Re: filmscanners: New Nikon performance

["Dave King" <kingphoto@mindspring.com>]

> Dave writes ...
>
> > > The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust
> > > and scratches ... that is, no more than any other scanner.
> > >
> > > shAf  :o)
> >
> > ... my LS-30 without ICE compared to scans on my Agfa
> > T-2500 are quite different in terms of dust and scratches.
> > The Nikon "sees" stuff that the Agfa does not,
> > quite a bit of "stuff" in fact.
> > ...
>
> Be fair! ... is the "extra stuff" the Nikon sees ONLY dust &
> scratches?  Derek & I both recognize the problem with Nikons, dust,
> scratches and grain being the light source.  Its characteristics may
> be something to avoid, or may be a preference.  As we attributed
> "soft" and "hard" images in the past to diffused and point source
> enlargers, either was a preference.  It is also true, with post-scan
> software, it is easier to make a hard image soft, than it is to make
a
> soft image hard ... but I'll admit removing dust and scratches is a
> pain in the _ss!
>
> shAf  :o)

I prefer the "sharpness" of the Nikon LED light source, other things
being equal.  Aye, there's the rub, Kodachrome and B&W (starting to
sound like a broke record:).  So, I would be very interested in
hearing the opinions of anyone who has compared differences of -no-
ICE scans on general emulsions, and Kodachrome scanning -with- ICE,
between the current and previous generation of Nikons.

Dave