at least the near future.

 

[Talker]

I'm thinking about returning to film photography (an odd step because I
currently use digital). The thing that would swing it for me is the ease and
quality of home scanning. I am not a professional photographer but I am a
serious amateur. I would like to be able to scan and print without the pain
of finding a studio to do it for me.

I am totally out of touch with current scanning technology. A search of
google suggests there is really only one game in town: Nikon Coolscan.

If this is the case then the decision is between the LS-50 and the 5000-ED
(hope I've got that right). There seems to be a sizeable difference in price
between the two (in the UK at least).

Nikon seem to imply that if all you need are pictures for web pages then go
for the LS-50 whereas if you require "professional" use then you need the
5000-ED. Is this marketing hype or would I find the LS-50 lacking if I want
quality enlargements?

Finally, am I out of my mind and should I just accept that the world has
gone digital and buy a better digital camera?

TIA if anyone cares to post a response

LouisB

Hi there LouisB! Well, I'm an amateur photographer myself, and
reading many photography mags, and subscribing to numerous newsgroups,
I would have to say that film photography is dying out, and digital is
the way to go. There are so many pluses with digital that it only
makes sense to me to go with digital.
What type of digital camera do you use now? If you also use film
cameras, what would make you want to stay with film? I have used both
film and digital cameras, and my film camera hasn't seen the light of
day since I got my first digital camera.(an Olympus C2500 L). I now
use a Canon Digital Rebel, but am thinking about moving up to a 5D.
Is there something about film that you like that you feel isn't
available with digital?

Talker

 

[Talker]

Talker, thanks for the response. I'm beginning to come round to your way of
thinking. I am currently using an Epson digital rangefinder, the RD-1 and
the only upgrade is to go for the Leica M8, unless I consider going film.
However, I am rapidly reconsidering and have to admit defeat. It seems that
all the advice I am getting both here and in other groups is to go digital.

Thanks for your interest

LouisB

No problem LouisB. I take it that the reason you'd upgrade to
the Leica M8 is because you have lenses that will fit it.(a good
reason to stay with a particular brand.)
One of the best reasons to go with digital is because of the
immediacy of it....you can see your pictures as you take them.
A friend of mine in Australia said that when she does a
photoshoot, she only needs to take two pictures to get her camera
setup for the shoot. She takes one picture and checks the histogram
on the camera, then makes her adjustments to the camera and shoots the
second shot. If it's not perfect, she'll make a minor adjustment and
then she's ready to shoot.
I remember reading an article about a photographer who was hired
by a magazine to get a shot that showed a tennis pro jumping over the
net as if he just won a match. The photographer said that he took 25
rolls of film with him to make sure he had enough. He said that after
numerous hours of taking shots, he felt that he finally got enough
shots to guarantee that he got the shot he was looking for.
I couldn't help but feel that if he had used a digital camera, he
could see if he got the shot he was after as soon as he took it, and
if he didn't he would know what he needed to adjust to make sure he
got it. It would have saved him a lot of film, developing costs, and
time.

Talker

 

[Gregor Kofler]

LouisB meinte:

I am totally out of touch with current scanning technology. A search of
google suggests there is really only one game in town: Nikon Coolscan.

If this is the case then the decision is between the LS-50 and the 5000-ED
(hope I've got that right). There seems to be a sizeable difference in price
between the two (in the UK at least).

Nikon seem to imply that if all you need are pictures for web pages then go
for the LS-50 whereas if you require "professional" use then you need the
5000-ED. Is this marketing hype or would I find the LS-50 lacking if I want
quality enlargements?

The scanning specs of the LS 50 are practically the same as the LS-4000
(which I own), except the lack of multi-pass scanning, which can be a
very slight (stress is on very) advantage with very "dark" slides. Apart
from that, the differences are mechanical ones: The LS4000/5000 accepts
the SF-200/210 feeder (for mounted slides) and another feeder for
complete film rolls. The LS 5000 is faster than the LS 50/LS 4000 due to
a second CCD row (top speed around 40 secs vs. 1+ min for a "basic" scan
at 4000dpi). I doubt whether 14bit (LS 50/4000) vs. 16bit (LS 5000) is
noticable.

