Digital BW, The Print

>  Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 19:40:48 -0000
>From: "elitephotolv" <elitephotolv@...>
>Subject: Re: Flatbed scanner for b&w 8x10 film

>I own an Epson 4990 and can say for sure that it handles 8x10 film.  That
is the reason I bought it.

>I am very pleased with its quality, Dmax, resolution, etc.

>Repeat, it DOES scan 8x10 film.

>Best regards,
>Randy Becker

Randy, and others who have commented on this thread:

Someone pointed me toward the current issue of View Camera for a discussion
of scanners for film.  The much too brief 'review' seemed biased toward the
professional scanners in the 5K to 10K range -- and possibly for a good
reason, if you really do get what you pay for.  The article was mostly
opinion not supported by data.  That notwithstanding, there seem to be a lot
of really good images made by good photographers using medium format and 4 x
5 film using the under 1K (street price hovering around $500 or so)
scanners.  I assume the Epson 4990 falls into this category, as do several
others which have earned recommendations from different list users.

So what's the problem?  I have a lot of negatives, 6 x 7 and 4 x 5 Tri-X
film, that I would like to be able to scan and consider for printing to no
larger than what would fit comfortably on 13 x 19 inch paper.  I'd also like
to preserve the option of scanning up to 8 x 10 prints.  The aforementioned
article implied that for 8 x 10 prints (and thereabouts) there was probably
little difference among the generally accepted (flatbed) scanners when
competently used for film scanning.  Can I assume that those involved in
scanning etc. who are on this list (one tough crowd to please, to be sure...
Deo gratias) would agree with the View Camera article point of view in that
regard?  I was more-or-less left with the idea that I probably shouldn't
bother if I wasn't going to spend the 10K for a professional machine, or
send the work out for wet mount drum scans (I prefer to do my own work)!

The printing would be done, of course, on my Epson 2200, UC inks (I've still
got to try Eboni in refillable carts), Matte Black on matte paper (EEM for
'proofing', HPR for keeps), and perhaps I can get Roy's (with Steve's GUI
contributions) RIP set up when the dust settles.  Until then, Clayton's BO
process is fine for many images.   There, I hope that keeps it legal.
Thanks (in advance) for comments.    Vic
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.11 - Release Date: 5/16/2005