Digital BW, The Print

Photolunch crashed while I was uploading my test scans.  My 
server changed the proceedure and did not tell me.  I wiped out 
most of the site and have to rebuild it.  I will send you my scan 
tests if you email me directly.

I have discovered a lot of info on line.  Unfortunately, my 
bookmarks are spread out amongst 3 computers so I can't give 
you easy links to the multitude of sites I have found.  One off the 
top of my head is

http://www.robgalbraith.com

Go to forums>scanners

I have seen comparison tests done with slides that show the 
Minolta to be superior to Nikon or Polaroid.  The Minolta looks 
sharper and very clean in the shadows.  

Unfortunately for Minolta, on this list, we are interested in B+W.  
My tests with C-41 negative film shows the Nikon to come out 
much cleaner in the shadows and less blown out in the 
highlights.  But, the Minolta is sharper.

Now for my learning experience.  I was doing my tests with Fuji 
NPH and conventional silver films.  The Minolta was making 
everything look like it was shot on badly processed tri-x or Tmax 
3200.  The graininess was unacceptable.  Then I was told that 
the Minolta scans Kodak Portra films much better than anything 
else.  Alas, after a quick test comparison, Porta looks much 
better than Fuji film.  Portra also has a B/W film stock.  This is 
what I will have to shoot in the future.

As for the silver films, I tried VueScan.  VueScan is a pain in the 
neck to set up.  I had to dump Fireware and return to SCSI.  I am 
getting lots of freezes and crashes which until now have been 
rare on my G4.  It is even slower than the Minolta software (which 
is very slow).  But, VueScan is much better than the Minolta 
software for reducing grain.

Another thing I discovered was that if my negatives are 
processed in Microdol they scan better.  Unfortunately, my 30 
years of b/w films are all done in high acutance developers like 
pyro and HC110 and Tmax.  My color film has always been Fuji. 
So I am out of luck when I consider digitizing my archives with my 
Minolta.  The Nikon would have been a better choice for me.  

If you shoot slides--buy Minolta.  If you shoot Kodak Portra color 
and b/w--buy Minolta.  If you process your b/w film in 
Microdol--buy Minolta.  Otherwise, the Nikon is superior.  

As for the Polaroid SS120.   In all the tests I have seen, it tends to 
fall behind in sharpness and color bleeding.  The Polaroid does 
show less graininess than the Minolta.  Polaroid has better 
software (silverfast) than the Nikon or Minolta.  Minolta has the 
best negative carriers and Polaroid has the worse.

I hope this helps.

Frank

http://www.culturalvisions.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "sm7bxd" 
<sm7bxd@y...> wrote:
> Hallo,
> 
> can't see the pictures (sorry Photoes..) at 
> http://www.photolunch.com .
> Could you fix that - i'm very interested while I'm just
> going to buy an Nikon 8000 or the "equal" Minolta one.
> 
> Are there other placec on the net testing this scanners?
> 
> Bo Wrangborg
> Sweden
>   
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
> <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > Hi Frank,
> > 
> > > Austin,
> > >
> > > My tests were done on color negative 645 film.  The Minolta 
will
> > > scan 120 film at a true 4800 dpi in two halves (two passes 
of the
> > > film).
> > 
> > It wasn't clear what you were doing, I thought I'd ask.
> > 
> > > I'll post comparisons onto my photolunch website as soon 
as I
> > > get the sizing right to actually see a difference on the web.
> > > Check out http://www.photolunch.com after Feb. 4th.
> > 
> > Was it done on the exact same frame of film?  Also, why 
didn't you 
> also test
> > color negative as well as B&W?  I mean, this IS after all, a 
B&W 
> newsgroup
> > ;-)
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Austin