Digital BW, The Print

My tests are back comparing scans of the same color negative 
from three film scanners in the $3000 price range.  I asked the 
scanner owners to simply make the highest quality scan they 
could without using Ultra Sharp Mask.  

The Nikon 8000 is the clear winner.  The Polaroid SS120 and the 
Minolta Multi Pro seesaw back and forth for second place.

First, the Nikon has virtually no "grain aliasing."  That's is the 
most important issue for me as I am usually printing in b/w.  The 
Nikon delivers the most natural (actually it leans toward the blue 
side) color right out of the scanner.  It has little or no color 
bleeding.  It takes Ultra Sharp Masking in Photoshop beautifully.

The Polaroid SS120 is a little bit softer than the Nikon, shows a 
bit of "grain aliasing" and has significant color bleeding (my scan 
leaned toward the red spectrum).  The SS120 scan deteriorated 
faster using USM in Photoshop.

I'm doing the USM testing because the Minolta Pro is providing 
considerably sharper scans than the other two scanners.  The 
first two are scanned at 4000, the Minolta at 4800 dpi.  I 
discovered that the Nikon with 300% USM looks as sharp as the 
Minolta and still has less "grain aliasing."  The Polaroid scan 
gets that "over sharpened" look at 300% USM.

My Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro sure looks crisp and contrasty 
next to these other scanners.  It seems sharper and brighter in 
terms of color.  I can try to get it to look like the Nikon by adding 
1.5degrees of Gaussian Blur.  To look like the Polaroid it needs 
about 2 units of Gaussian Blur.

The Minolta is tops in sharpness, but falls into third place when 
"grain aliasing" is considered.  The Minolta simply looks bad.  It's 
like TriX film versus Tmax 100.  It also bleeds color about as 
much as the Polaroid.  The Minolta also has a tendancy to 
render color as artificial looking.  Of course, if you are trying for a 
David LaChappelle look, the Minolta really pops the color and 
still seems to provide decent flesh tones.

If I had to do it all over again, I'd buy Nikon.  The Polaroid/Minolta 
scans are also vastly different looking, but the Polaroid pluses 
and the Minolta pluses don't add up to a clear decision.  Maybe 
I'd take Polaroid just to cut back on that damn "grain aliasing" 
which is the "black hole" of the Minolta.

If there is enough interest in my tests, I'll post some 
enlargements of the scans I did.

Frank

http://www.culturalvisions.com

Hi Frank,

> My tests are back comparing scans of the same color negative 
> from three film scanners in the $3000 price range.  I asked the 
> scanner owners to simply make the highest quality scan they 
> could without using Ultra Sharp Mask.  

Did you do B&W, color chromes and color negatives?

> I'm doing the USM testing because the Minolta Pro is providing 
> considerably sharper scans than the other two scanners.  The 
> first two are scanned at 4000, the Minolta at 4800 dpi.

Does that mean your tests were with 35mm only?

> If there is enough interest in my tests, I'll post some 
> enlargements of the scans I did.

I would be.

Austin

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).  I will also do a 3200 scan of the same negative.  That is 
the highest dpi for a single pass scan with the Minolta.  I 
scanned in slide mode; that gives me the least "grain aliasing" 
on the Minolta.  

The other scans were done by professional photographers and 
scanner owners who knew the reputation of their scanners was 
at stake.  They made it their business to do the best they could 
on my 645 negative.

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.

Keep in mind that all three scanners are good.  I am testing what 
I hope would be optimum scans with file sizes in excess of 150 
mb. and enlarged to dimensions that best illustrate their 4000 
plus dpi.

Frank

http://www.culturalvisions.com


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Hi Frank,
> 
> > My tests are back comparing scans of the same color 
negative 
> > from three film scanners in the $3000 price range.  I asked 
the 
> > scanner owners to simply make the highest quality scan they 
> > could without using Ultra Sharp Mask.  
> 
> Did you do B&W, color chromes and color negatives?
> 
> > I'm doing the USM testing because the Minolta Pro is 
providing 
> > considerably sharper scans than the other two scanners.  
The 

> > first two are scanned at 4000, the Minolta at 4800 dpi.
> 
> Does that mean your tests were with 35mm only?
> 
> > If there is enough interest in my tests, I'll post some 
> > enlargements of the scans I did.
> 
> I would be.
> 
> Austin

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

Austin,

I am ready to upload the test scans to my website, but I am 
having network difficulties.

I scanned the same negative with three different scanners.  I 
used a 120 color neg. because that seemed to illustrate the 
problems of "grain aliasing" more dramatically than b&w and it 
provided me with more information about the abilities of each 
scanner.

I will post the link as soon as it is up.

Frank

--- 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

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

Hi,

Here's an independent rave review of the Minolta Multi Pro that 
went online in January 2002.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/minolta/mp.htm

I've had the multi-pro since early November, love it, and I agree 
with this review.

Cheers,
James Lerager


--- 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

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

Frank and everyone,

I am scanning on a Minolta Multi-Pro also (which I bought in 
November), and am very pleased with it overall, including for 
color negative/ conversion to B&W. I'm using a Mac G4, OS 9.1, 
1.12 gigs of ram, B&W output with Cone software and inks on an 
Epson 1160. 

