Digital BW, The Print

Hi Sanders and Scott,

I noticed something similar with the Epson 3200, and I've also put it 
down to the light source. However, there is no doubt that the Epson 
flatbeds are significantly less sharp than decent film scanners. This 
isn't a problem with moderate sized prints from 120 film, but I 
didn't find the results acceptable for 35mm. Also, the lack of 
gain/exposure control in the hardware plus absysmal colour accuracy 
led me to return my 3200 within a month of purchasing it.

However, looking at some of the beautifully toned B&W medium format 
scans I obtained from the unit, I'm slightly regretful of this and 
I'm coming around to the idea of getting a 4870 purely for this type 
of work. B&W scans on my Minolta 5400 (even with its built-in 
diffuser enabled) are hard as nails by comparison, and so too was the 
Minolta Scan Multi which I thought might make a good solution for MF. 
From what I hear, even the much-vaunted Imacons produce extremely 
hard B&W scans. So like you Sanders, I've come to the conclusion that 
if you want good results from several different film types, you need 
to consider having multiple scanners. For instance, my 5400 is worth 
having just on the merits of the fabulous job it does with 35mm 
Kodachrome.

-= mike =-

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sandersnyc" 
<sandersm@a...> wrote:
> 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
<snip>