I didn't think it was an argument, Boris. Just information. - Scanners which have IR-based dust and scratch reduction/removal features can automate dust removal much more easily than DSLR capture can, although the spotting tools in LR and the contextual-aware cloning tools in PS CS5 go a long way to make it easier. It's a bit of a toss up. Of course, the IR-based features don't work with non-C41 B&W films or Kodachrome 25 so well, if at all.
- I have not found capturing high quality images files from film with a DSLR to be a significantly less time consuming process than capturing with a high quality scanner. There's less time in the capture process itself, of course, but more time spent preparing the setup and focusing, and more time spent editing. The scanning capture is tedious, for sure, and it seems that the DSLR gets through that somewhat faster, but overall the total time required to get critical quality work is pretty darn similar. Paul :: it isn't clear whether you're referring to VueScan raw files or VueScan's outputted DNG files. They're different. VueScan raw files have extension .TIFF, where VueScan can create "raw" DNG files that have extension .DNG. The .DNG files it outputs are an encapsulation of TIFF RGB files and are very editable in Camera Raw; they're not actually raw files at all, simply a TIFF using the ability of DNG to encapsulate them and provide more functionality. The raw .TIFF files are only editable in Camera Raw if you have one of the latest versions of the Camera Raw plugin and have the option to enable editing of TIFF files in Camera Raw's preferences turned on. Of course, being TIFFs, they are editable in Lightroom or Photoshop without Camera Raw anyway. I've done a lot of scanning since 1995 ... several thousand exposures ... with all kinds of workflows. I just recently finished doing proof scans of my entire Minox film library, collating and annotating them ... over 1900 exposures. It's a chore. Nowadays, particularly for more normal work in 35mm that needs scanning, I'm much happier if I have more than a dozen frames to just send them to scancafe.com : they do as good or better job as anyone and it saves me a lot of time and effort. I concentrate my scanning efforts on unusual formats and restoration work where I need total control of the process. On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Boris Liberman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/27/2010 4:51 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >> >> However, with today's 10-14 Mpixel DSLRs and a suitable setup, you can >> achieve approximately the same image resolution as a 4000 ppi scanner >> with better dmax from 35mm film. > > To add to Godfrey's good argument here, I am thinking that there are more > advantages to DSLR method: > > 1. Easier to deal with dust (I think). > 2. The process of scanning itself is very quick. So that it seems (again, I > am not sure, but still) that if one is moving from flatbed scanner scanning > to DLSR scanning, they might as well speed up the process... > > Boris > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