I'm using Fuji Superia 200 and 400, the 4-layer Reala-based 
"amateur" film, dip and dunk processed. I'm glad to hear the 
Portra works also; I can't say which is better, not having used the 
Portra. I've also heard that Kodak Supra is supposed to be 
optimized for scanning. I have scanned some older Fuji NPH 
film, and I agree that it doesn't seem to scan very well with the 
Minolta software...it's sharp but grainy, and seems to come out 
better with Vuescan software. 

For scanning silver-based B&W film, I've found the Minolta 
software, when using the B&W settings, to also be very grainy 
looking (when I look at it at 100%, it looks like flecks of black & 
silver-grey, and very clumpy). However, I've found that if I scan 
silver-based B&W films using the Color Negative setting on the 
Minolta software, and then select only for the green channel, I get 
excellent results. 

I've also used Vuescan, and the newly completed 7.5 version 
does scan well (stay away from the 7.5 betas and 7.4 versions of 
VS with the Multi-Pro) - and gives perhaps an even sharper scan 
than Minolta's software. On another site, I recently posted 
suggested directions for using the firewire Multi Pro (and Minolta 
Elite II) with VS 7.5 and Mac OS9.1 - though it is complicated.

The Minolta scanner/Firewire/Vuescan 7.5 combination works 
fine for me. 

Minolta's software is very intuitive and Vuescan is not; I've 
needed to do a lot of experimenting to really make VS work for 
me. However, I think Minolta's software can be very troublesome 
in one area; selection of Black and White end-points on the scan 
exposure; a problem than VS does not have. There is a way to at 
least partially correct for this in Minolta's software, but it is not 
obvious, and is buried in the help files.

I am posting the Minolta Auto-Exposure workarounds, and my 
recommendations for using VS 7.5/Minolta firewire scanner/Mac 
OS 9.1, below:

      A.  Message about controlling exposure functions with Minolta 
software.

I too have a Minolta Multi-Pro (MMP) and I have loved it since I 
bought it in early November. It functions beautifully with both the 
Minolta software, and with the new Vuescan 7.5 (non-beta; the 
beta versions should be avoided for the MMP). The Minolta 
software is very intuitive, but there are two tricks to optimizing it: 
1. After Prescan, do a manual focus before final scan (I get 
considerably sharper scans with manual than auto focus). 
2. With some scans, after the prescan, you can potentially 
improve your scan by selecting a specific area of the image to 
determine the final exposure. This is not so obvious, and 
requires using the AE AREA LOCK and AE LOCK buttons, which 
are on the prescan tab. The instructions are under the Minolta 
help menu (under Auto Exposure). I've clipped & pasted the 
instructions:

AE AREA LOCK
The AE area in auto exposure adjusting mode can be changed 
and the exposure of that area is adjusted automatically with this 
function.
  <How To>
     1.	Press the Shift key. The AE area is indicated in line instead 
of the cropping area indicated in dashed line.
     2.	While pressing down the Shift key, change the AE area. The 
operation is the same as that of changing the cropping area 
except that the Shift key should be used.

   AE LOCK
   AE settings for the current prescan are saved and applied to 
subsequent prescan.
  <How To>
     1.	When a prescan scan is made, the AEL button becomes 
available.
     2.	Click on the AEL button.



     B.  Message about Vuescan 7.5/Minolta Firewire Scanner/Mac 
OS 9.1:

For everyone with a Multi Pro wishing to use Vuescan (VS)on a 
Mac with OS 9.1. The real VS 7.5 (non-beta) now works and it 
works fine (though with occasional crashes; Hamrick may refine 
it a little more in future) with the Multi-Pro (and also for the Scan 
Elite II). (But don't even try to use any of the beta versions of 7.5, 
or 7.4 for that matter; you'll only frustrate yourself and waste a lot 
of time.)

However, there are some tricks to using VS with the Minolta 
firewire scanners....

1. All the Minolta files must be removed from the 
Systems/Extensions folder. I've made a folder to hold them. 
These are:
DS Elite Library
MCM Library
MFSBaseLib2887
MFSFWDriver
MFSFWExpLoader
MFSFWFamily
MFSLib2887

2. If you use Photoshop, the Minolta Plug-In must be removed 
from Photoshop's plug-in folder.

3. Then reboot your computer (because you have removed 
extensions). 

Note: You will not be able to use Minolta's proprietary scanning 
software once the extensions and plug-in it requires are 
removed, until you have re-installed them and re-booted again.
 
4. When scanning with Vuescan, I highly recommend that you 
close all other programs and devices, including modem, 
photoshop, word processor(especially the word processor!), etc.

5. I often find that I have to open and close Vuescan several 
times until it recognizes the scanner.

6. Assign lots of ram/memory to VS - I give it 250 megs.

Vuescan does work great with the Multi-Pro, once you get it up 
and running, and once you learn to use VS effectively (it is not 
intuitively easy to use like Minolta's software is). VS does seem 
to still have a bug in the cropping function that can make it hard 
to select crop areas; I found I had to experiment for awhile before 
I could get it to work for me.

