Digital BW, The Print

--
Ave.
I am doing mainly (mf&4x5") B&W printing on Mac but want to set-up a new
workstation based on a PC (from riches to rags?) and need an extra scanner.
A flatbed, for budget reasons and I am given  a choice between a new Epson
4870 or a fairly new 1680Pro at+/- the same price (500€).Plus, the 1680Pro
needs a SCSI card for the PC i.e. an extra 100 to 150€. Suggestions? Advise?
A lot of advise please and many thanks  in advance.
Jean.

jean@...
--  
-- 
-- 




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

jean verrept wrote:
> --
> Ave.
> I am doing mainly (mf&4x5") B&W printing on Mac but want to set-up a new
> workstation based on a PC (from riches to rags?) and need an extra scanner.
> A flatbed, for budget reasons and I am given  a choice between a new Epson
> 4870 or a fairly new 1680Pro at+/- the same price (500\u20ac).Plus, the 1680Pro
> needs a SCSI card for the PC i.e. an extra 100 to 150\u20ac. Suggestions? Advise?
> A lot of advise please and many thanks  in advance.
> Jean.
> 
> jean@...

4870 is the better option in my experience. Even the 3200 with 
some tweaking did a better job on 4x5" colour negatives and 
slides than the 1680. The owner of the 1680 had to admit that.

Check the archived mailing list messages on yahoo.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/epson4870/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/epson3200/
Especially the fluid mounting, wet mounting messages.

Ernst

Ave Ernst.
Thanks for your advise. And, for that matter, you were the only 'poster' to
react. Again, many thanks.
jean@...


jean@...


--

Hello,
Does anyone have any thoughts or recommendations on using a flatbed 
scanner for black and white negatives? I am looking for a moderate 
priced scanner to do 8x10 negatives. I have read reviews of the "Epson 
Perfection 4990 Photo"($450.) and they were all good but no one 
mentioned doing large format negatives with it. I have considered just 
sending them out to have them drum scanned but thought if this would 
work ok it may be an alternative solution. 
Thanks,
Gary W.

On 21 Feb 2006, at 18:27, garyphoto6 wrote:

> Hello,
> Does anyone have any thoughts or recommendations on using a flatbed
> scanner for black and white negatives? I am looking for a moderate
> priced scanner to do 8x10 negatives. I have read reviews of the "Epson
> Perfection 4990 Photo"($450.) and they were all good but no one
> mentioned doing large format negatives with it. I have considered just
> sending them out to have them drum scanned but thought if this would
> work ok it may be an alternative solution.
> Thanks,
> Gary W.


You could speak to Doug Fisher about Epson scanners and special film  
holders...

http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mainintro.html

I am pretty sure there are lists at yahoo which cover this model. I  
only have a lowly 3200 but it is pretty good value and I am pleased  
with much of what it does, including 6 x 6 film scanning.

Drew


Made In Scotland On A High Mac!



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

garyphoto6 wrote:

>Hello,
>Does anyone have any thoughts or recommendations on using a flatbed 
>scanner for black and white negatives? I am looking for a moderate 
>priced scanner to do 8x10 negatives. I have read reviews of the "Epson 
>Perfection 4990 Photo"($450.) and they were all good but no one 
>mentioned doing large format negatives with it. I have considered just 
>sending them out to have them drum scanned but thought if this would 
>work ok it may be an alternative solution. 
>Thanks,
>Gary W.
>
>
>
>  
>
Hi Gary,

I have a Canoscan 9950f, which doesn't quite do the whole 8x10 
negative.  I belive that the Epson 4990 does.  If I were you, I'd have a 
good negative drum scanned, and then I'd have the same negative scanned 
by someone on a 4990. Ideally, you'll adust the scans and make prints at 
your required size. That way you'll know exactly how much you'll be 
giving up by using the flatbed instead of having drum scans made.

