Digital BW, The Print

Frank,

I am so sorry to hear that you are unhappy with your scanner.  I am 
using the Dimage Scan Multi Pro (just to be sure we are talking about 
the same scanner).  There is one thing that is a little elusive, and 
it gets me sometimes... 

There are many avenues/options for tweaking your scan, the irony is 
that these settings seem to stay in effect unless you reset them.  
Sometimes I will boot-up and begin scanning and will be totally 
mystified why I am getting such strange results, then I will find 
some setting I made 2 nights ago while dealing with a difficult 
negative.  I am so happy with this scanner, and it delivering an 
extremely accurate interpretation of the black and white negative 
(with no ICE, ROC, GEM or other tricks). 

I wish you the best of luck and I hope you do not have to sell it to 
get the results you want.

Regards,

James

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "culturalvisions" 
<frank@c...> wrote:
> Earlier in this post I said that I scanned the same color negs on 
> a Nikon and on a Minolta Pro.  I will now scan those same negs 
> on a Polaroid 120.  I'll get them to my friend this week so I can 
> add a more informed opinion to our options.
> 
>  After working with my Minolta for 3 months, trying Silverfast HDR 
> (much too much grain) as well as the Minolta software, I am 
> dissatisfied and cannot recommend the product for any negative 
> scanning.  The problem is squarely placed on the grain aliasing.  
> There are other problems such as the highlights blow out very 
> quickly, but I would be happy to simply get an answer for the 
> graininess.
> 
> I have scanned b&w and color negs as slides, negs (both b/w 
> and color) and as 16 bit linear files.  I have oversampled 16 
> times, added Gem, Ice and Roc, added gaussian blur and used 
> the smudge tool.  I have tried the workarounds that have been 
> offered on this list.  I have not tried Neatscan (or whatever) 
> because I have a Mac.  I have also not tried VueScan.
> 
> I will say that the negative carriers and the software is a 
pleasure 
> to work with.  Ergonomically, this machine is great.  The problem 
> is in the results from negatives.  Slides look great.
> 
> I am considering selling the Minolta Pro.  If anyone out there 
> wants it, I will send it to Minolta warranty service, first , so 
they 
> can completely go through it , and then send it off to you.  I will 
do 
> this for $300 less than what any Minolta Pro is selling for on the 
> web.
> 
> Frank
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Victor Landweber 
> <victor@l...> wrote:
> > AZ --
> > 
> > Which scanning software did you find supported optimal grain 
> which didn't? 
> > I believe that I will be using either the proprietary Minolta 
> software or 
> > VueScan with the Scan Multi Pro, and SilverFast or VueScan 
> with the 
> > Polaroid 120 (I don't like Polacolor Insight's limited 
functionality 
> at all!).
> > 
> > My output will be 12"*12" prints made with an Epson 1160 
> using MIS FS inks 
> > on Epson Archival Mat.
> > 
> > I'll appreciate hearing your opinion about all this.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > -- Victor Landweber
> > 
> > 
> > At 01:08 PM 1/28/2002 -0800, AZ wrote:
> > >The scanning software is the important factor. The question 
> should be what
> > >scanning software for these scanners gives the best grain 
> reduction given
> > >your criteria. I was using a scanning software that 
> exaggerated the grain
> > >terribly and thought it was typical until I tried another. There 
> are
> > >trade-offs between sharpness and grain. Also you should 
> have in mind your
> > >output method when you make the scan. You want to balance 
> your scanning
> > >technique with your output device.
> > >
> > >My Prior Message
> > >
> > > >To the list --
> > > >
> > > >I'm planning to purchase either the Minolta Scan Multi Pro or 
> the Polaroid
> > > >120 to scan many years of 2¼*2¼ Tri-X negatives 
> (developed in D-76). I hope
> > > >someone with experience can answer several questions:
> > > >
> > > >1. Is either the Polaroid or the Minolta preferable for 
> producing a sharp
> > > >image without exaggerating the grain at 
> 2000/3200/4000/4800 ppi?
> > > >
> > > >2. Is the grain in a monochrome scan better or worse than 
> that of an RGB
> > > >scan reduced to monochrome in Photoshop using the 
> CHANNEL MIXER?