[filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS-40 vs Polaroid SS4000

["Tris Schuler" <tristanjohn@mindspring.com>]

Listen. I'm not for or against any scanner in particular. I am pleased with
my Polaroid to date. As I stated previously, this is the only scanner I've
owned and used, and you must admit I have limited my comments re scanners
to that unit (the SS4000). Does that sound fair so far?

If Digital Ice is used professionally to process images for people who pay
for this service then I could see a use for it in that capacity, though I
think it's also reasonable to question the quality of the images thus
produced, this judging from what I've seen of the software's capabilities.
It seems to work after a fashion, but it doesn't seem to work as well as
what I can accomplish on my own. Granted, I only work on my own images, but
then I noted earlier that my concern is with absolute quality, not making a
buck off someone else on a production line, so for my needs and interest
time is not the most pressing concern.

But to my mind there is another, more pertinent issue: the quality of the
scanning hardware itself which seems to require this sort of software
support. From what I've read on this list it would seem to be the case that
some (if not many) scanners more or less in the same class as the SS4000
come with intrinsic problems re the sort of issues Digital Ice was
developed to solve or ameliorate against. Is software like Digital Ice a
reasonable solution for owners or prospective buyers of these other
hardware devices? Perhaps, yet some thought might dictate an even better
approach: find and buy more able scanner hardware to begin with, assuming
such a beast exists. Again, from what I've read on this list to date the
SS4000 fits that bill, and within my personal (albeit limited) experience
the SS4000 also fits that bill. I know for sure that I've no need at
present for Digital Ice. That's because my scans are already fairly clean
and it takes me next to no time at all to make them pristine using the
cloning tool. What the future holds I don't know. Perhaps I'll discover the
SS4000 over time develops an attitude and starts giving me dirty scans.
Perhaps then I'll run out screaming into the night for Digital Ice. Perhaps.

Finally, you harp on my supposed desire to hawk one scanner over another,
which is hardly true as the public record will show, then go on to do just
that yourself, only in a negative way by denigrating the Polaroid unit. You
go on to employ quaint logic with the implication that merely because
something sells in round numbers to the general public then that product
should perforce be defined as a necessarily good thing. The majority might
rule and often does, but that's a far cry from "the majority is right" or
"the majority is intelligent." Digital Ice might be _popular_ as sliced
bread, but that doesn't guarantee it's good for your digestion. See the
difference?

Look, I don't know what scanner you use and I couldn't care less. I do know
and care that mine doesn't need Digital Ice, while you apparently know and
care (to the extent of happiness from all I can tell) that your
scanner  does. That sounds like a win-win situation to me, most especially
since I've not come here to convince you or anyone else of anything. I just
thought it would be interesting to voice my opinion on this sort of
software in general and then see what developed.

Actually, I'm much more interested to know why more users of scanners don't
work with RAW files in software such as Photo Shop instead of trying to
make heads or tails of scanning software such as SilverFast which is, in my
view, one of the poorest documented and least intuitive pieces of junk I've
ever run across. But more to the point, it could hardly do a better job
than Photo Shop, if indeed as good, so why bother with it in the first
place? Where's the payback? _That's_ what I don't get. This noise about
which scanner is "best" and who loves Digital Ice is of minor interest to
me comparatively speaking.

I hope that doesn't rile you, but that's where I'm at.

Tris

Tris Schuler wrote:

> > >I know you love your Polaroid scanner. It is a great scanner. But, it
>will
> > >be a better scanner with Digital ICE.
> > >Jack Phipps
> > >Applied Science Fiction
>Absolutely true.
>It is as simple as that: Polaroid would be a better scanner if it had ICE. I
>would have bought one long ago.
>
> > I've never tried Digital Ice so I can't comment on the software itself.
>I tried it. There are no visible artifacts, no visible loss of sharpness, at
>least with Nikon scanners.
>
> > You want to know why I think there even is a Digital Ice? For the same
> > there are upgrades to scanning programs such as Vuescan and SilverFast and
> > whatnot. Because people like gimmicks and they've been brainwashed to
> > believe these gimmicks with either save them time and/or make it easier
>for
> > them to overcome their own limitations--to include laziness.
>It's stunning how far some people can go to defend their choice of anything,
>be it a camera or a filmscanner.
>There are people who use scanners to scan one image a day, spot it
>meticulously, watch the image being printed, etc. And there are people who
>have many images to scan, some new and very clean, but also some very
>important but damaged slides from the '70s. Also some people provide a
>service to others of scanning images for a fee.
>Please understand that there are people who absolutely need ICE because the
>don't have time to waste on anything, let alone spotting. They have to
>establish themselves an efficient workflow. It's not gimmicks ot their
>laziness as you say.
>
> > Yet the hordes still clamor for
> > Digital Ice.
>Now I have doubts you're able to understand what I'm talking about.
>
> > By the way, I would like to use Digital Ice once just to see how well it
> > works, but I'm rather confident I'd be disappointed in the results.
>So don't even try it!!! You already have your opinion.
>
> > I have a question, Jack: do you sell this equipment or related software
>for
> > a living? I ask for the reason you come across strongly as a salesman.
>Jack Phipps is as much biased towards his company as David Hemingway was
>towards his. I mean both very little.
>
>My final conclusion. There are people who constantly argue which scanner is
>better. And there are people who use their scanners commercially with
>success, and don't have problems with printing their materials in magazines
>or selling their fine art. And the majority of them don't use Polaroid
>scanners.
>
>
>Regards
>
>Tomek Zakrzewski
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
>filmscanners'
>or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
>or body

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body