Digital BW, The Print

Scott, in a word:  Yes.  But's it's not that simple.  It's not so much a ma=
tter of 
sharpness, as it is of diffusion.  People with a lot of experience scanning=
 traditional 
b+w emulsions have often favored the Polaroid SprintScan and the Microtek 1=
20 
(same machine, basically) over the Nikon scanners because the light they us=
e gives a 
more diffuse scan, which tends to smooth out grain in b+w film.  I suppose =
you could  
couch this in terms of sharpness, but to my eye the image remains sharp, ex=
cept 
highlights tend to spread and smooth over grain.  The Epson flatbed is yet =
a bit more 
diffuse than the Polaroid/Microtek scanners.

Your reference to Vaselined lenses is apt.  I often work to create portrait=
s with diffuse 
highlights.  Some people go for the "soft-focus" approach, and shoot throug=
h 
Vaseline or tulle or whatever.  (I know somebody who leaves their Holga nex=
t to the 
stove when frying up the bacon.)  But that degrades the image in ways I don=
't like.  I 
go another route:  I will shoot an old lens, like a Dagor or a Heliar, at a=
 wide aperture, 
or else will use an older "diffused focus" lens like a Wollensak Verito.  M=
y goal is not a 
muddy or unfocused image, but a tack-sharp image with diffused highlights. =
 I'm not 
sure I'm doing a good job of articulating the difference, but there is one.=


The Epson 3200 renders a very sharp image.  But it has a rather diffuse lig=
ht source, 
and that seems to smooth over some of the grain while preserving the detail=
 in the 
image that I care about.  Because of that, the Epson seems to do a much bet=
ter job of 
rendering skin tones in my b+w portraiture.

I apologize for being less than articulate about this -- I'm sure somebody =
who knows 
what they're talking about will jump in and explain better than I.

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Graham" 
<gebilwil@n...> wrote:
> Hi Sanders,
> 
> Are you saying that since the Epson doesn't produce as sharp an image you=

> favor it 
> sometimes?  sort of like putting vaseline on a lense for some special
> applications?
> 
> :~)
> 
> Scott
> 
> > 
> > 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=
 1=
> 20tf.  The 
> > 
> > But If I'm scanning a portrait or a figure study, the Epson flatbed win=
s =
> 
> > hands down every time.  It produces a slightly more diffuse image, and =
sm=
> oother 
> > skin tones.  It might not be as clinically sharp as the Microtek, but t=
ha=
> t's not 
> > > 
> > Sanders McNew
> > www.mcnew.net
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]