Gregor

 

[LouisB]

I couldn't help but feel that if he had used a digital camera, he

could see if he got the shot he was after as soon as he took it, and
if he didn't he would know what he needed to adjust to make sure he
got it. It would have saved him a lot of film, developing costs, and
time.

Talker

Talker

Thanks for the interesting story. Yes, it is the investment in Leica m
lenses which is driving my desire to use them to their best effect. I did
have a pretty stunning demonstration of a M8 yesterday and it was hard not
to immediately whip out my credit card and buy it!

regards

LouisB

 

[Alan Browne]

I'm thinking about returning to film photography (an odd step because I
currently use digital). The thing that would swing it for me is the ease and
quality of home scanning. I am not a professional photographer but I am a
serious amateur. I would like to be able to scan and print without the pain
of finding a studio to do it for me.

I am totally out of touch with current scanning technology. A search of
google suggests there is really only one game in town: Nikon Coolscan.

If this is the case then the decision is between the LS-50 and the 5000-ED
(hope I've got that right). There seems to be a sizeable difference in price
between the two (in the UK at least).

Nikon seem to imply that if all you need are pictures for web pages then go
for the LS-50 whereas if you require "professional" use then you need the
5000-ED. Is this marketing hype or would I find the LS-50 lacking if I want
quality enlargements?

Here's a different approach:

Buy a used MF camera (Hassy, Rollei, Pentax, ...).
Get the Nikon 9000 ED scanner.

Cheers,
Alan

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

I'm thinking about returning to film photography (an odd step because I
currently use digital). The thing that would swing it for me is the ease and
quality of home scanning. I am not a professional photographer but I am a
serious amateur. I would like to be able to scan and print without the pain
of finding a studio to do it for me.

I am totally out of touch with current scanning technology. A search of
google suggests there is really only one game in town: Nikon Coolscan.

If this is the case then the decision is between the LS-50 and the 5000-ED
(hope I've got that right). There seems to be a sizeable difference in price
between the two (in the UK at least).

Nikon seem to imply that if all you need are pictures for web pages then go
for the LS-50 whereas if you require "professional" use then you need the
5000-ED. Is this marketing hype or would I find the LS-50 lacking if I want
quality enlargements?

Finally, am I out of my mind and should I just accept that the world has
gone digital and buy a better digital camera?

Whether you are out of your mind is something you won't find an answer
to on this, or any other newsgroup. It reminds me of a question I was
asked over 30 years ago: "Will you make me look beautiful?" To which I
replied "I'm a photographer Miss, not a plastic surgeon". But, its the
way you say it, not what you say, that makes the sale.

I switched to the Canon 5D almost 2 years ago soon after it was released
and, apart from some test and analysis images, have never shot seriously
on film since.

As Gregor explains, the LS-50 is effectively an LS-4000 crippled to
prevent it accepting the professional high speed adapters. I disagree
with Gregor as to the benefit of the 16-bit ADC on the LS-50000 - it
certainly does make a difference in the shadow detail of slide film.
However, if you never used a 14-bit LS-50 or LS-4000 I doubt you would
notice. Enlargements aren't the issue, fine shadow reproduction is.

Almost all digicams, by contrast, are only 12-bit systems. Some recent
examples are 14-bit - with the difference between the LS-50 and LS-5000
as even less than that.

One word on the Leica M8, which you are probably aware of but may not
be: filters! Get an IR & UV filter for ALL of your lenses. Leica
screwed up on this aspect of the M8, resulting in some strange colour
reproduction which cannot easily be corrected after the event, but
otherwise it is "just" a Leica. ;-)

 

[thomas.c.monego]

I'm thinking about returning to film photography (an odd step because I
currently use digital). The thing that would swing it for me is the ease and
quality of home scanning. I am not a professional photographer but I am a
serious amateur. I would like to be able to scan and print without the pain
of finding a studio to do it for me.

I am totally out of touch with current scanning technology. A search of
google suggests there is really only one game in town: Nikon Coolscan.

If this is the case then the decision is between the LS-50 and the 5000-ED
(hope I've got that right). There seems to be a sizeable difference in price
between the two (in the UK at least).

Nikon seem to imply that if all you need are pictures for web pages then go
for the LS-50 whereas if you require "professional" use then you need the
5000-ED. Is this marketing hype or would I find the LS-50 lacking if I want
quality enlargements?

Here's a different approach:

Buy a used MF camera (Hassy, Rollei, Pentax, ...).
Get the Nikon 9000 ED scanner.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz:http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

I agree with Alan, get a medium format, a Mamiya 7 would be a good fit
as you like rangefinders. Other than that Hassleblad is about the only
other 2 1/4 I'd look at. 500 series are going for next to nothing
(comparitively). Nikon 9000 is tough to find new, but a very good
versitile scanner.

Tom

 

[Alan Browne]

On Jul 14, 1:08 pm, Alan Browne <[email protected]>

I agree with Alan, get a medium format, a Mamiya 7 would be a good fit
as you like rangefinders. Other than that Hassleblad is about the only
other 2 1/4 I'd look at. 500 series are going for next to nothing
(comparitively). Nikon 9000 is tough to find new, but a very good
versitile scanner.

It's in stock in several on line places, though not B&H at present.
Adorama carries it, but the website is not clear as to whether it is in
stock or not.

 

[Barry Watzman]

I think that film photography with the intent to scan to digital is not
a very well thought out idea. I believe that the results will always be
inferior to photos originally taken with a high quality digital camera.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking either film photography or film
scanning, but in my view film scanning (and I have a Nikon film scanner)
is for conversion of shots that were originally shot and planned to be
used in a "film mode". I think that the ideal of shooting film and
PLANNING to then scan to digital is a mistake. If you KNOW that you
will want digital images, shoot digital. Conversion (in either
direction) is for unexpected situations, or archiving film media to
digital. It shouldn't be a process that is planned for every single
shot (or even the majority of shots), if that's the case, just shoot
digital to begin with.

 

[Philip Homburg]

I think that film photography with the intent to scan to digital is not
a very well thought out idea. I believe that the results will always be
inferior to photos originally taken with a high quality digital camera.

Only if you can find a digital camera that is both affordable and does
exactly what you want...

Anyhow, if you have enough light to be able to use ISO 100 film, then
the quality of film is high enough. There is no point in getting even
higher quality using digital.

If you need more resolution, get a bigger piece of film.

 

[Alan Browne]

I think that film photography with the intent to scan to digital is not
a very well thought out idea. I believe that the results will always be
inferior to photos originally taken with a high quality digital camera.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking either film photography or film
scanning, but in my view film scanning (and I have a Nikon film scanner)
is for conversion of shots that were originally shot and planned to be
used in a "film mode". I think that the ideal of shooting film and
PLANNING to then scan to digital is a mistake.

If I could afford an H3/39 I'd agree. In the meantime I scan MF from my
500 C/M and print much larger than any 35mm digital.

The convenience of digital also means, that for smaller prints, a 6 or 8
mpix digital is more than enough.

Please don't top post.

 

[John]

I think that film photography with the intent to scan to digital is not
a very well thought out idea. I believe that the results will always be
inferior to photos originally taken with a high quality digital camera.

Not for landscape photography especially when taken with medium and
large format film. They both still blow digital out the water IMHO.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking either film photography or film
scanning, but in my view film scanning (and I have a Nikon film scanner)
is for conversion of shots that were originally shot and planned to be
used in a "film mode". I think that the ideal of shooting film and
PLANNING to then scan to digital is a mistake. If you KNOW that you
will want digital images, shoot digital. Conversion (in either
direction) is for unexpected situations, or archiving film media to
digital. It shouldn't be a process that is planned for every single
shot (or even the majority of shots), if that's the case, just shoot
digital to begin with.

Digital is not the best format for some types of photography.
Landscape photography is one. Astrophotography is another. Pretty much
any type of photography where you need full manual controls to take
long exposures without a drain on battery power would also be
included.

John

 

[David J. Littleboy]

I think Barry was talking about 35mm film. Cheap shots from the MF universe

If I could afford an H3/39 I'd agree. In the meantime I scan MF from my
500 C/M and print much larger than any 35mm digital.