Gary,

I have the 4990 and it is a good scanner, especially at the price.  It is
not going to compete with a professional drum scan, but for me it is "good
enough".  I do have an issue scanning b&w 8x10 negs, in that the "film
guide" supplied by Epson for that scanner is worthless, even before my cat
chewed it in half.  It does not elevate the negative off the scanner glass,
as the 4x5 holders do.  Therefore you will need to find some way to deal
with Newton rings, such as Kami fluid, or fabricating a negative holder that
will hold the negative flat and off the glass.

Ken 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On 
> Behalf Of garyphoto6
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:28 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Flatbed scanner
> 
> Hello,
> Does anyone have any thoughts or recommendations on using a 
> flatbed scanner for black and white negatives? I am looking 
> for a moderate priced scanner to do 8x10 negatives. I have 
> read reviews of the "Epson Perfection 4990 Photo"($450.) and 
> they were all good but no one mentioned doing large format 
> negatives with it. I have considered just sending them out to 
> have them drum scanned but thought if this would work ok it 
> may be an alternative solution. 
> Thanks,
> Gary W.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or 
> you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership 
> preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
> messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks 
> or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be 
> removed from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of 
> digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic 
> posts may be removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group 
> rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and 
> decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See "Group 
> Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL 
> BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE 
> THAT THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, 
> INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY 
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF 
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN 
> IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH 
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE 
> THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED 
> ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) 
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO 
> THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>

Ken, Gary,

A company called "invent it" used to sell refrigerator magnet 
material for inkjet printing in 8.5X11 sheets that was roughly the 
same thickness as the flatbed negative holders. Some people had 
sucess cutting out negative holders and using the magnetic force to 
hold the two pieces together with the negative in between. Wet 
mounting is prefered but with an 8X10 neg on on an letter size 
scanner it might be tough.

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Carney" 
<kcarney1@...> wrote:
>
> Gary,
> 
> I have the 4990 and it is a good scanner, especially at the 
price.  It is
> not going to compete with a professional drum scan, but for me it 
is "good
> enough".  I do have an issue scanning b&w 8x10 negs, in that 
the "film
> guide" supplied by Epson for that scanner is worthless, even 
before my cat
> chewed it in half.  It does not elevate the negative off the 
scanner glass,
> as the 4x5 holders do.  Therefore you will need to find some way 
to deal
> with Newton rings, such as Kami fluid, or fabricating a negative 
holder that
> will hold the negative flat and off the glass.
> 
> Ken 
> 
(snip)

My studio-mate Chris Faust does medium format
panoramic photography - quite well I might add.  You
can view his work via his link at our Studio 210 site.
(Maybe if I can get a bit of time off from my medical
practice - I'll get something posted too!) There are
also huge collages of his work in the MSP airport.


When i got my previous generation Canon flatbed I made
a "carrier" for his negs using 8-ply black matte-board
that fit into the same space as the 35mm strip holder
and it worked OK. We merely taped the neg by its edges
onto the holder with 3M photo tape.  He later cut a
better one out of black plastic of a similar thickness
which is quite a bit stiffer but still uses the tape.
He gets entirely acceptable scans even for large
poster sized prints especially using the Silver-Fast
software since the Canon-Scan software (how to put
this delicately?) sucks.
 
Keeping the 8x10" big boys flat is going to be more
challenging.  I'll probably give one of these simple
methods a try but am certainly open to any good ideas
- especially if based upon success although sharing
the "agony of defeat" might spare me some pain.

Thanks...Michael

--- mwesley3 <mwesley250@...> wrote:

