Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
montecarlo wrote:
Very good scans, I say, and shots too. The first and the one with the red flower I like the most. Its not too far from "digital" colours, at lest Sensia and maybe Astia (both from Fuji).
Yes, I need a scanner because the scanning is the most expensive in the film processing , if I can call it this way.
Now, better sayd not too long ago I considered that buying a flatbet Canon scanner (for documents only - LIDE 25 ) was a bad move but then I needed it for my work. A flatbet one but with film scaning "abilities" would be a better solution (this way I can use it for my work) even if the quality wouldn't be the highest but at the same as the lab does for money. _________________ Canonet QL17 III
Zenit E , Helios-44 58mm f:2.0 , Tair-11A 135mm f:2.8, Jupiter-9 85mm f:2.0,
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm f:2.4
Pentax MX, ME Super, Chinon CE4/CM4, Petri MC 28mm f:2, smc Pentax-M 50mm f:1.7, Soligor T 135mm f:2.8
Minolta X500, Tokina 28/2.8, Rokkor 50/1.7, 80-205/4.5
Nikon D90, Nikkor 35/2.0, Nikkor 50/1.8, Sigma 24/2.8, Nikkor 18-105 VR |