Digital BW, The Print

Hi Scott,

Sorry if I irritated you somehow, but I returned the scanner for this 
reason:

> 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.

It may be a fine scanner in some respects, but I found it very hit-
and-miss and the exposure control issue was a huge bugbear (does 
anyone know if that has been fixed in the 4870??)

I also found it impossible to compensate for the extreme hardness of 
Minolta B&W scans by post-scan treatment. It's not just a matter of 
contrast, it's to do with the way that the light source renders the 
grain, and I couldn't fix it via curves and/or blur. By the time I 
got the tones as smooth as the Epson's, the Minolta scans ended up 
being far softer. If you or anyone else has a workflow that will 
mimic the sort of creamy-smooth output the Epson can give, starting 
with a much harder scan, then I'd love to hear about it. (Is anybody 
in this group using an Imacon for B&W, and what are your opinions on 
this topic?)

Regards,

-= mike =-


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Graham" 
<gebilwil@n...> wrote:
> 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