Digital BW, The Print

Has anybody ever had the opportunity to compare 35mm scans from the 
Minolta 5400 (old, not II) and the Multi Pro from the same maker?

This may sound like a strange question, but I'm looking for a scanning 
solution for B&W 35mm and MF, and instead of looking for a hard to find 
Multi Pro, an intermediary solution may be the old 5400 and my Epson 
4870 with wet mount for MF.

Unless the Multi Pro delivers better results than the 5400 that is.

(LEDs and Nikon seem less appropriate for B&W, from what I gather. ?)

Thanks for your thoughts, and if anyone wants to donate a Heidelberg 
Tango, I won't refuse...

Louis de Stoutz

Hi Louis, I'm sorry not to have information about your main points. It
just happen that I got interested in this part of your mail:

> (LEDs and Nikon seem less appropriate for B&W, from what I gather.
?)

What's the information you have about Nikon's LEDs for B&W scanning?

Also, I have always thought that a moving sensor than a moving film
scanner should introduce less shacking, and, therefore, has better
sharpness.

thanks,
 Rodrigo

ramestica wrote:
> What's the information you have about Nikon's LEDs for B&W scanning?

Hi Rodrigo,

This is not my own experience, but what I gathered from searching lots 
of internet sites.

Although it is one of my main goals to preserve the original 
photographic grain throughout the whole process, the very hard light 
source, which LEDs are, as used in the Nikon and in the new Minolta 5400 
II, gives a very harsh grain picture and increases dramatically the 
visibility of dust and scratches. Since you can't use ICE with B&W, you 
are in for a very time consuming clean-up. The soft light of the Minolta 
Multi Pro and the old 5400 gives you as much resolution, but without the 
mentioned disadvantages. The resulting softness of the grain can easily 
be corrected with some carefully adjusted acquisition-sharpening in PS.

(The difference is pretty much like the one between an enlarger with 
diffuse light compared to one with a point-light-source, i.e. much 
harsher than a condenser.)

I guess that it would be most interesting to combine an LED scanner like 
the Nikon 9000 with the ScanHancer diffusor, but there seem to be 
technical difficulties preventing this.

Louis

PS: As an ooold Nikon user (I still use my F2) I've nothing against this 
brand, and the 9000 is an excellent scanner for color, especially 
Kodachromes.

> 
> Also, I have always thought that a moving sensor than a moving film
> scanner should introduce less shacking, and, therefore, has better
> sharpness.
> 
> thanks,
>  Rodrigo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>

Louis's comments (following) are substantially incorrect in my
experience for the Nikon V, and I doubt they do justice to Minolta 5400II.

First, dust/scratch exaggeration seems an urban myth, it simply
doesn't occur with the Nikon (happily, in view of Ice's limitation
with B&W). I can't directly speak about the Minolta 5400II in this
respect for B&W, but it doesn't occur in color neg or slide scans. 
 
In my experience Nikon V is *superb* for 35mm B&W but it *demands*  
Viewscan (can't comment on Silverfast)...Nikonscan application is
virtually perfect for color (better front end than Viewscan), no good
for most B&W. I have heard the same from Nikon 8000 and 9000 users (re
120). 

Nikon V is sharper than my Durst 609 condenser enlarger with Fuji and
Leitz lenses. I've used this enlarger extensively with a point source
: Nikon V is nearly as sharp (point source is usually excessively
sharp, plagued by artifacts) but not as much hassle. In other words,
Nikon V is like a supremely sharp enlarging lens whose output can be
controlled through Photoshop.

I briefly owned Minolta 5400II, only made one direct comparison to
Nikon V: Color neg scans were excellent from both machines, seemed
equal in every respect at 11"  despite Minolta's vastly larger file
size. fwiw: A Japanese report indicated that they both produce almost
exactly 4000ppi, despite Minolta's advertising.

Numerous online images of Minolta 5400II B&W scans, with accompanying
 positive commentary by users, indicate Minolta's simplistic-looking
application is quite good with B&W. I understand Silverfast is now
available for Minolta, which some find important. Unfortunately
Minolta mechanical engineering and quality control is much worse than
its scanning capability and its scanning application). 

SCANHANCER : 

I'm not convinced my Scanhancer accessory adds anything to the Nikon's
color slide scans, which are wonderful without it, but I can't say
I've given the device proper attention.

Nikon V's strip film holder (gentle device that holds film flat and
automatically positions it perfectly) may be unsuitable for
Scanhancer... I've not exhausted all ideas, but I'm not highly
motivated. Scanhancer confuses Nikon's otherwise perfect automatic
film strip centering/positioning but I may be able to work around that
with Viewscan, which I always use for B&W anyway. 

Neither Minolta's film strip carrier nor slide carrier (simple plastic
sandwiches) can accept Scanhancer because it needs to be close to the
film surface.

One way to create diffusion enlarger appearance in sharp scans: apply
a very little gaussian blur and careful compensating USM in Photoshop.
This can also be a good idea if, for example, you don't like Rodinal
grain in some images. 

Djon


Louis de Stoutz <loudest@a...> wrote:

> 
> This is not my own experience, but what I gathered from searching lots 
> of internet sites.
> 
> Although it is one of my main goals to preserve the original 
> photographic grain throughout the whole process, the very hard light 
> source, which LEDs are, as used in the Nikon and in the new Minolta
5400 
> II, gives a very harsh grain picture and increases dramatically the 
> visibility of dust and scratches. Since you can't use ICE with B&W, you 
> are in for a very time consuming clean-up. The soft light of the
Minolta 
> Multi Pro and the old 5400 gives you as much resolution, but without
the 
> mentioned disadvantages. The resulting softness of the grain can easily 
> be corrected with some carefully adjusted acquisition-sharpening in PS.
> 
> (The difference is pretty much like the one between an enlarger with 
> diffuse light compared to one with a point-light-source, i.e. much 
> harsher than a condenser.)
> 
> I guess that it would be most interesting to combine an LED scanner
like 

> the Nikon 9000 with the ScanHancer diffusor, but there seem to be 
> technical difficulties preventing this.
> 
> Louis
>