Nikon 8000 ED quality, compatibility OSX
Nikon 8000 ED quality, compatibility OSX
- Subject: Nikon 8000 ED quality, compatibility OSX
- From: David Miller <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 05:48:28 -0700
--__--__--
Message: 13
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:20:02 -0700
To: <email@hidden>
From: Brett Baunton Imagery <email@hidden>
Subject: Nikon 8000 ED quality, compatibility OSX
David Miller <email@hidden> wrote:
In my town there are other scanning professionals that have Nikon
scanners as well as drum scanners. My understanding is these
professionals can tell the difference between finished work that has
been scanned on their drum scanner and the Nikon scanner. But can
their client see this difference in the clients finished product
David,
Actually I live and work in that town and my clients can see
definitely the
difference.
I work with numerous agencies and photographers who also own
LS4000-8000
film scanners.
One case in point: I made drum scans from 35mm original transparencies
on
our drum scanner for a photographer (Taylor Lockwood) who specializes
in
macro mushroom photography from around the world for his new series of
publications. Taylor makes coffee table quality books and posters.
This is
a repeat customer who keeps coming back for drum scans specifically.
He is
the owner of the LS4000 and so am I. It is sufficient for some
commercial
work where speed is more important than quality. However after having
his
entire "Treasures from the Kingdom of Fungi" Book scanned on the 4000
and
being disappointed in the proofs, (ouch!) he had us make new drum scans
from the same transparencies to resolve the problems he was having
from the
4000 along with PhotoCD and other CD based scans i.e. 1)Lack of
sharpness,
2) Lack of shadow detail 3) lack of dynamic range = lost highlights or
shadows (Don't believe those CCD DMax specs), 4) and most annoying to
Taylor was light flaring around the high contrast subject matter. For
that
reason alone the drum scans are significantly and obviously better
even at
the same resolution. Some images were only used 1/4 page and were
noticeably better from the drum scans so it's not just noticeable for
large
output.
Unfortunately theres no free lunch. The drum scanner equipment and the
expertise needed to run it to it's optimum performance takes more time
and
more money, but you get what you pay for.
Drum scanning is not mandatory for all uses as it used to be, but it is
better overall.
Granted, not everyone is making High Quality Coated publications, but
you
can readily see the difference in quality. I don't think any large
format
calendar companies are using CCD scans.
Brett Baunton
Hi Brent. No challenge there. I totally agree with you.
Tore was saying, and if I have misquoted him I apologize, something to
the effect you can tell the difference between a drum scan and a really
good CCD scan. Again, if I misunderstood what he was saying, I
apologize.
Since I was not in on the actual conversation I don't know if it was
flare, artifacts, or what.
Have you tried the 8000 ED? I do invite you to try my 8000 ED. Not
to prove anything at all, just to try it,
Cheers,
David
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.