Digital BW, The Print

Djon wrote:

>Dan, if the 4870 is like the lesser 3200 you don't need any adapter. 
>
>You can just lay the film on the glass with a black paper
>mask...there's tremendous depth of focus,unlike film-only scanners.
>The supposed need for "1mm" spacing seems an urban legend with sheet
>film (I've scanned a lot of 4X5). 
>
>In fact, you may not even need a mask (though a densitometer might
>prove that wrong). I've scanned a lot of strange sized ancient
>negatives without masks and it's worked beautifully.  
>
>fyi you'll probably want to use the bundled Silverfast. 
>
>  
>

Djon,

The best scans that I get on my 3200 are with a mask 1,5 mm thick and 
the film wetmounted to a sheet of 2 mm floatglass that is lying on that 
mask but with the film at the underside of the extra glass sheet. I use 
an extra piece of transparent polyester foil to wetmount the film. Of 
everything I tried this is the best method. But I have seen many reports 
of other methods like your's. In my opinion Epson QC tries to keep the 
focus at 1 mm above the glass as the film in the carriers is at that 
height. But the best focus may vary between the glassplate and 2 mm up 
in practice, it is hard to notice where it exactly is because the DOF is 
so extreme.

I wouldn't dare to claim that you can do without a mask. Especially not 
on the 3200 that has a fixed lightsource over the entire length of the 
scan area. The 4870 and 4990 have the moving lightsource but even then 
you can improve the scan with a mask. Even on the Nikon 9000 a mask 
improves the scan and that one has the Leds as a more or less point 
lightsource. Just check the borders of unmasked versus masked scans in 
PS, do an autolevel in PS and you will see it. How a densitometer can be 
used for that purpose is a mystery to me.

Ernst