Digital BW, The Print

Martin

The article in Camera Arts was about the 1640xl, but the 1680 is 
identical in quality to it - same specs - 1600dpi optical,3.6density 
range. The 1640xl has variable focus and a larger scan area 
(mostly useful for graphic artists,cad, and architects) but I also 
have a 1680 and like it as well. For photographers, the 1680 is a 
better solution, and works just as well as the 1640xl with the oil 
mounting technique. 

Also, the Polaroid SprintScan 45 Ultra is outstanding. I can scan  
4x5 negatives 100% at 2500 dpi and go up to 24x??? on the 
Epson 7000 without Genuine Fractals(which is not supported by 
the Piezography RIP). It's half the price of the Imacon. The new 
Epson 2450 scanner, recently announced at MacWorld, with 
2400 optical dpi, a 3.4 density range, and a 4x9 transparency 
scanning bed for $399 will be really interesting. 

I appreciate you removing the diatribe on the list about Cone 
Tech products at Calumet. I have been a long-time customer of 
Calumet(over 30 years). Their service and prices are by far 
superior to anyone's and Richard Newman went out on a limb to 
have the first national Piezography workshop at the Calumet 
Institute last year. They were the first large photography retailer to 
recognize the importance of Quadtone printing, and they have 
been the first to initially sell many unique photographic  items. 
Plus, they listen. Indeed, we owe them a debt of gratitude.

George

> I recommend that you check out George DeWolfe's article on 
the 1680 
> in the April/May issue of Camera Arts magazine. He did 
side-by-side 
> comparisons of the 1680 scans to drum scans of 35mm 
transparencies. 
> Very informative. Especially about the oil mounting.
> Martin Wesley