Digital BW, The Print

Of course "decent film scanners" produce better results than a flat bed, for film.  They are 
designed to scan film as opposed to large flat "objects".  And they cost more cuz they have 
more capability (for film, like res, dmax, etc).  Sort of like a sports car and a station 
wagon: you might want both.

And of course someone will always try to go cheap like using a flat bed for film.  I certainly 
will if it meets my needs.  

You get what you pay for.

And it is a bit like the old condenser vs diffusion enlarger question.  I always preferred 
detail and sharpness.  If you have it, you can get rid of it; if you don't have it you can't get 
it.

and on the 3200, it is a fine scanner.  You returned it for the wrong reason.

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mike_nunan" 
<mike_nunan@h...> wrote:
> 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