Digital BW, The Print

Hello Ken,

>If you have a good 35mm camera now, and like the 35mm
>qualities, my take is that you would be better off upgrading 
>your 35mm scanner, say to a Nikon Super Coolscan 4000ED.  
>Medium format doesn't really gain over 35, especially 6x4.5, 
>unless you have an even more expensive scanner, 

My own experience has been different than this.  I have made prints
from 35mm negs scanned on Steve K's Nikon 8000 (4000 dpi) and
645/66/67 negs scanned on my 1600 dpi flatbed, and the 35mm images
still fall apart sooner (as the print size increases) than the 645
flatbed images.  Of course the better scanner makes a huge difference
(35mm scans on the flatbed are unaceptable), but there's no substitute
for real estate.  There's a clarity and presence from larger negs that
is obvious when same size prints from these scans are compared.  In my
experience the difference begins to show by the time the print gets up
to 8x10.

I'm getting excellent results from the 1600-flatbed/645 scans, and
with the newer 3200 model I'm sure it would be even better.  IMO,
moving from 35mm to 645 or greater will not be regretted if quality of
larger prints is a goal.

I have a lot of good negs from years of work, 35mm through 4x5, that I
want to work up into digi prints.  After a year of experimenting with
Steve K's scanner and my own, I've concluded that the best $ value for
me will be to get a 35mm film scanner (I'm seriously considering the
upcoming Minolta 5400) and use the flatbed (maybe upgrade to the 3200)
for the larger negs.  The Minolta 5400 @ $900 and Epson 3200 @ $375 is
still under half the price of a Nikon 8000 @ $2700.  Add in a 2200 @
$700 and the Epson RIP @ $200 and it comes to $2175, still $500 less
than the 8000.  $500 will buy a lot of ink and paper <g>.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm