Digital BW, The Print

I have scanned a number of 35mm and 6by7 BW negs and printed them 
using PiezoBW on an epson 1280. Grain appeared in my prints, which 
made me fearful I was experiencing the 'grain alias' phenomena. 

I did some tests scanning 6by7 negatives at 3200 (optical) and 4800
(interpolated), with and without the glass neg holder. I compared the 
results at 200% (in photoshop 6 so I could see the pixels) with the 
negative under the microscope at 10, 60 and 200x. If people are 
really interested, I can get this all assembled into a web page for 
your viewing (perhaps in a week). 

Bottom line, the scanner is incredible, I am amazed how well it 
interpretes the grain into a digital facsimile (analog dpi -> digital 
ppi), and I am equally impressed with the PiezoBW ... this is an 
awesome duo. 

These scans are easily under ten minutes, 2x multiscan, no ICE, ROC 
or GEM. The 4800 scans of 35mm are also fabulous.... I am switching 
to microdol (from D76) to see if I can bring the grain down without 
impacting acutance too much. May even try moving from Tri-x to 
plus/pan-x. 

Also, you do not have to cut your negatives into individuals, 3-up 
works fine (a rumor that needs dispelling). Just flip around so that 
the other two hang out towards the front (door), if scanning the 
middle neg, the other two reside comfortable on either side of the 
holder. 

I give this scanner a very satisfactory rating so far. It is 
definitely expensive, but I am very please with the dynamic range and 
the scanning resolution is great for the mendium format (3200 optical 
is quite adequate, even thought the PiezoBW loves pixels density) and 
the 4800 optical for the 35mm is tops in the category. The 
professional features for batching scan and developing automated 
processes are great. Lastly, the dynamic range is wonderful, shadows 
and highlights are devine! 

Let me know if there are questions, as this dialogue seems like it 
got off to an unduly critical start... the folks at imaging-
resource.com, who are a great resource, made an error by using an 
older and underpowered machine, particularly if you use ICE, ROC and 
or GEM as these utilities use tons of disk, memory and processor 
cycles. This is what I believe contributed to the initial, but 
ungrounded, hype about long scan times. 

There have been some comments, in various forums, like the need for 
cutting down to individual negatives (not true) or the cons of the 
optional glass neg holder (there is a difference, I have done some 
tests, and the grain, and detail in general, seems to show a little 
more clearly without the glass, shadow/highlight detail seems 
unchanged) need to be balanced against the pro - helping to hold a 
curled neg within the focus range (I think I will go without it 
though). 

I will say, that as a 25 year technology professional, the SCSI card 
install (adpatec) was, like any hardware/software install, not 
without some minor glitches (mostly due to three sets of 
contradictory instructions). 

Cheers and best wishes... 

Sincerely, 

James M. Sims                            
Consultant, Designer

BlueSky Technology                                     
P.O. Box 863
Mendocino, CA 95460

http://www.blueskytech.info & http://www.neocogito.com
We enable you to leverage Internet technology by helping you 
envision, train, build and maintain your presence on the Web.

http://www.northcoastexchange.org
Free classified ads for the North Coast Communities