Menu
What's new
The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

4x5 & 6x7 film+Imacon X5 vs MFDB

S

Stuart Richardson

Active member
That does not look very nice. Have you considered an imacon? Kidding of course. I am not sure what is happening here, but I doubt it is the normal operating procedure for the Nikon. You might want to forward that photo to Nikon service and see what they say. Otherwise, like I said above, a 343 might be a good option as they are not nearly as expensive as other Imacons (when you can find them). Don's recommendation of the Minolta Scan Multi Pro is also great -- I had that scanner before I had the 646, and I found it to be a very good scanner. I prefer the Imacon in almost every way (other than no ice), but it is a great scanner if you can find one.
 
O

Oren Grad

Active member
Thanks for posting that screen shot, drazin - it certainly tells the story. I've been happy overall with my Nikons, but the masking/flare problem is their Achilles' heel.

I've had plenty of instances of flare through the frame gaps in the FH-3 holder I use with my 5000, which I can suppress by using a piece of the black plastic mask material that Nikon supplies with the 9000 to mask off the gap.

With the 9000, I've never had a flare problem that couldn't be fixed by getting the film positioned just so relative to the mask. In particular, I've never seen that sort of flare across edges away from the gap in the frame/mask. With the rotating glass holder I've used the 645, 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 masks without insoluble problems. But I haven't had occasion to try the panoramic 35 mask. Also, FWIW, I've scanned 35mm film in the glassless 35 carrier in my 9000 and haven't had flare problems despite film strip misalignments here and there exposing the clear negative base.

I believe there's a mirror in the optical path that can get dirty and make the flare problem a lot worse. Having a technician clean that is one thing that might be worth trying. Another thing to try would be to use black paper or other thin, opaque material to mask the edges of the negative completely, around all sides, and see whether that makes a difference.
 
T

tjv

Active member
Out of hundreds of scans from the Nikon 8000 I've never seen defective scans like these. Perhaps you need to get your serviced?

I'd love to own an Imacon but the outlay is insane for a non-commerical photographer. Does the 343 run on Snowleopard via firewire? It might be a good option in the interim for me instead of going the whole hog on one of the big boys.
 
D

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Interesting comment from Hasselblad on SL....I run Flexcolor on SL and yesterday double clicked on a 3F scan in Adobe Bridge. It opened in Flexcolor and I was able to process it output to TIFF-16.

This is the scan opened in CS4 resized to 6.5x10 with border after conversion to sRGB from ProPhoto RGB mode to 8 bit and saved as JPG.

So may not be supported but it does work...as does my 343 scanner underfirewire. I did not spot this but wanted to post it as an example. Final post processing is far from done with this pic.

Hasselblad 343 is great but in not a 949 or X5 however I shoot so little film at the present time that it meets my needs. I have extra bulbs and carriers so it should last a very long time. 343 in addition has a set focal path so calibration will never be an issue. Dust is an issue and speed is much slower than the 949...plenty of time for reading and coffee.:ROTFL:

Bob
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top