Digital BW, The Print

Thanks!

Yeah, with 120 or 4x5" you aren't enlarging as much and it is ok.  I 
have a Epson 2450 and it is ok for 120, but quite good for 4x5".  I 
found that mine does terrible on the glass, in fact I have to shim 
the holder higher to get maximum sharpness out of the scanner (spent 
more than an hour experimenting)... they don't hold very tight 
tolerances on those machines I guess, but they are good for large 
format negs IMO... I would pan it for 35mm as well though.

I've been using a Minolta Scan Dual II for a long time and that is 
worthless for Tri-X, but even what I see from the highly regarded 
4000ppi Nikon doesn't blow me away either...

Nice photos on your site!  ...but looking closely the grain still 
doesn't look quite right to me... I think I am really picky:)

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, sandersm@a... 
wrote:
> Mark Hahn asked about scanning Tri-X.
> 
> Mark, I have used two consumer scanners that handled Tri-X well.   
If you're 
> shooting 120 roll film, the Epson 2450/3170/3200 will do a good 
job, at least 
> if you put the filmstrip directly onto the glass, emulsion side 
down (to avoid 
> Newton rings).   It has a diffuse light source, that seems to yield 
pleasing 
> results when scanning b+w negatives.   Many have panned it as a 
tool for 
> scanning 35mm film, but as I scan 120 roll film and 4x5 sheets, I 
cannot speak to 
> that from experience.
> 
> If you are willing to spend the extra money, the Microtek 120tf 
film scanner 
> and its predecessor, the Polaroid 120 Sprintscan, both work really 
well with 
> Tri-X and other b+w emulsions.   Again, people who understand the 
machines 
> attribute their ability to handle b+w films to the nature of their 
light source.   
> I have an Epson 3200 as well as the Microtek, and each has its 
strengths, but 
> both handle Tri-X quite nicely.   I do not claim to be a pro, but 
if you 
> visit my photographs at www.mcnew.net, all of them are scans of 
film from one or 
> the other of these two machines (most of them with the Microtek), 
and most of 
> them are shot onto Tri-X, developed mostly in HC-110.   
> 
> Sanders McNew
> www.mcnew.net
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]