Digital BW, The Print

Djon, I scan the 4x5 negs at 2405 dpi, and the 5x7 negs at 1605 dpi.  There was a 
suggestion on the list recently that scanning at an odd size would ensure that the 
scanner worked at its optical resolution, and then would downsample to the specified 
size, thereby in theory leading to a sharper scan.  I don't know if that's true, and I 
can't say I've seen an appreciable difference, but hey, it couldn't hurt.

And I am scanning in 8-bit greyscale, not 16-bit or RGB.  I work hard to get the 
image corrected in the scanning software before I scan, and make minimal tone 
corrections afterward, so I haven't any need to resort to 16-bit scanning.  At my 
scanning resolutions, the resulting file sizes are about 100 mb for a .psd file.

You are right about lack of difference between formats in small enlargements made in 
the darkroom.  That is why I am trying to contact-print my 4x5s and 5x7s.

Another poster mentioned that he finds images from  the Epson flatbeds softer than 
those from a drum scanner.  He is right.  For my work (portraiture) I like the slight 
diffusion in the scan.  (The sharpest lens is not always the best choice.)  If sharpness 
were my goal, I might look for another solution.  Resolving shadow detail and fidelity 
to tones is much more important to me than sharpness -- yet these are the most 
elusive and least-discussed qualities about scanners and the images they produce.  
Alas.

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Djon" 
<westsidemaurice@y...> wrote:
>  
> > 
> > I used to scan everything with an Epson 3200 flatbed.   When I moved
> up to 
> > 5x7 a couple of months ago, I upgraded to a 4990.   I drive both
> with the Epson 
> > software, which is actually quite good once you figure out where
> everything 
> > is.   Frankly, I see no visible difference in performance between
> the 3200 and 
> > the 4990.   
> 
> There are reports that at "3200" the 3200 is closer to that number
> than are 4870 and 4990...meaning only that the  higher-resolution
> newer models require a higher setting to get to or beyond that "3200." 
> 
> In other words, to get comparable real resolution you may have to
> select a higher nominal scanning resolution with the 4990...which will
> probably waste file size.
> 
> What nominal resolution do you use when you scan y 
> 
> > 
> > if you are printing with an inkjet 
> > at sizes below 13x19, I doubt that you will see any difference
> between prints 
> > from scans of roll film and 4x5 sheets.
> 
> This seems true of traditional enlargements as well, assuming equally
> good enlarging lenses and superb original MF optics...especially if
> one is sacrificing sharpness to a diffusion or cold light enlarger...
> 
> Djon
> 
>  
> > Sanders McNew
> > www.mcnew.net
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]