> Ken, Gary,
> 
> A company called "invent it" used to sell
> refrigerator magnet 
> material for inkjet printing in 8.5X11 sheets that
> was roughly the 
> same thickness as the flatbed negative holders. Some
> people had 
> sucess cutting out negative holders and using the
> magnetic force to 
> hold the two pieces together with the negative in
> between. Wet 
> mounting is prefered but with an 8X10 neg on on an
> letter size 
> scanner it might be tough.
> 
> Martin
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> "Ken Carney" 
> <kcarney1@...> wrote:
> >
> > Gary,
> > 
> > I have the 4990 and it is a good scanner,
> especially at the 
> price.  It is
> > not going to compete with a professional drum
> scan, but for me it 
> is "good
> > enough".  I do have an issue scanning b&w 8x10
> negs, in that 
> the "film
> > guide" supplied by Epson for that scanner is
> worthless, even 
> before my cat
> > chewed it in half.  It does not elevate the
> negative off the 
> scanner glass,
> > as the 4x5 holders do.  Therefore you will need to
> find some way 
> to deal
> > with Newton rings, such as Kami fluid, or
> fabricating a negative 
> holder that
> > will hold the negative flat and off the glass.
> > 
> > Ken 
> > 
> (snip)
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

BTW - I now have a Nikon 9000 scanner and the
panoramic 120 negs fit perfectly into the holder BUT
with Nikon-Scan neither Chris nor I have been able to
get the scanner to recognize the long negs and Nikon
tek support has told both of us it can't be done.

Now the question - does anyone know if this is
possible in any way, with, for example, Vue-Scan?

--- Michael Vendrell <mjvendrell2@...> wrote:

> My studio-mate Chris Faust does medium format
> panoramic photography - quite well I might add.  You
> can view his work via his link at our Studio 210
> site.
> (Maybe if I can get a bit of time off from my
> medical
> practice - I'll get something posted too!) There are
> also huge collages of his work in the MSP airport.
> 
> 
> When i got my previous generation Canon flatbed I
> made
> a "carrier" for his negs using 8-ply black
> matte-board
> that fit into the same space as the 35mm strip
> holder
> and it worked OK. We merely taped the neg by its
> edges
> onto the holder with 3M photo tape.  He later cut a
> better one out of black plastic of a similar
> thickness
> which is quite a bit stiffer but still uses the
> tape.
> He gets entirely acceptable scans even for large
> poster sized prints especially using the Silver-Fast
> software since the Canon-Scan software (how to put
> this delicately?) sucks.
>  
> Keeping the 8x10" big boys flat is going to be more
> challenging.  I'll probably give one of these simple
> methods a try but am certainly open to any good
> ideas
> - especially if based upon success although sharing
> the "agony of defeat" might spare me some pain.
> 
> Thanks...Michael
> 
> --- mwesley3 <mwesley250@...> wrote:
> 
> > Ken, Gary,
> > 
> > A company called "invent it" used to sell
> > refrigerator magnet 
> > material for inkjet printing in 8.5X11 sheets that
> > was roughly the 
> > same thickness as the flatbed negative holders.
> Some
> > people had 
> > sucess cutting out negative holders and using the
> > magnetic force to 
> > hold the two pieces together with the negative in
> > between. Wet 
> > mounting is prefered but with an 8X10 neg on on an
> > letter size 
> > scanner it might be tough.
> > 
> > Martin
> > 
> > --- In
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> > "Ken Carney" 
> > <kcarney1@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Gary,
> > > 
> > > I have the 4990 and it is a good scanner,
> > especially at the 
> > price.  It is
> > > not going to compete with a professional drum
> > scan, but for me it 
> > is "good
> > > enough".  I do have an issue scanning b&w 8x10
> > negs, in that 
> > the "film
> > > guide" supplied by Epson for that scanner is
> > worthless, even 
> > before my cat
> > > chewed it in half.  It does not elevate the
> > negative off the 
> > scanner glass,
> > > as the 4x5 holders do.  Therefore you will need
> to
> > find some way 
> > to deal
> > > with Newton rings, such as Kami fluid, or
> > fabricating a negative 
> > holder that
> > > will hold the negative flat and off the glass.
> > > 
> > > Ken 
> > > 
> > (snip)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Michael,

The stepping motor that moves the film holder during scanning (rather
than at other times) only has a throw of about 90 mm - I'm not sure of
the exact length - so you can't physically scan anything longer than
that in a single scan.

