Digital BW, The Print

Bernie said:

"If I may add a word. I know a photographer who is one of the rare in
Germany who makes - at least partly - a living by selling fine art
b&w photography, and in addition to his Nikon 8000 (or was it a
Polaroid 120?) he got this Epson 2450 flatbed for 6x7 negs and he
said that often he uses the 2450 now because the scans look somehow
more natural. I think the 2450 was the first serious flatbed Epson
made, the later 3200 and the last one should even be a bit higher in
resolution."

Truer words were never spoken.  I scan 120 Tri-X (shot at EI 200 and 
developed in Rodinal 1:100) with an Epson 3200 and a Microtek Artixscan 120tf.  The 
Microtek is a dedicated MF film scanner, and it handles traditional b+w 
emulsions quite well.  When I scan landscapes, I tend to favor the Microtek.  Not 
always, but as often as not.

But If I'm scanning a portrait or a figure study, the Epson flatbed wins 
hands down every time.  It produces a slightly more diffuse image, and smoother 
skin tones.  It might not be as clinically sharp as the Microtek, but that's not 
what I want with a negative I've shot with a wide-open Heliar or Dagor lens, 
or a diffused focusing lens.  For an example, see the image at this link, 
which I shot on Sunday afternoon with a Heliar lens at f/6.3, and scanned on the 
Epson 3200:

http://www.pbase.com/image/28572673

It's taken me awhile to appreciate that there are different tools for 
different tasks, and that the sharpest blade is not always the the best.  The Epson 
might not have the best numbers compared to the Microtek or the Nikon or the 
Imacon, but it produces some wonderful scans.

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net


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