Digital BW, The Print

Hi Austin. 

As you may know, I've had a leafscan made from my favorite Rollei
negative. 

I've also scanned the same neg on my agfa T2500 scanner. Quality for all
practical purposes is absolutely identical. 16x20 prints show not a whit
of difference.  I didn't have my scanner at the time I had the leafscan
made. So when I got it, I made a scan just to see if the leafscan was
any better.  It wasn't. As good, yes. Better, no. Not sharper, not more detailed.


> I KNOW the Leaf is much better in all respects than the Agfa 2500.   Not
> that the Agfa is a bad scanner at all, but it isn't even in the same league
> as the Leaf.  

What is there about the agfa that puts it outside the leaf's wonderfulness?

I have hand no hands on experience with the leaf, so all I know is the
comparison of the image I recieved from the lab that did it.

I've also tested the Leaf against the Nikon 8000, and no, the
> Nikon isn't better, IMO, unless you need the extra resolution.

Good God Austin, you mean you admit there's a scanner that has better
resolution than the leaf? :)

> Also, scanner operation is VERY critical to how good your scans come out.
> That's just a fact of life, just like taking the original image, operator
> experience and vision weigh in heavily on the ability to make a high quality
> outcome.

I know it. I'm not positive the guy who scanned my leafscan was an
expert.  I'll never know. He's long gone, and so is the leaf scanner at
his lab. But my own scan is of equal quality to his leafscan. 

Jerry
>