Only if you print square. The 5D is very close to 6x6/645 if you are making
2:3 aspect ratio images. It take 6x7 to move ahead of the 5D for fine detail
capture. I'd love to do a 6x9 vs. 5D comparison, but picking up a GW690III
(and CLAing my Nikon 8000) aren't going to happen.

If I get energetic, I should do some more 6x7 comparisons, though. My
initial impression is that if there isn't high-contrast detail (such as
architectural detail or signs) then even 6x7 isn't a significant improvement
over the 5D, but I've seen people claiming that 6x7 does a better job on the
textures such as distant foliage. I seriously doubt that (since film loses
resolution at lower contrast), but testing is in order.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Raphael Bustin]

I think that film photography with the intent to scan to digital is not
a very well thought out idea. I believe that the results will always be
inferior to photos originally taken with a high quality digital camera.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking either film photography or film
scanning, but in my view film scanning (and I have a Nikon film scanner)
is for conversion of shots that were originally shot and planned to be
used in a "film mode". I think that the ideal of shooting film and
PLANNING to then scan to digital is a mistake. If you KNOW that you
will want digital images, shoot digital. Conversion (in either
direction) is for unexpected situations, or archiving film media to
digital. It shouldn't be a process that is planned for every single
shot (or even the majority of shots), if that's the case, just shoot
digital to begin with.

If by "film" you mean 35 mm, then I quite agree. Given the
current state of digital cameras, there's almost no reason at
all to shoot 35 mm film. The market reflects this.

OTOH if you're talking MF, it's a close call, particularly for
anyone who's already got the gear. (And used MF gear
can be had for cheap these days.)

When you get to 4x5 film or larger, digital can't compete,
unless you've got a money tree in the back yard.

A $500 4x5 kit plus an Epson 4990 scanner will blow away
any direct-digital capture for under $10K or $20K.

Now back to the MF case, you basically have to choose
between a $2000 scanner (eg. Nikon LS-9000) and a
$2500 "full-frame" digital camera body (eg. Canon 5D.)

A fellow named Shayok Mukhopadhyay did an excellent
comparison along these lines, posted here:

<http://www.shortwork.net/equip/review-1Ds-SQ-scantech/>


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Talker]

Digital is not the best format for some types of photography.
Landscape photography is one. Astrophotography is another.

John

Sorry John, but for astrophotography, digital is by far the best
way to shoot. Digital cameras like the Starlight Express are 100
times more sensitive to light than are film cameras. CCD sensors can
also be used to help accurately track the object being photographed.
Using a digital camera for astrophotography does present problems
like noise being generated by the CCD sensor, but they resolved that
problem by incorporating a built in cooling system to keep the sensor
cool during long exposures.

Talker

 

[John]

Sorry John, but for astrophotography, digital is by far the best
way to shoot. Digital cameras like the Starlight Express are 100
times more sensitive to light than are film cameras. CCD sensors can
also be used to help accurately track the object being photographed.
Using a digital camera for astrophotography does present problems
like noise being generated by the CCD sensor, but they resolved that
problem by incorporating a built in cooling system to keep the sensor
cool during long exposures.

Only if you have megabucks to afford such a digital camera The ones
with built in cooling how much are they going to set you back? Perhaps
for the World's exclusive astronomers who have the funding to afford
them?

John

 

[Talker]

Only if you have megabucks to afford such a digital camera The ones
with built in cooling how much are they going to set you back? Perhaps
for the World's exclusive astronomers who have the funding to afford
them?

John

Yes, they are expensive. I bought my Starlight Express several
years ago, and I got it on sale for $1,800.(then you need a telescope
to mount it on). Keep in mind that they are black and white cameras,
since you can't take accurate color pictures through our atmosphere.
My camera is only a 1 megapixel model. The 6 mexgapixal cameras are
around $6,000....a little out of my budget.<g>
Oh, if you're wondering how they take color pictures with a black
and white camera, they use a color wheel to generate color. The only
true color pictures of outer space come from the Hubble telescope, or
any camera that was outside of our atmosphere when it took the
pictures.

Talker