Digital BW, The Print

Todd Flashner wrote:

>
>
>
> > Michael,
> > It is interesting that you say that without protest, as you use a Howtek,
> and
> > I
> > think would agree that 'sharpness' is only one aspect of a good scan.  The
> > depth
> > of tone, among other attributes, is equally as important.
>
> Harvey, could you define "depth of tone", and were your comparisons between
> a Howtek and a cheap flatbed, or a quality CCD scanner, like a Leaf or a
> Scitex? I ask because your exchange print(s) was a comparison of the drum
> with the flatbed.
>
> Thanks for doing that BTW, a twofer is always appreciated, not to mention I
> LOVE visual aids. ;-)
>
> My own tests between the drum and the Leaf were inconclusive because each
> had positive attributes, but they each had negative attributes too, so I
> really wonder if there is such a thing as a *BEST* scanner, or if some will
> handle certain formats and materials better than others.
>
> Todd

Todd,
The exchange prints were actually both from ccd scans.  Scitex Eversmart Supreme
and a $300, 42 bit Microtek Scanmaker X12-USL.

Depth of tone is a very hard thing to verbally describe.  It's like the
difference between a really good B&W fiber print and a bad RC machine print.  It
means that at each 'zone' there is good 'information'.  That wherever the tones
fall, they are rich and detailed.  Does that make sense or help?

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]