Digital BW, The Print

Louis's comments (following) are substantially incorrect in my
experience for the Nikon V, and I doubt they do justice to Minolta 5400II.

First, dust/scratch exaggeration seems an urban myth, it simply
doesn't occur with the Nikon (happily, in view of Ice's limitation
with B&W). I can't directly speak about the Minolta 5400II in this
respect for B&W, but it doesn't occur in color neg or slide scans. 
 
In my experience Nikon V is *superb* for 35mm B&W but it *demands*  
Viewscan (can't comment on Silverfast)...Nikonscan application is
virtually perfect for color (better front end than Viewscan), no good
for most B&W. I have heard the same from Nikon 8000 and 9000 users (re
120). 

Nikon V is sharper than my Durst 609 condenser enlarger with Fuji and
Leitz lenses. I've used this enlarger extensively with a point source
: Nikon V is nearly as sharp (point source is usually excessively
sharp, plagued by artifacts) but not as much hassle. In other words,
Nikon V is like a supremely sharp enlarging lens whose output can be
controlled through Photoshop.

I briefly owned Minolta 5400II, only made one direct comparison to
Nikon V: Color neg scans were excellent from both machines, seemed
equal in every respect at 11"  despite Minolta's vastly larger file
size. fwiw: A Japanese report indicated that they both produce almost
exactly 4000ppi, despite Minolta's advertising.

Numerous online images of Minolta 5400II B&W scans, with accompanying
 positive commentary by users, indicate Minolta's simplistic-looking
application is quite good with B&W. I understand Silverfast is now
available for Minolta, which some find important. Unfortunately
Minolta mechanical engineering and quality control is much worse than
its scanning capability and its scanning application). 

SCANHANCER : 

I'm not convinced my Scanhancer accessory adds anything to the Nikon's
color slide scans, which are wonderful without it, but I can't say
I've given the device proper attention.

Nikon V's strip film holder (gentle device that holds film flat and
automatically positions it perfectly) may be unsuitable for
Scanhancer... I've not exhausted all ideas, but I'm not highly
motivated. Scanhancer confuses Nikon's otherwise perfect automatic
film strip centering/positioning but I may be able to work around that
with Viewscan, which I always use for B&W anyway. 

Neither Minolta's film strip carrier nor slide carrier (simple plastic
sandwiches) can accept Scanhancer because it needs to be close to the
film surface.

One way to create diffusion enlarger appearance in sharp scans: apply
a very little gaussian blur and careful compensating USM in Photoshop.
This can also be a good idea if, for example, you don't like Rodinal
grain in some images. 

Djon


Louis de Stoutz <loudest@a...> wrote:

> 
> This is not my own experience, but what I gathered from searching lots 
> of internet sites.
> 
> Although it is one of my main goals to preserve the original 
> photographic grain throughout the whole process, the very hard light 
> source, which LEDs are, as used in the Nikon and in the new Minolta
5400 
> II, gives a very harsh grain picture and increases dramatically the 
> visibility of dust and scratches. Since you can't use ICE with B&W, you 
> are in for a very time consuming clean-up. The soft light of the
Minolta 
> Multi Pro and the old 5400 gives you as much resolution, but without
the 
> mentioned disadvantages. The resulting softness of the grain can easily 
> be corrected with some carefully adjusted acquisition-sharpening in PS.
> 
> (The difference is pretty much like the one between an enlarger with 
> diffuse light compared to one with a point-light-source, i.e. much 
> harsher than a condenser.)
> 
> I guess that it would be most interesting to combine an LED scanner
like 
> the Nikon 9000 with the ScanHancer diffusor, but there seem to be 
> technical difficulties preventing this.
> 
> Louis
>