Digital BW, The Print

Hi Folks,

I invite you folks to join us on our forums;

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/epson4870/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/epson3200/

There are some pretty knowledgeable folks there, some professional 
scanner/printer people, and a bunch of casual (If using the 4870 can 
be considered casual) users and the like. 

Recently there has been a long discussion of Wet Mounting techniques 
on flatbeds. A bunch of us have done it with some pretty cool 
results. Also the various scanner software has been pretty well 
explored. Post your questions and comments.

Thanks

Jules


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