Re: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...

[tflash <tflash@earthlink.net>]

on 7/16/01 5:29 AM, rafeb wrote:

>> You know what I hate most about the Leaf? It's that each stage of the
>> process before you get to the scan is a separate operation, with too many
>> dialog boxes.
> 
> 
> Todd -- I'm not taking sides in your debate with Austin,
> though enjoying the dialog, nonetheless.

> The point you make above (and the steps you elaborate
> in the following paragraphs) are fairly typical for
> other film scanner drivers also.  Which is one of the
> reasons I generally disregard scanner "speed" comparisons.
> 
> 1. Time to "set up" the scan often exceeds the time
> taken to actually perform the scan, at least for the
> way I work.
> 
> 2. Time spent fiddling with the image in Photoshop
> afterwards completely dwarfs the scan time + scan
> setup time.

Rafe,

I don't have enough experience with other film scanners to know how other's
operate. I wondered if they were any better or worse. Perhaps I owe my leaf
an apology. ;-)

On personal level though, regarding scan time Vs Photoshop time, they are
two different beasts. I love PS, and scanning is drudge work. It's as if you
owned a Ferrari (PS) and every time you wanted to take it for an hour drive,
you had to put in an hour of maintenance first (scanning).

Thus, I don't try to get perfectly corrected scans. I just capture a 16-bit
raw scan, which I expand in PS. Full resolution, raw (HDR) color scans, can
take over an hour with the Leaf. I still think it's a time saver to do it
that way, cause if I ever want to revisit the image, to develop it
differently, I don't need to rescan. I've already got a 16-bit, max
resolution file (IOW, the best the scanner is capable of giving) archived.

Hey Austin! That's one of the capabilities of the Leaf I love! My other
favorite is the ability to file out it's negative carriers for full frame
scans....

Anyway, not really making a point here, just shootin' the breeze.

Todd