Digital BW, The Print

On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 06:17  PM, Stephen Kobrin wrote:

> Somewhere in the midst of the torrent of posts about ever getting a
> simple B&W print, someone noted that Nikon software compresses the
> tonal range vis-a-vis Vuescan.  I scan with a Nikon LS-2000 using
> Nikon software and would like to hear more about this topic.  (I must
> say I am even more confused about optimal scanning resolution after
> the last few days -- I typically scan at either 360 or 400.)

Hi Stephen... when you say you typically scan at 360 or 400, I'm 
assuming you mean final print size. When I used my LS2000 I scanned at 
2700. My printer then, the EX, was I believe 1440 x 720, following the 
old epson rule of thirds that would mean 480 files, but I typically 
sent 240 and 360 to get larger print sizes without resampling ... I 
assumed then that the lower 720 was the truer resolution. But what did 
I know. These days I throw all sorts of odd resolution sizes at my 
epsons, I don't see a difference for the most part unless I go under 
300, but I do notice at times that I alleviate some microbanding in 
quad printing with a whacked out dpi setting.... could be wishful 
thinking.

>  I look
> at scanning as a means to get as much information from the negative
> into PS as possible and if Vuescan will pull more out of the
> negative, I would be willing to give it a try.  Any comments
> appreciated.

As another post suggests, I'd just give it a go, you're the best judge. 
  I never used it with my LS2000, it didn't exist then to my knowledge.
Carolyn