Finally some scans!

[MattC]

Yesterday I bit the bullet and purchased a Canon 9000f scanner.
These are some of the initial results - so far pretty happy.

These four shots were taken at an armature boxing night, and the lighting was ordinary to say the least.
Self developed Tri-X 400 using D76 1:1

Cheers,
Matt

Right hook
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5189/20101204img0024.jpg

The Contender
http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/7849/20101204img0020.jpg

Defence
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/8818/20101204img0017.jpg

Down!
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/6555/20101204img0028.jpg

[geck]

Nice shots mate, love the atmosphere in #2

[MattC]

Thanks! - much appreciated.

[Kym]

:kewl: These have a classic newspaper sports feel to them, great work

[MattC]

Thanks Kym !

[TOM]

Great shots here Matt, agree with Kym about the classic look.

BTW, did you use Vuescan on your 64 bit Windows 7 system?

[fabian628]

Nice shots! did you print these or are they scans of the nagatives.
Look a little bit underexposed, but that might just be my monitor! :)

[MattC]

Great shots here Matt, agree with Kym about the classic look.

BTW, did you use Vuescan on your 64 bit Windows 7 system?

Thanks Ty - managed to get the Canon software working no problems - at the moment though I am scanning directly into photoshop.


Nice shots! did you print these or are they scans of the nagatives.
Look a little bit underexposed, but that might just be my monitor! :)

Thanks Fabian - I agree these are probably slightly underexposed, but it was a very dark room :)
These are scans direct from the negative

[TOM]

I think I may have mentioned to you, when we spoke the other day, that I didn't recommend the Canon 9000f as it didn't work with Vuescan and Windows 7 64-bit. In fact, I had to make the choice to buy another scanner, or get the Silverfast scanning software. In the end I went for Silverfast. I despise the program, and after developing some 120 film today I decided to look at the Vuescan website again (it's been a few months). I was pleasantly surprised to find that they have a new version out (9), which works perfectly with 64-bit. I would highly recommend Vuescan for your 9000f Matt, and the great thing is it has free upgrade forever! It's a great combination to compliment your wet prints.

[arthurking83]

#2 for me too.

As for scanner(hardware). How did you find the Canon.

That one(9000f) and the Epson v700 are the two on my shortlist to purchase this coming year as I have no scanner at all..... have never really needed one(except for basic purposes) and the one I have doesn't work in Win7/64 at all(very old).

So a new scanner is has to be and I'm undecided. I don't need speed, all I want is good quality. So far I'm leaning towards the Epson v700 for some reason.
I have some films i want to scan, but the majority of it's workload is going to be old prints(mums) some nearly 100 years old now.

[TOM]

wow AK, there's a fair difference in price between those two scanners. I'm sure Matt will give his thoughts, as I know that he considered the V700 also, but I would have thought that for prints, the Canon would be the best bang for buck. The Epson does produce better results for scanning film however, but isn't it about three times the price?

[MattC]

As TOM has said -there is a massive price difference between the two. About $350 compared to over $1000
The Canon will do up to 120 film scans, the Epson will do (I believe) 4x5 negative scans
So far I have found the Canon to be fine for doing what I want it to do - scan 135 and 120 film for display on the net. I have also been using it to scan (and restore in PS) old slides from my parents and my inlaws, which have worked out fine considering the age of some of them!
I will be checking out Vuescan though!

Two of the best reviews I have found for the Canon is here (http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/CS9000/9000F.HTM) and here (http://www.stockholmviews.com/canon_9000f_review/)
Do I think the Epson would do a better job - most certainly - but at 3 times the price, for what I am doing, I couldn't justify the difference. If I start shooting 4x5 film, then I may have another look at it, but until then I am happy with the Canon.

Cheers,
Matt

[arthurking83]

Thanks for the replies to my slightly OT post.

I've found the Epson for just over $700, and the Canon is $400 cheaper, but I'm thinking that if I do get a scanner, I only want to get it once, and not find out at some point in the future that "bruddy 'ell, I could have used that extra feature or extra quality of the slightly more expensive model" ..etc, etc
What i was more curious about was if the extra moola for the Epson was for the hardware, or the extra bundled software that comes with it, such as Elements 6(don't really care for it, but it may come in handy for more elaborate cloning/healing) and SilverFast SE6(no idea on why I'd need or want that either, based on TOM's comments). I'm assuming that based on specs(between V700 and V600) that the V700 is indeed higher specced in terms of hardware as they list the optical resolution of the device(@ 4800dpi) which I assume is over the entire plate surface area(not the film coverage area). They don't list the same specs for their lower specced scanners as you'd assume it to be in the order of 600 or 1200dpi.

anyhow.. sorry for the OT post.. i can split the last few posts into a new thread and make a specific scanner related thread, just to keep your thread on topic if you like.

[nickant44]

Officeworks online shop shows none in stock. If you want this scanner be quick! There may be stock on the floor in some stores, but not for very long.