PBase

Kodak claims they are better for scanning than prior versions. I'd love to know if that's true... they of course, provide no examples on their website.

I wish my job was one where I could say anything and not have to back it up with silly details like proof.

Just tried some the other day and spent two days trying to get a decent scan. Then I tried another film setting on the lasersoft and they did great. I had to scan the 160vc with the 400vc settings. I don't know why, but I lost two off days and probably half the hair on my head before I tried that.

mesullivan wrote:Just tried some the other day and spent two days trying to get a decent scan. Then I tried another film setting on the lasersoft and they did great. I had to scan the 160vc with the 400vc settings. I don't know why, but I lost two off days and probably half the hair on my head before I tried that.

You're lucky to even have the film! My local "pro" store isn't selling much film so they're waiting on stock of the old stuff to run out. Can't even get it from B&H or Adorama. Still selling the old stuff.

Did you see improved scan quality from the film, or is all just "hoo ha" from Kodak marketing?

wolfeye wrote:Kodak claims they are better for scanning than prior versions. I'd love to know if that's true... they of course, provide no examples on their website.

I signed up for some of the free stuff about a month ago, still waiting for it to arrive.

Maybe it wasn't the "new stuff" then. The boxes are long gone now so not sure.

Yea . . it's good stuff. Not right for everything but it's good for skin. Have many boxes of 120 and 35 in the freezer. Depends on what you shoot. I wouldn't pick it for landscapes for instance.

wolfeye wrote:Kodak claims they are better for scanning than prior versions. I'd love to know if that's true... they of course, provide no examples on their website.

I wish my job was one where I could say anything and not have to back it up with silly details like proof.