Digital BW, The Print

Djon wrote:

>Yes, maintain doubt....but consider: 
>
>1) Aztek shows images from the 8000, not the superior 9000 or 5000 
>or (sharpness-wise, not Dmax-wise) the inexpensive V. 
>
>2) they show the edge...where the dual format Nikons and Minoltas 
>notoriously have trouble...the V does well flatness-wise (motorized 
>film transport) but other inexpensive film scanners with 
>conventional plastic negative carriers (Nikon IV, Minolta 5400II) 
>have more trouble there. 
>
>3) Nikon itself sells a glass carrier for the 8000 and 9000 that 
>reportedly deals with edge-softness...wildly expensive. I've seen a 
>recent home-made version online somewhere, a good idea (maybe better 
>than Nikon because it's anti-newton).
>
>4) Since Aztek is the primary supplier for wet-mount materials in 
>the US and many of their clients also use Nikon scanners, I think 
>they'd refrain from exaggeration...they'd get strong feedback from 
>more hard-nosed-scanning-experts, the people to whom they sell big 
>printers and industrial scanners.
>
>5) And of course, wet mounting certainly IS the way professional 
>scanning is done, so we might expect to see significant improvement 
>from it... 
>
>Does anybody here have direct experience with wet mounting on 
>flatbeds or Nikons? 
>
>If a B&W shooter was seriously committed to maximum Dmax and 
>sharpness from large or medium-format negs, using Epson 
>3200/4870/4990 or dual format Nikon/Minolta, I would think they'd 
>explore wet mounting...
>
>?  any intense scanning experience here ? 
>
>Djon
>
>
>  
>

Thanks Djon

Am I gathering that the Nikon IV being dedicated will hold the negative 
more securely than the 8000 but the Minolta 5400 which is dedicated has 
problems? I'm considering the Minolta5400 Mark I scanner. I'm looking at 
the mark I instead of the Mark II since I've read the softer 
fluorescents on the Mark I scan B&W better than the Mark II or Nikon's 
which use LED's. Are there any gizmo's around to make the Minolta flatter?

Is wet mounting with a flat bed scanner superior to a dedicated 35mm 
scanner?

What I'm curious about is where the weak link in the chain is when it 
comes to dynamic range and detail? Does a good printer like the 2200 
have more range than a Nikon V with 4.2 dynamic range.. or better still 
the Minolta 5400 with 4.8?

Thanks for the education


Peace

Roy