DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Zeiss 21mm madness at Ffordes

I agree that the shadow details of the Minolta scans are not good enough. Sometimes the scanned images have significant noise artefacts. Alright, go Imacon.
 
Thank for everyone's advices here I finally put my money for the Imacon 646 scanner.
 
Joseph, you will not regret it I think.

Yesterday my Imacon representative loaned me an 848 to make sure that I wanted such an expensive scanner.

He is a smart salesman.

I have scanned a whole bunch of different films, and in every case the results were visibly superior to scans of the same film done on either of my Minoltas.

Really well exposed films were closer in quality one scanner to the other (imacon still was better). However, as soon as I tried more troublesome negatives with deeper shadows there was no contest ... Imacon won hands down.

The other thing is how much easier and faster the Imacon is compared to the Minolta. The film holders are ingeniously simple and assure a flat scan. I scanned 10 films in a short time last night. It is 10X faster than the 5400 when scanning at 8000 ppi High Resolution mode, where the 5400 ppi using multipass took forever to scan.

Joseph, be patient when learning how to use the scanner software. I had good instruction on how to set up profiles for different films I use. So if I were you, I'd insist that your Imacon representative give you a good lesson on using it. It's actually simple, but I am familiar with Flexcolor because my MF digital backs use the same software.

Here's a very troublesome neg I could not get a good scan from with my Minolta ... either the sunny highlights were blown or the shadows completely blocked up no matter how I adjusted it. The Imacon got it all on the first try.



466360.jpg
 
The above scan was a 6X6 Fuji NPH 400. The comparison I refer to was between the Minolta Scan Multi PRO MF scanner and the Imacon 848.

Here is a Leica Neg shot in an absolute dungeon of a church. I used a M7 and 50/1.4 ASPH handheld.

Previous attempts with the Minolta 5400 using both single pass and Multi-pass just could not provide the tonal range to hold the extreme contrasts of this shot ... so I finally gave up.

Then I tried the Imacon on 24X36 High Resolution mode (8000 ppi) and it was fine.

466363.jpg
 
That's a pretty good endorsement for the Imacon. Those pictures/scans are lovely. I really like the window in the wooden building picture. It is so rich in texture and colour. No way I can afford one unfortunately
sad.gif
- looking round for things to sell...
Cheers,
John
 
Marc, are you getting the 848 ? I thought 646 is good enough for everything.

I suppose, if you compares the images from the Imacon scanners to your Hasselblad H with 39Mp back, the scanner should win.
 
Mark,

I really appreciate your commentary and updates.

Just for the heck of it, can you post the minolta scan of your Leica church shot for comparison purposes?

How doew one go about getting the first time customer discount from Imacon?

Thanks

Mark Scheberies
 
Sorry Mark, I tossed the Minolta file of the church shot.

To be clear, the 5400 is a darn good scanner. If you are just scanning a few shots and not needing them that large, you can work the Minolta files in PS and get good results.

It's speed, and less work on the files that I'm after. This is especially true for the really difficult negs., some of which aren't worth enormous amounts of PS work to fix them ... a thought you definitely want to keep in mind if you are scanning a job like a wedding : -)

Joseph, I don't think there is much difference between the 646 and the 848. They loaned me the 848 because that's the one they had for a demo. It has a 4.8 D-Max verses a 4.6 D-Max of the 646. and it is a little faster at scanning.

Comparisons to the H2D39 and a Imacon scanned film neg are apples and oranges. They're two different animals. If I didn't think film offered something at least different aesthetically, I sure wouldn't be adding a $10,000. bill on top of the H2D/39 bill : -)

Here's a Tri-X neg I scanned some time ago on the Minolta MF scanner. I was a bit difficult because of the harsh mid-afternoon lighting and I had to double scan it for layering in PS to hold the shadow detail and the brights. The Imacon scanner did it in one pretty quick pass and was pretty close right out of the scanner ...

466368.jpg
 
Dear readers,

after scanning with this Imacon 848, I am re-invigorated about the use of film in my photography. The properties of the Zeiss and Leica glass shine forth in every way.

It became very clear that films have something digital does not. They are different animals.

Therefore I have just ordered a Imacon 949 scanner. This is their top of the line production level scanner that will scan a 35mm neg @ 8000 ppi true resolution (no interpolation), 16 bit, 4.9 D-Max... from pushing the scan button, to a huge tif file appearing on my desktop in 2.5 minutes !!!!

How's that for a commitment to using film?

Once I get it up and running, I may offer a reasonably priced scanning service to discriminating photographers like all of you : -)

Just say yes to film !!!
 
Back
Top