Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> I find it very interesting just how defensive most of the Nikon scanner
> owners are on this list.
> The question below was a reasonable one.  Do the new Nikon scanners tend
> to amplify the dust and dirt when dICE is off, as they do on the older
> scanners?
> All the sudden all these Nikon scanner owners are in love with dust,
> dirt, fingerprints and scratches, and want to see them as clearly as
> possible. ;-)

        For the record, I don't own a Nikon scanner, heck I don't own any
scanner right now... I'm using this forum as a means to figure out what
it is I want to get. I have done darkroom work for years, and I use two
film scanners at work. I have to say that I haven't noticed any
significant dust problem with the scanner at work that doesn't have ICE,
but then again, it's not that high a resolution either. What I want to
know is weather this dust "problem" is any worse than using a condenser
enlarger. Has anyone used their scanner in a clean lab environment (as
opposed to their study)? I'd imagine if I set up my condenser enlarger
in my living room, I'd never get rid of the dust, but in a darkroom, it
is realitivly easy to minimize the dust (no carpets, no furniture, no
pets, etc). In my experiance, it is pretty easy to keep your film pretty
clean with a little effort, but because of static charge, it will "suck"
the dust out of the air when you take it out.
        So, if I use the same care as I do in work, and use the scanner in a
less dusty environment, will the dust be any worse than a condenser


> When the LS 2000 and LS 30 came out MANY of the owners mentioned that it
> was a good thing the Nikon's has dICE because the scans without them so
> amplified the dust, etc, that the scanner would be very difficult to use
> without the dICE feature, compared to other scanners they had used.
> Somehow, dust and dirt and scratches have become some sort of virtue, or
> badge of courage that Nikon scanner owners proudly wear.
> When lighting sources for photographic enlargers were introduced that
> reduced these bugaboos with minimal loss of resolution, everyone was
> happy to have them (well, except a few that preferred to spend half
> their lives doing retouching in color, and were using condenser lighting
> for color) but somehow its not the same with scanners.

        But do people use them in the same areas?
> Art
> Isaac Crawford wrote:
> > Rob Geraghty wrote:
> >
> >> Dave wrote:
> >>
> >>> Nikon scanners.  Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans
> >>> performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems
> >>> with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this
> >>> has been improved, and if so, by how much.
> >>
> >
> >
> >       Hmmm... was the scanner *adding* the dust and scratches? I would 
> > have a scanner that gets as much info off of the film as possible, and
> > if there are dust and scratches on the film, they should be resolved...
> > I'm funny that way...;-)
> >
> >
> > Isaac


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.