Digital BW, The Print

Alessandro, you wrote:

>I think that even the most curled film would behave with the
fluid. As for
positioning the film, with 6x7 in the 4x5 area you have plenty of
room (the
only issue may be getting it vertically and horizontally aligned,
but you
can always rotate it in Photoshop). If you scan 4x5 you probably
need a
custom carrier (but then again, I didn't personally verify that
the epson
*needs* the carrier to perform calibration).<

I tried to find a sweet spot for focusing with the 3200. It seems
not to exist, there's very little difference between the
glassplate and up to the surface of the scannerframe that is 3 mm
higher. The film in the carriers is at 1 mm from the glass
surface. Similar report is found at:
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/epson3200/index.html

Wonder whether there's any need for wetmounting on the Epson like
I do on the Nikon 8000. The dynamic range of the Epson is more
limited and with wetmounting the contrast increases. Any sign
that slide or B&W film scanning clips more with wetmounting on
the 3200 ?

Any mask will do for film scanning but you don't get the direct
placing in the software. One way to make nice glassless masks
would be to imitate the Flextight system without the curved
surface. 1 mm thick magnetic sign vinyl, either use two mask
halfs cut from the same material or have one made of  SS steel
lasercut to the size. Keep that on top so the glass isn't
scratched. The vinyl is heavy flexible stuff that will lay flat
and the magnetism will clamp the film enough. Panoramic sizes,
3,5 x 4,5 Polaroid 665 film, MF film in the length of the bed.
Not my invention but an Australian made a similar adaption with
the glassless mask of the Nikon 8000.

Norman Koren's pages have several links to tests of the 3200 also
one where the new Canon flatbed 9900F is compared with the Epson.
Epson wins.

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/Epson_flatbeds.html

Ernst