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] Re: Nikon LS4000 Depth of field

If the matter of geometrical distortion, if this was truly critical most
film carriers would have glass.  Yet, especially in the 35mm situation,
I hardly have ever seen a commercial wet darkroom lab, even one which is
professional, which bothers with glass carriers for 35mm, unless huge
enlargements are involved.

Beyond the matter of potentially greater degradation to the emulsion by
leaving film in a glass mount, there is the issue of having 4 extra
surfaces to keep clean, several more surfaces for internal reflections
and light bouncing, several more air/glass defractions, and if using
anti-newton glass, the possibility of the surface texture being captured
in the scan.  Further, it involves additional cost of mounts and
negative carriers, and extra handling of the film to mount or remount them.

You may find all of this worthwhile to be able to use the Nikon scanner.
However, I have yet to see any comparison between it and the SS4000+,
for instance, which would suggest the ultimate quality of the scan makes
any of that extra work and expense worthwhile.

The only advantage the Nikon 4000 ed seems to offer over other scanners
in the same class, is dICE, which certainly has value for certain
applications, but you are once again back to the other weaknesses the
Nikon has.

I think its just fine that you like the Nikon, but for people
considering what scanner to buy, I believe they need the full story, and
it simply is not as "black and white" (excuse the pun) as might
sometimes be presented.


dickbo wrote:

> ...and in contact with the air as well. Lets get the whole story up and
> running shall we.
> You show me a flat film and I will show you a pig flying.
> If a film is not flat then there will be some kind of distortion of it's
> geometry in which case I'll take glass every time.
> I have several carosel's here which contain glass mounted Kodachromes at
> least 30 years old and nothing has happened yet. The worst that cane be said
> is that every now and again it is necessary to re seat them in order to
> remove newton rings.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>
> To: <dickbo@btopenworld.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 1:37 PM
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS4000 Depth of field
> dickbo wrote:
>>Just mount in glass and the problem ceases to exist, not only that your
>>originals are better protected.
> Most, if not all, photo archivists will tell you today that glass
> mounting of slides is considered to accelerate aging due to chemical
> off-gassing getting trapped between the glass and slide.  Also, the risk
> of fungal growth or other moisture related problems are higher with
> glass mounted slides.
> You are correct that they are better protected from handling errors.
> Art
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> 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 
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.