Digital BW, The Print

This is interesting - as I am going through the same
process.  

I had been using an Epson 3200 for all my negative
scanning, then I purchased a Canon 10d.  With my
printing sizes, shooting 35mm is no longer needed. 
The 35mm scans from the 3200 just can't hold
themselves up against the 10d.  Plus the obvious
benefits of not needing to dust-clone and all the
money I am saving by not buying compressed air.

As the 35mm negatives were just too soft when scanned
- I mothballed the scanner.  I have been contemplating
a new dedicated film scanner purcase, but I've bought
enough (know what I mean?).  Besides, as I print
smaller than 11x14, I do not need to shoot 35.

The moral of the story, yesterday I scanned a 645
negative with the 3200.  I had run a few tests and
found that no matter how I scanned it - Full
resolution via the epson driver, or at the output size
at 360dpi with silverfast with 4 passes; I get the
same sharpness (but vastly different file sizes).  So,
I scanned a negative directly with silverfast at an
output of 4x5 with 360 dpi, and printed the image
directly without any photoshop controls or
intervention via UT2/1280.  I can honestly say that
this is everybit as sharp as a contact print - and the
ink gives a certain "platinum" look to the final
image.  Once agian, kudos to Paul.

I have not tried a large print from the from the same
scanner, but at the native resolution and a 6x6
negative - I believe you can make around a 20x20 with
360dpi.  I can attest that medium format negatives are
sharp with my 3200.  Pretty good for an inexpensive
flatbed...

Don

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html