Best,
Helen

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Michael Vendrell
<mjvendrell2@...> wrote:

>
> BTW - I now have a Nikon 9000 scanner and the
> panoramic 120 negs fit perfectly into the holder BUT
> with Nikon-Scan neither Chris nor I have been able to
> get the scanner to recognize the long negs and Nikon
> tek support has told both of us it can't be done.
> 
> Now the question - does anyone know if this is
> possible in any way, with, for example, Vue-Scan?

Thanks Helen - I was afraid that was the case...Michael

-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Helen Bach" 
<helenbach@...> wrote:
>
> Michael,
> 
> The stepping motor that moves the film holder during scanning 
(rather
> than at other times) only has a throw of about 90 mm - I'm not 
sure of
> the exact length - so you can't physically scan anything longer 
than
> that in a single scan.
> 
> Best,
> Helen
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Michael 
Vendrell

> <mjvendrell2@> wrote:
> >
> > BTW - I now have a Nikon 9000 scanner and the
> > panoramic 120 negs fit perfectly into the holder BUT
> > with Nikon-Scan neither Chris nor I have been able to
> > get the scanner to recognize the long negs and Nikon
> > tek support has told both of us it can't be done.
> > 
> > Now the question - does anyone know if this is
> > possible in any way, with, for example, Vue-Scan?
>

Couldn't you scan half of the negative at a time and then stitch the two 
halfs together with photoshop?  Vuescan has a free download.  I use it 
and like it.

Helen Bach wrote:
> Michael,
> 
> The stepping motor that moves the film holder during scanning (rather
> than at other times) only has a throw of about 90 mm - I'm not sure of
> the exact length - so you can't physically scan anything longer than
> that in a single scan.
> 
> Best,
> Helen

83 mm, this is probably the software limit, the screw that 
drives the carrier is slightly longer.
No chance to do a longer scan. With Vuescan and the exposure 
fixed you can do three 6x7 scans with overlaps and stitch the 
images.

Ernst


                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

mwesley3 wrote:
> Ken, Gary,
> 
> A company called "invent it" used to sell refrigerator magnet 
> material for inkjet printing in 8.5X11 sheets that was roughly the 
> same thickness as the flatbed negative holders. Some people had 
> sucess cutting out negative holders and using the magnetic force to 
> hold the two pieces together with the negative in between. Wet 
> mounting is prefered but with an 8X10 neg on on an letter size 
> scanner it might be tough.
> 
> Martin

There's magnetic vinyl of 1 mm thick that is used in the sign 
industry (and on refrigerators), 2  feet wide on roll or 
larger. You can cut film holders of that material. See my page:
http://www.pigment-print.com/CTG_0049/target0.html

Imacon uses a similar magnetic holder (but curved) for their 
scanners. It isn't new as similar holders existed for enlargers.

The problem with the 8x10 is that there's not enough margin 
left for the magnetic material to get some rigidity and enough 
clamping power. You either have to make a larger mask that is 
on top of  the rim around the scanbed and by that the film is 
at 2.5 + 1 mm above the bed and 2.5 mm out of best focus. Then 
you better put the film right on the glassbed where it will be 
1 mm out of best focus.

A better way would be to use float glass of 1,5 mm thick that 
fits just within the rim around the scan bed and make a black 
mask that has a window size of the actual image border on the 
film and overlaps the rim edge by an inch all around. Glue the 
mask (polystyreen, pvc sheet, etc) to the glass. The glass 
then hangs at 1 mm above the glassbed of the scanner. Wetmount 
the film to the underside of the glass. It will be plane, have 
good light transmission, the mask cuts off any stray light and 
the film will not warm up by the lamp light as the glass is in 
between. BTW, you still need that calibration window at the 
start of the scan so that has to be cut in the mask too.


