Comments on: Landscapes

By: Lawrence Ripsher

Lawrence Ripsher — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 05:11:01 +0000

Hi Jeremy… interesting. I’m tring to answer that question with some comparative testing… gut feel is that resolution will be same / similar, but colour is more accurate on the Nikon. Am seeing if Silverfast’s software resolves that – stay tuned.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:35:27 +0000

Nice work. It’s not just the novelty; Yellowstone is special enough to motivate you into doing the best work you can. There’s nowhere else like it.

On the scanner topic, what do you think of the Epson vs. the Nikon specifically for 35mm? Or are you pretty much just doing 120 now? Most of the negative things I’ve seen about the Epson have been about using it for 35mm.

By: Lawrence Ripsher

Lawrence Ripsher — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:38:18 +0000

I definitely recommend the Epson… it’s perfect for BW and produces images on par with the Coolscan series. I’m still wrestling with it to get the best output in terms of colour. No conclusions yet. Great you’re picking up film again… there still isn’t anything quite like it in the digital world

By: Aloha Lavina

Aloha Lavina — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:09:28 +0000

So you recommend the Epson? I just cleaned my F5 and have some Ilford Delta 400 in it. But not sure if need a scanner? Advice? I shot in Last month mostly in Manual. :)

By: Lawrence Ripsher

Lawrence Ripsher — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 03:40:17 +0000

I do… i actually have three… a canoscan 8800 F (which i no longer use), a nikon 5000 which is great but i intend to sell, and an epson v700 which is my go-to scanner…

i wrote a little abt the canonscan and nikon here

http://lawrenceripsher.com/blog/2009/12/canonscan-8800f-vs-nikon-coolscan-5000-budget-vs-high-end-a-quick-comparison.html

By: Aloha Lavina

Aloha Lavina — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:44:15 +0000

Have you got a negative scanner?