Digital BW, The Print

Actually, the Microtek doesn't get reviews equaling the last two
generations of Epsons: Not nearly as versatile, don't hold film as
flat as Epsons with Doug Fisher carriers, and they lack Ice. 



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter De Smidt
<pdesmidt@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Step one is a drum scanner, assuming the negatives can survive being 
> fluid mounted.
> 
> There are very expensive flatbeds from Creo, Fuji, Aztek and others. 
> Their big claim to fame is speed. You can fill their large flat-bed
full 
> of film, and off you go.  Supposedly they give higher quality than 
> consumer flatbeds, but I have no idea if this is true.  They are 
> certainly heavier built. One potential problem with these would be 
> getting them serviced.
> 
> The a step down would be Epson and Microtek's professional models.  The 
> Microteck 1800F get's good reviews.  Supposedly the optics, mechanicals 
> and electronics are better than consumer models.  It's true that
dynamic 
> range, low vibration, precision movements...are all more important that 
> resolution.
> 
> Finally, there are the consumer flatbeds.
> 
> There are a number of issues involved, including the skill and care of 
> the operator. For example, a great "consumer flatbed" scan will trump a 
> poor drum scan.... If you get your own equipment, you'll have to add in 
> the cost of training an operator and upkeep on the scanner. 
> 
> One thing to remember is that most "consumer scanner" reviews are done 
> very poorly.  It's essential to get the film holders to the ideal 
> height, and this often isn't the manufacturer's default!  Second, 
> keeping the film flat has a huge effect on quality, just as it does
when 
> enlarging traditionally. I wet-mount on the underside of a sheet of 
> optical glass that's been shimmed to the ideal height for my scanner.  
> This gives much better results than using my Canon film-holders that 
> came with the scanner. But...it's b PITA and it take a lot of time.  So 
> if you're doing a large amount of scans, as you are, this might be 
> prohibitive.
> 
> If possible, try to get a scan of the same negative on the various
options.
>