Ernst


                   --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

An addition:

Fresh from the 4870 list, Epson just announced two new scanner 
models:

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/22/perfection/index.php


Wet mounting holder included :-)  Higher resolution up to 4x5 
thanks to a dual lens system, the 8x10 will not have the 
higher resolution I think as it probably will be scanned on 
the scanbed itself and use the same lens + focus that is used 
for reflective originals. The 8x10 item is called guide 
instead of holder so that's what I base my assumption on. 
Quite smart as it still will be a fixed focus system but this 
time the wider lens will focus at the scanbed only and the 4x5 
and smaller filmholders use the other lens with the higher 
resolution and focus at 1 mm above the bed where the film is 
in the holders. One would expect less DOF in the lens systems 
and sharper scans than we were used to in the older models but 
the oversampling CCD matrix sensor of Epson will still need 
sharpening at some stage. I think a true optical resolution 
above 3000 PPI for 4x5 and smaller isn't impossible. 4 Dmax is 
claimed, but that has always been a bit high though 3.2-3.4 
should be possible with multi-sampling.


Ernst

                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

Ernst Dinkla wrote:

> I think a true optical resolution 
> above 3000 PPI for 4x5 and smaller isn't impossible. 

Doing the maths again and starting from the 2000 PPI true
optical resolution estimation of Rafe's 4990.

A straight 6400/4800 x 2000 PPI (true optical resolution as 
estimated by Rafe for his 4990) would give 2666 PPI true 
optical resolution. But the max scan area for high resolution 
is 150 x 247 mm ( Effective pixels data) which probably means 
the windows of the twin 4x5 holder are not in the length. The 
216 x 297 mm area for the lower resolution used means that if 
there's 2000 PPI true optical resolution on the total width of 
the bed ( Rafe's estimation for his 4990) the high resolution 
should be about 2880 PPI true optical resolution (216/150 x 
2000). The smaller angle of the lens and the less DOF needed 
with the dual lens system may get it over the 3000 PPI mark. 
If the twin 4x5 holder had the windows lengthwise then the 
stroke of the lens for higher resolution doesn't have to be 
wider than 95 mm (4 inch minus the unexposed borders). That 
could have brought the resolution near 4500 PPI. All based on 
one axis calculation. There are probably other (optical) 
limitations though that make this wishful thinking.

Ernst


                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

Ernst,
Are you a math scientist or what? Your volume of information always  
amazes me. Must be big brained.
:)Mark

On Feb 23, 2006, at 7:42 AM, Ernst Dinkla wrote:

> Ernst Dinkla wrote:
>
> > I think a true optical resolution
> > above 3000 PPI for 4x5 and smaller isn't impossible.
>
> Doing the maths again and starting from the 2000 PPI true
> optical resolution estimation of Rafe's 4990.
>
> A straight 6400/4800 x 2000 PPI (true optical resolution as
> estimated by Rafe for his 4990) would give 2666 PPI true
> optical resolution. But the max scan area for high resolution
> is 150 x 247 mm ( Effective pixels data) which probably means
> the windows of the twin 4x5 holder are not in the length. The
> 216 x 297 mm area for the lower resolution used means that if
> there's 2000 PPI true optical resolution on the total width of
> the bed ( Rafe's estimation for his 4990) the high resolution
> should be about 2880 PPI true optical resolution (216/150 x
> 2000). The smaller angle of the lens and the less DOF needed
> with the dual lens system may get it over the 3000 PPI mark.
> If the twin 4x5 holder had the windows lengthwise then the
> stroke of the lens for higher resolution doesn't have to be
> wider than 95 mm (4 inch minus the unexposed borders). That
> could have brought the resolution near 4500 PPI. All based on
> one axis calculation. There are probably other (optical)
> limitations though that make this wishful thinking.
>
> Ernst
>
>
>                     --
>            Ernst Dinkla
>
>
> www.pigment-print.com
> (         unvollendet         )
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other  
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you  
> wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by  
> visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages  
> to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or  
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed  
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital  
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be  
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules  
> and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the  
> group Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines�  
> in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE  
> �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL  
> NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,  
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,  
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER  
> INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL  
> BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF  
> SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE  
> THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO  
> OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR  
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO  
> GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Digital wedding photography	Learn digital photography	Digital  
> photography college
> Digital photography	Digital photography web site	Digital  
> photography course
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>  Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
>
>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>



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

Mark Savoia wrote:
> Ernst,
> Are you a math scientist or what? Your volume of information always  
> amazes me. Must be big brained.
> :)Mark

Well, there's almost no hair left.

