Digital BW, The Print

Hi Jerry,

> > 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?

Higher resolution for 35mm, scans B&W with a single ND filter...and the
overall scanner design.  The Leaf is designed with no mirrors or deflections
in the light path, I do not believe the Agfa can say that...as it is a
flatbed.  I also don't know what lense the Agfa uses, but the Leaf uses a
Rodigon APO flat field lense, that is quite high end.  Believe me, I have no
disrespect for the Agfa, but it's a multi-purpose scanner that has
compromises in design...

> > 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? :)

Only for MF.  The Leaf has higher resolution for 35mm...5080 vs 4000!
Actually, the way the Leaf does multiple resolutions is "interesting"...you
end up with the ability to make the same sized prints...no matter what the
format...and that works well for me.

> 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.

If you want, Jerry, you can send me a B&W MF negative, and I'll send you a
scan.

BTW, were your Leaf scans B&W or color?

Regards,

Austin