Imacon Flextight 1

[shk331]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thankyou very much nightfire for your excellent comparison and narrative.

 

Very helpful to me and I am sure to many others also. Fantastic!

 

+1

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[autillo]

Thank you very much Nightfire.

daniel

[Guido]

Nightfire, nice work. What sharpening settings do you prefer for scans from the Epson?

Thanks. Given a raw, unsharpened 16-bit 3200dpi scan by Vuescan from the V750, I find that "Smart Sharpen" in Photoshop with amount=80%, radius=2.0px, "remove lens blur" and "more accurate" works best for me. I want this to emphasize structures and detail a bit (similar to RAW sharpening with digital), but not to the point where it would interfere with later output sharpening.

 

After editing, my output sharpening usually consists of (a) "Nik Sharpener Pro" with more or less canned inkjet settings if I want to print, or ( a resize to 800-1000px followed by "Smart Sharpen" with amount=80%, radius=0.2 or 0.1px, "remove lens blur" and "more accurate" if I want to publish to the web.

[Guido]

How well does the X1 deal with scratches etc on Black and White film. I know the X5 has a condenser (X1 does not - but maybe the condenser is only used for flat copy which the X5 can also do).

The X1 deals very well with scratches and dust specks: on an unprocessed scan, you will see every single one of them, even the tiniest ones! As my posted example already suggests, the X1 has a tendency to produce a sharp, almost brutal rendering of even the slightest details (and defects), while the V750 has a softer, condenser-like characteristic which I find better suited to dusty, scratched, or grainy (high ISO) film.

 

For example, I sometimes shoot Efke 820 infrared film, which is notorious for the dust and hair already deposited on the emulsion in the factory. Scanning this on the X1 invariably means a lot of healing brush work in Photoshop, while the V750 makes the job significantly easier.

[JHAG]

"Why expect to have your pictures the next day when you can look at them for the rest of your life ?"

 

Well coined.

Leica should use your sentence to sell MP's and M7.

I wouldn't dream of ditching my Rollei and Hasselblad for digital ones anytime soon.

But I'm no wedding photographer.

[marcusperkins]

Thanks Nightfire an Artisan.

 

I've had (colour) 35mm negatives scanned on the X1, but never the X5, and I would be very curious to find out how much of a difference the condenser makes when scanning scratched negatives without any software fix.

 

When printing traditionally, surface scratches rarely cause any problems presumably because of the condensed light source in the enlarger - although dust does need to be controlled/spotted.

 

Have either of you two (or anybody else) had any experience with both scanners, rather than one or the other.

 

Great to see such an intelligent and helpful thread.

[Guido]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Have either of you two (or anybody else) had any experience with both scanners, rather than one or the other.

As far as I'm concerned, unfortunately no. I've already saved two scanners from sure extinction; from a financial perspective, I'm afraid that's all I can do for this endangered species

[marcusperkins]

Many thanks regardless Nightfire.

[menos I M6]

nightfire - thanks a lot for your samples and the explanations.

 

what can be seen in your MF scans with the Imacon vs flatbed, illustrates exactly, what I can perceive in the 35mm scans, I get from the lab vs my own flatbed EPSON scans.

 

I shoot pushed Tri-X, which is very grainy at ISO 3200 − 6400.

The Imacon scans show extremely sharp and detailed grain fibres (as well as image details), while the EPSON hides the grain structure under a cloud layer of disguise, which looks more like digital noise, than actual film grain.

 

I very much prefer the Imacon grain detail, to start post from, as I can control by myself, how much detail I want to see in print.

 

Of course, the question regarding investment is quickly answered in favor of my bank account unfortunately ;-)

[dicko101]

A Coolscan 5000ED went for AUD$4300 in the last couple of days. It looks like those left in the wild are fetching a good dollar. Of course the Nikon's scanning/mounting mechanism by default is woeful, but the X1 looks a nice beast.

[nhabedi]

A Coolscan 5000ED went for AUD$4300 in the last couple of days. It looks like those left in the wild are fetching a good dollar. Of course the Nikon's scanning/mounting mechanism by default is woeful, but the X1 looks a nice beast.

 

Google says that AUD 4300 is almost EUR 3000. Was this a new one or a used one? Yes, the Coolscans are pretty expensive now that they aren't built anymore, but I think this is a bit too much.

 

If I were to spend 3000 Euros for a scanner, I'd hunt for a used Imacon 343. (A used 848 was sold for 4200 Euros on eBay Germany some weeks ago.)