Digital BW, The Print

That's interesting. I wonder how the Epson compares to a Scitek flatbeds?
I guess glass mounting would make a world of difference, especially in the 
amount of cleanup time, which is also a big deal. I would worry about shadow 
and highlight extreme detail in more contrasty subjects, especially 35mm, but 
if it is close to the Imacon that is a lot of savings to say the least, and the 
Epson scanner would probably be more trouble free. Thanks for that post. I'm 
very curious now about where these flatbeds are going. About the time 
everyone is using digital capture they'll perfect them.

There has been talk about how to make a magnetic film holder for a flatbed to 
also fluid mount with. Does anyone know where I can read about that? I am 
inheriting an older Sciteck flatbed this week and would like to try that 
methodology.

John





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <
E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
> Andre wrote:
> 
> >
> >Kip,
> >
> >Here's a comparison of an Epson 4990 and a Howtek D4000 drum 
scanner.
> >By the owner of the ScanHi-End yahoo group
> >http://www.photo-i.co.uk/BB/viewtopic.php?t=49
> >
> >  
> >
> A nice example of the quality of the Epson scanner range. Something I 
> have written about for 2 years. The Epson samples in this case were not 
> even wet mounted as I undersatnd it but at 8x10 size I would recommend 
> that.
> 
> A drum scanner that is kept in good shape with a good operator will beat 
> the results of the Nikon 8000, the Epson 4990, no doubt. Whether the 
> higher cost is worth the difference in results is something else, 
> especially if the the printer you scan for doesn't print wider than a 
> foot or less than two feet.
> The new Imacons have higher prices than secondhand drum scanners and 
are 
> closer to today's desktops in quality than to the drum scanner. The 
> total gap between all scanners is more and more closed.
> 
> Ernst