Digital BW, The Print

Bill, with all due respect to your knowledge and experience, I've come
to some conclusions over the years about things like this.
There is no  question that on a purely technical basis a drum scanner
will outperform a ccd scanner, flatbed, flextight, or otherwise.
That's the science. But there's also the art/craft. I say this as a
dedicated drum scan user- for B&W ccd scans of negs well within the
density range of the scanner (that would be the vast majority of B&W
negs) can make great big beautiful prints that will hold up with no
shame next to a a drum scan print.
I defy anyone to go to this show and tell me which were drum scans,
flatbeds, or Imacons-
http://www.benhamgallery.com/exhibit/2007/05_Corwin-Pavloff-Boley/Corwin-Pavloff-Boley_Exhibit.html
-and believe me they are all there. (Not hyping the show yet again,
but you really do have to make these determinations looking at real
world prints, not the monitor, or the specs)

Much depends on the size of the film, the particular scanner, and most
of all as mentioned, the operator.
In fact, there are circumstances that a drum scanner may not be the
what the tasks requires at all.
Again, I have and use a drum scanner for everything and fully
apreciate it's capabilities, but often wish I had a high end ccd
scanner as well. I've had occasion to open old files that are hi bit
flatbed scans, work them just a bit, and reprint. The best ones have a
quality I can not get with the drum scanner without a lot of work,
much more like an enlarger lens and diffusion head, instead of the
d**n collimated light look. And believe me, I know and use all the
aperture tricks, etc..
I've also had way too many bad flatbed scans in here, so we all need
to learn our tools well.

The more I do this stuff, the more I find I have to let go of the hard
and fast suppositions. It seems the answer to most, if not all,
yes-or-no questions, is... it depends.

Tyler
www.custom-digital.com


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Morse"
<Bill.Morse@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark-
> 
> Ha! No doubt. However, after years of trying to do fine-art scanning
with
> both a scitex and a Nikon 9000, and after directly comparing scans
of the
> same high-quality neg on both an Imacon and a drum (Howtek 6500 in
my case),
> I know the statement to be factual. On the other hand, as I also pointed
> out, not all uses require that level of quality, expertise, and effort.
> 
> As an aside, it continues to amaze me that people who spend the
time, effort
> and $$ to do large format photography then content themselves with
flatbed
> scans.
> 
> Bill
> 
> On 7/11/07, Mark Savoia <mark@...> wrote:
> >
> >   Bill,
> > You are going to piss off lots of people with that statement, careful.
> > Mark
> >
> > On Jul 11, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Bill Morse wrote:
> >
> > > As others have said, drum scanning is absolutely the best way to
> > > go; any of
> > > the flatbed and Imacon scanners will have significantly more noise,
> > > flare,
> > > and will be less sharp across the film plane than a good drum scan.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Bill Morse
> Wm. Morse Editions
> 
> (617) 429-3298
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>