![]() ![]() In reality, the Canon ScanGear software produced the best results and was much easier to work with. In fact, after profiling it with two different IT8 targets using third-party software I found that all this resulted in was a loss of color neutrality and an exaggeration of contrast, which I really didn't care for on either count. Regarding Platen use with flat documents and photographs, I found the scanner to be very fast, and it produced excellent quality in terms of color accuracy and neutrality. This is a summary of what I did found on the Mark II: So in fact, there may be indeed be no difference in image quality between recent manufacturers of the two models. I'll speak to that momentarily, but keep in mind that I cannot really account for the validity of anyone else's results. Unfortunately, I could not compare it to the original 9000 F since I don't have one available, however, my 9000 F Mark II seems to perform better based on the early reviews of the ori. I picked up my 9000 F Mark II two days ago and since then I have run a number of real-world tests on it. That being said, the following is a photographer oriented review in that image quality is valued first and foremost. As any real photographer knows when it comes to equipment, the proof is in the photograph. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |