Digital BW, The Print

slalred wrote:

> I use an Epson 3200 to scan MF negatives (XP-2) and slides (Ektachrome
> 100G) I shoot with an Affa Super-Isolette folder.  It's true that the
> realistic optical resolution is around 2000dpi for the 3200, but with
> a 2 1/4 negative that still gives a 15 inch x 15 inch print at 300dpi
> printed resoultion.
> 
> I'd suggest that you join the Epson3200 group here on Yahoo and
> research the archives for the past year.  The list is quiet these
> days, but when the 3200 was the top of the line there was a lot of
> effort from folks who improved on the film holders, figured out the
> prime focus plane, and even developed methods for wet mounting the
> film to assure edge-to-edge sharpness.
> 
> Steve Alred

Scanning w
ith my Nikon 8000, my Epson 3200 and wet mounting on both 
scanners I'm certain that the MF<>35MM quality difference is kept 
on the 3200.  Based on 4x5 scans for several customers and some 
test scans of MF color negatives  but also with the scans that I 
make of color and B&W negatives from the variety of folders that 
I have (among them an Iskra, the Soviet Super-Isolette clone). 
The Nikon 8000 is better but with good scan methods and editing 
you can get very close with the 3200. Not on resolution but 
there's no problem with density and color.  Using the normal 
glassless MF carrier on the Nikon 8000 will probably deliver a 
worse result than good wet mounting + masking techniques on an 
Epson 4870.

If it has to be a more expensive MF film scanner: The Polaroid 
120 MF scanner is a good scanner too and usually lower in price 
secondhand, The Microtek model is still available new. Secondhand 
and refurbished Nikon 8000 are not that expensive either.

It is a pity that the 3200 list got competition of the 4870 list. 
But the moderator decided to add a new list. Far more 
similarities between the models 2450 and up than differences so 
I'm still wondering why that split was necessary.

Ernst