Digital BW, The Print

I've been using the Nikon 8000 since it came out.  Scanning my 6x7 Mamiya film, I make 40x60 (and feel it go bigger) prints from the scans.  By far, the biggest limitation I encounter is the quality of the film image, not scanner.  The dynamic range is good (which is a limitation on something like the Epson 3200), the dpi is good, and the software is good.  When you consider the price, it's a deal.  Of course, if you want/need something that the other scanners offer that the Nikon doesn't, then it's a different ball game.  The Nikon might not be such a good deal.  
 
By the way, I think that dpi and film resolution are related:  we tend to view both out of propotion to the entire imaging process.  There are many factors that go into a great image.  On some images dpi may be an important part, on other images not so important.  Examine your needs closely to get the best fit between your needs and the equipment.  When you get a really good match you'll have the 'best' deal.
 
Tom Baker
 


Steve Kale <stevekale@...> wrote:
First of all I would like to thank all those who took the time to respond to my 
questions.  I think I am getting closer on this.  (I should say that I enjoy working in 
both colour and b&w and so need a good solution for both at the digital capture 
level.) I did not realise that digital backs/cameras can't get a Red Green AND Blue 
reading for each and every pixel - and that there is an interpolation process going on 
- whereas scanners do and so each scanner pixel is a "full" RGB pixel.  As I 
understand it, those who also work in the colour world should be eagerly awaiting the 
deployment of something like Foveon's sensors.  Yet there are a considerable number 
of people who argue that the "cleaness" of a top quality digital sensor as it exists 
today is still better than scanned film with all its grain and artifact issues.

For those who praise the Epson 2450 and, I guess perhaps the 3200 by extension 
although I have not used this scanner, I can only suggest that while I find that it is 
quite remarkable given its low cost, it "dumbs down" using high-end cameras and 
lenses and printing to top-of-the-line printers with state of the art software, RIPs, 
inks etc.  That is to say, I believe it is a very weak link in the chain.  When I look at my 
images on a light box vs on screen post scanning, the lack of focus, shadow detail 
and sharpness is very disappointing to me.  I do have some prints that I am happy 
with but given that I bought the Contax 645 for its (claimed) excellent optics etc I do 
not believe they yet provide true justice to the analogue input.  So its a better scanner 
or a switch to digital right at the front end (digital back etc).

On this I think I have been persuaded to focus on a better scanner.  I still don't "get" 
the 35mm digicam vs 645 digital back market pricing.  High-end 35mm digital 
capture (eg 1Ds) now matches the image sensor capability of all but the highest 645 
digital backs (eg H10) and yet is approx 1/3 the cost.  (Am I missing something 
here?)  And if this is happening then current capability 645 digital backs should 
collapse in price.  Interesting that the digital back manufacturers are now attempting 
to play in the D35mm market with their RAW image processing software...

So when looking at scanners, what is good enough without getting completely stupid?  
What I hate the most is collecting electronic gear that has almost no resale value as I 
come up a learning/quality curve.  Luckily the 2450 did not cost that much and 
occasionally I need to scan reflective material for email.  From what I have read, the 
Nikon 8000 compares very favourably with the Imacon 343 (although some reviews 
make the mistake of trying to put them on a like-for-like basis which is nonsense 
because one really wants to know if a 4000ppi Nikon scan is better than a 3200ppi 
Imacon 343 scan - ie compare them on the basis of the best they can do because 
that's what you pay for).  Presumably it would be left for dead by the Imacon 646.  
The price differentials between these 3 scanners are clear from their prices - $15k for 
the 646, $5k for the 343 and $2.4k for the 8000.  But what about their quality?  

I am not a professional photographer but I would like to be able to produce 
professional grade output up to A3 and larger either via the new Epson 4000 when it 
becomes available or by outsourcing to a lab).  If I can sell some prints to recover 
some costs I would be ecstatic.  However, at the moment I am very limited by what I 
perceive to be a weak link at the start of my workflow which limits my output 
options....

Any thoughts would be appreciated as I am trying to sort this out prior to a trip to NY 
in a couple of weeks time (the Nikon 8000 costs only 40% as much in NY versus the 
UK!!).

Cheers

Steve


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]