Digital BW, The Print

Miguel,
I agree that the Epson 1640 is about as useless as they come for 
scanning 35mm film except for web use. MF is another story. The Epson 
2450 is sharper and would be good for scans to about 8 times negative 
size.

Do not discount the Polaroid SS4000 yet.

Photographer Chris Cheadle has been using a Polaroid SS4000. In fact 
all the photo on his site were done with that scanner.
http://www.chrischeadle.com/

However he did sell his scanner for $327. on eBay today. He will be 
getting a MF scanner that can also scan 35mm.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?
ViewItem&item=3004691736&category=15223

Here's Johnny Deadman's site where his negs were scanned using a 
Polaroid SS4000 and also an Epson 1640. He does b&w street 
photography 
http://www.pinkheadedbug.com/

It might be worthwhile to contact them for input on the SS4000. The 
newer SS4000 Pro is even better but I hear it's about to be 
discontinued.

Cheers,
Andre




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jimenez12fr 
<miguel.jimenez@o...>" <miguel.jimenez@o...> wrote:
> Andre,
> 
> Initially I used the specific TMY profiles which also gave me the 
> same amount of grain. I have been trying to solve this problem for 
> some time now, following discussions in photo.net and asking in 
that 
> forum. The advice I got was to use Vuescan, scan in Raw mode (of 
> course without ICE which anyway does not work when you choose "B&W 
> negative" film) and do all manipulations in PS, because the raw 
file 
> should contain all the information available and PS is a better 
tool 
> to manipulate. Some people said that with this method they never 
had 
> problems, but then I read one of those people recognizing that 
using 
> the Nikon 8000 scanner for MF negatives was not satisfactory 
because 
> it gives harsh grain and he preferred to go back to his previous 
> scanner, an Epson 2450. Now, I also have the Epson scanner (which 
> shouldn't be very different from your 1640 version) and it doesn't 
> give noticeable grain, but for scanning 35mm is a bit soft. I use 
it 
> for 4x5 film and I'm very happy with it, and you and that person in 
> photo net use it for MF negatives, for which the 2450 seems to be 
> also good.
> The fact of too much grain with the 4000 dpi scanners has its part 
of 
> good news (they are very sharp), but of course is not satisfactory 
> for final prints. I am not ready to swap the Canon scanner by a 
> Polaroid, which seems to accentuate grain by less. I have just had 
a 
> look at Norman Koren's site, and the software suggested by previous 
> posts here and recommended there looks promising (less grain 
> with "natural" look). We'll see. Thanks for your interest though.
> 
> Miguel
> 
>