Meten is weten

they say in Dutch

That which is measured improves

is the best translation I found

Ernst
                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

Ernst and Mark and others,
Thank you all for your many ideas and recommendations on 8x10 film scanning.
I looked at the new Epson scanner and it may just be the answer. In regards
to Neuton rings I have always used a double glass carrier in my 8x10
enlarger and never had issues with Neuton rings. Why are they more of a
problem when scanning? Secondly one suggestion was to build a frame and tape
the edges to hold the film flat. Do you think this is a workable idea?
Thanks,
Gary W.


  Fresh from the 4870 list, Epson just announced two new scanner
  models:



  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
  - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
  - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

  BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND
“MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND
“MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.




  SPONSORED LINKS Digital wedding photography  Learn digital photography
Digital photography college
        Digital photography  Digital photography web site  Digital
photography course


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

    a..  Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.

    b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

    c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--



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

Becaue if you are not fluid mounting, which is what I would try to
find a way to do,even on a flatbed, you are talking about a dust
nightmare with all those air glass surfaces.

john




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "gcwagner"
<gcwagner@...> wrote:
>
> Ernst and Mark and others,
> Thank you all for your many ideas and recommendations on 8x10 film
scanning.
> I looked at the new Epson scanner and it may just be the answer. In
regards
> to Neuton rings I have always used a double glass carrier in my 8x10
> enlarger and never had issues with Neuton rings. Why are they more of a
> problem when scanning? Secondly one suggestion was to build a frame
and tape
> the edges to hold the film flat. Do you think this is a workable idea?
> Thanks,
> Gary W.
> 
> 
>   Fresh from the 4870 list, Epson just announced two new scanner
>   models:
> 
> 
> 
>   Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
>   If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you
wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting
this same
> page.
> 
>   Please follow these basic guidelines:
>   - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages
to keep
> them short.
>   - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
>   - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of
digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed
from
> the membership.
>   - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group
Owner and
> Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
section:
>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
>   BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
> GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED
OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
INABILITY
> TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED
ACCESS TO OR
> ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
CONDUCT OF ANY
> THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   SPONSORED LINKS Digital wedding photography  Learn digital photography
> Digital photography college
>         Digital photography  Digital photography web site  Digital
> photography course
> 
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> 
>     a..  Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
> 
>     b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>      DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
>     c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> 
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
> Becaue if you are not fluid mounting, which is what I would try to
> find a way to do,even on a flatbed, you are talking about a dust
> nightmare with all those air glass surfaces.
> 
> john
> 


Wet mount with a flatbed:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WETMOUNTING/

Also I read something on Photoshop news that says Epson will have new 
flatbed scanners, and the pro version has a mount wount adapter 
included. A bunch of other details were listed including a 6000+ ppi 
resoltuion for films up to 4x5.

For larger format film and also designed for wetmounting napprently 
(well, one of them), are the new Epsons:

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?
BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=63056500

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?
ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/02-22-2006/0004286558&EDATE=

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/22/perfection/index.php

For larger format film and also designed for wetmounting napprently 
(well, one of them), are the new Epsons:

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?
BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=63056500

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?
ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/02-22-2006/0004286558&EDATE=

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/22/perfection/index.php

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tim Atherton" 
<timatherton@...> wrote:
>
> For larger format film and also designed for wetmounting napprently 
> (well, one of them), are the new Epsons:
> 
> http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?
> BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=63056500
> 
> http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?
> ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/02-22-2006/0004286558&EDATE=
> 
> http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/02/22/perfection/index.php
>

I would love to see a comparison scan between this new Epson and a 
drum scanner at the same resolution (both wet mounted).