|
timstich
Jul 16, 2003, 2:12 PM
Post #1 of 14
(2677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
Greetings fellow Photogs,
I repaid a debt to a friend this week with money for him to purchase a Minolta Dimage III slide scanner, or some such model for $350. We took some dark color negatives I took of a climber in the shade and he scanned each frame at maximum resolution in 30 seconds. Not a bad time for the image size. We did minor color corrections and was happy to see that the images actually could be improved enough to make them usable. So I highly recommend you use this method of scanning your photos. I believe investing in the scanner will quickly pay for itself, as last I checked good quality slide scans were minimum $15 each.
|
|
|
|
|
prufrock
Jul 24, 2003, 1:18 AM
Post #2 of 14
(2677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 378
|
I was just thinking about buying this scanner, as it has some really nice specs for a slide scanner that cheap.
I currently have an HP Photosmart S20, which really stinks. There is so much shadow noise, and a lack of dynamic range, that I end up with most of my slides looking fairly disappointing.
You are happy with that one, then?
|
|
|
|
|
hkstuey
Jul 24, 2003, 1:26 AM
Post #3 of 14
(2677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2003
Posts: 3
|
if any of you guys ever visit the UK i suggest visiting a chain of photo shops called Jessops - they've got their own 1800 dpi scanner that goes for about 200 pounds sterling
i've had one for over a year and have no complaints - as for the minolta, a few touch ups to colour quality are needed after scanning but nothing that can't be quickly and easily dealt with
|
|
|
|
|
timstich
Jul 24, 2003, 3:04 AM
Post #4 of 14
(2677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
In reply to: I was just thinking about buying this scanner, as it has some really nice specs for a slide scanner that cheap. I currently have an HP Photosmart S20, which really stinks. There is so much shadow noise, and a lack of dynamic range, that I end up with most of my slides looking fairly disappointing. You are happy with that one, then?
I don't actually own it, but have some of the output on disc and saw it working. The model got very good reviews and has lived up to it so far. Not sure what standards of performance you are looking for, but we like this Minolta.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Aug 6, 2003, 4:08 PM
Post #5 of 14
(2677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: Greetings fellow Photogs, I repaid a debt to a friend this week with money for him to purchase a Minolta Dimage III slide scanner, or some such model for $350. We took some dark color negatives I took of a climber in the shade and he scanned each frame at maximum resolution in 30 seconds. Not a bad time for the image size. We did minor color corrections and was happy to see that the images actually could be improved enough to make them usable. So I highly recommend you use this method of scanning your photos. I believe investing in the scanner will quickly pay for itself, as last I checked good quality slide scans were minimum $15 each.
Tim,
If we are talking about the same type of scanning you can get a 2000 DPI 4.0MP scan for $.79 and a 4000DPI 18MP scan for $1.79.
Did you scan slides as well? Or just negatives? Negatives aren't as difficult to scan but slides can be a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
cologman
Aug 23, 2003, 4:21 AM
Post #6 of 14
(2677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2002
Posts: 581
|
One of the things I have noticed in the specs on the Minolta products is that they don't rec. use with Kodachrome slides. Since I have a dated library of Kodachrome I want to digitize, do any of you know why they say this.
|
|
|
|
|
puma
Aug 23, 2003, 6:11 AM
Post #7 of 14
(2677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 19, 2003
Posts: 59
|
Maybe the Kodachrome slides don't fit into the holder of the unit you have, I don't know. The one I use you just plop them onto the glass. Could only squeeze in 4 at a time but that's okay.
I've been using the Epson Perfection 1640SU Photo and I have no complaints whatsoever. It scans anything, really easy to use, fast and clean images.
Lg
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Aug 23, 2003, 3:50 PM
Post #8 of 14
(2677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: Greetings fellow Photogs, I repaid a debt to a friend this week with money for him to purchase a Minolta Dimage III slide scanner, or some such model for $350. We took some dark color negatives I took of a climber in the shade and he scanned each frame at maximum resolution in 30 seconds. Not a bad time for the image size. We did minor color corrections and was happy to see that the images actually could be improved enough to make them usable. So I highly recommend you use this method of scanning your photos. I believe investing in the scanner will quickly pay for itself, as last I checked good quality slide scans were minimum $15 each.
Yep, I have an Elite II and it has produced some excellent 11"x14" prints on an Epson photo printer when scanning from Velvia slides. I am fairly certain that once you get up to the sorts of resolution that the recent Minolta and Nikon scanners deliver (I don't have experience with other brands), whether you use a tripod or high shutter speed becomes the limiting factor... I have given some friends pictures that I took with a tripod and they currently reside (framed) in their living rooms.
I also recommend the VueScan software package for use with these scanners. Once you get things set up as you like them, VueScan has an excellent interface that allows for full automation of the thumbnailing, postprocessing (direct-to-Photoshop-actions, if you like), and even printing of your selected frames. With a Nikon bulkloader, my father has processed hundreds of medical images in an evening -- unattended. So if you're working with film, I believe that spending $40 on VueScan is a wise investment. It crushes manufacturer-provided packages... flat.
|
|
|
|
|
cologman
Aug 23, 2003, 4:10 PM
Post #9 of 14
(2677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2002
Posts: 581
|
For whatever reason the Minolta Scanners specifically suggest that Kodachrome and their ICE 3 (?) system aren't very compatible. If you have actually scanned Kodachrome with success I'd like to know about it. I'm leaning toward a Minolta but this particular aspect of their product info worries me. I have a large library of slides which are Kodachrome. Everything I've heard about their overall performance suggests they are excellent products.
|
|
|
|
|
cologman
Aug 23, 2003, 6:06 PM
Post #11 of 14
(2677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2002
Posts: 581
|
Tim,
Sounds like the problem can be fixed in photoshop if I choose to print or use the scans once I have them digitized. Probably 1/3 of my librabrary is Koadachrome the rest a mix. I'm still leaning towards the Minolta. Thanks for the info. both on the Minolta's and VueScan.
|
|
|
|
|
renobdarb
Aug 23, 2003, 10:35 PM
Post #12 of 14
(2677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2003
Posts: 393
|
In reply to: I believe investing in the scanner will quickly pay for itself, as last I checked good quality slide scans were minimum $15 each.
a good digital camera and color printer is an even better investment... film will be dead within 10 years...
-brad
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Aug 23, 2003, 10:44 PM
Post #13 of 14
(2677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: In reply to: I believe investing in the scanner will quickly pay for itself, as last I checked good quality slide scans were minimum $15 each. a good digital camera and color printer is an even better investment... film will be dead within 10 years... -brad
true enough, but if you already have a library of slides to scan, a digicam won't help.
also, any digicam you buy today is likely to be obsolete in 2-3 years. digital is not a mature technology as film is.
I am going to wait a year or so to replace my burgled D100; I suspect the,replacement will be twice as nice and cost half as much by that time. Meanwhile, I just develop and scan the stuff that I really like, and lose some spontaneity. Oh well. I bought a $50 compact flash camera for my PDA that serves that purpose -- quick, throwaway images by the dozen. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
dirko
Sep 25, 2003, 10:29 PM
Post #14 of 14
(2677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2002
Posts: 374
|
I have shot a total of 1 roll of Kodachrome in my life, but it scanned last week on my Dimage III just as well as the Sensia and Superia I usually shoot.
I bought this scanner solely because it cost $300.
I dig the scanner mostly, I think it prefers to balance my scans a little overexposed, but I prefer to correct in Photoshop rather than with the scanner settings. It's good up to 8x10, haven't tried enlarging past that....
|
|
|
|
|
|