Good luck, and best wishes,
James Lerager







--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "culturalvisions" 
<frank@c...> wrote:
> 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.
>

James,

Thank you for this informative post.  I've been wasting time on 
VueScan 7.5 beta all weekend with one problem after another making 
success unattainable.  I managed one scan that proved early on that 
VueScan was superior for my b/w negs compared to Minolta software.  
Then VS went out of focus and I haven't been able to get it in focus 
again.  I will now try to download a non-beta version.

I've got this dual Firewire/SCSI set-up that allows me to go easily 
between Minolta and VS software.  I am interested in your work-around 
for Fireware because the SCSI is ridiculously slow.  Try 5 minutes for 
a preview scan.

I will try your green channel only trick for my black and white also.

I had assumed that my auto-esposure setting didn't work on my scanner.  
I never got a change in exposure even after holding the shift key 
down.  I will try it again.

Frank

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "jlerager" <JLerager@y...> 
wrote:
> Frank and everyone,
> 
> I am scanning on a Minolta Multi-Pro also (which I bought in 
> November), and am very pleased with it overall, including for 
> color negative/ conversion to B&W. I'm using a Mac G4, OS 9.1, 
> 1.12 gigs of ram, B&W output with Cone software and inks on an 
> Epson 1160. 
> 
> I'm using Fuji Superia 200 and 400, the 4-layer Reala-based 
> "amateur" film, dip and dunk processed. I'm glad to hear the 
> Portra works also; I can't say which is better, not having used the 
> Portra. I've also heard that Kodak Supra is supposed to be 
> optimized for scanning. I have scanned some older Fuji NPH 
> film, and I agree that it doesn't seem to scan very well with the 
> Minolta software...it's sharp but grainy, and seems to come out 
> better with Vuescan software. 
> 
> For scanning silver-based B&W film, I've found the Minolta 
> software, when using the B&W settings, to also be very grainy 
> looking (when I look at it at 100%, it looks like flecks of black & 
> silver-grey, and very clumpy). However, I've found that if I scan 
> silver-based B&W films using the Color Negative setting on the 
> Minolta software, and then select only for the green channel, I get 
> excellent results. 
> 
> I've also used Vuescan, and the newly completed 7.5 version 
> does scan well (stay away from the 7.5 betas and 7.4 versions of 
> VS with the Multi-Pro) - and gives perhaps an even sharper scan 
> than Minolta's software. On another site, I recently posted 
> suggested directions for using the firewire Multi Pro (and Minolta 
> Elite II) with VS 7.5 and Mac OS9.1 - though it is complicated.
> 
> The Minolta scanner/Firewire/Vuescan 7.5 combination works 
> fine for me. 
> 
> Minolta's software is very intuitive and Vuescan is not; I've 
> needed to do a lot of experimenting to really make VS work for 
> me. However, I think Minolta's software can be very troublesome 
> in one area; selection of Black and White end-points on the scan 
> exposure; a problem than VS does not have. There is a way to at 
> least partially correct for this in Minolta's software, but it is 
not 
> obvious, and is buried in the help files.
> 
> I am posting the Minolta Auto-Exposure workarounds, and my 
> recommendations for using VS 7.5/Minolta firewire scanner/Mac 
> OS 9.1, below:
> 
>       A.  Message about controlling exposure functions with Minolta 
> software.
> 
> I too have a Minolta Multi-Pro (MMP) and I have loved it since I 
> bought it in early November. It functions beautifully with both the 
> Minolta software, and with the new Vuescan 7.5 (non-beta; the 
> beta versions should be avoided for the MMP). The Minolta 
> software is very intuitive, but there are two tricks to optimizing 
it: 
> 1. After Prescan, do a manual focus before final scan (I get 
> considerably sharper scans with manual than auto focus). 
> 2. With some scans, after the prescan, you can potentially 
> improve your scan by selecting a specific area of the image to 
> determine the final exposure. This is not so obvious, and 
> requires using the AE AREA LOCK and AE LOCK buttons, which 
> are on the prescan tab. The instructions are under the Minolta 
> help menu (under Auto Exposure). I've clipped & pasted the 
> instructions:
> 
> AE AREA LOCK
> The AE area in auto exposure adjusting mode can be changed 
> and the exposure of that area is adjusted automatically with this 
> function.
>   <How To>
>      1.	Press the Shift key. The AE area is indicated in line 
instead 
> of the cropping area indicated in dashed line.
>      2.	While pressing down the Shift key, change the AE area. The 
> operation is the same as that of changing the cropping area 
> except that the Shift key should be used.
> 
>    AE LOCK
>    AE settings for the current prescan are saved and applied to 
> subsequent prescan.
>   <How To>
>      1.	When a prescan scan is made, the AEL button becomes 
> available.
>      2.	Click on the AEL button.
> 
> 
> 
>      B.  Message about Vuescan 7.5/Minolta Firewire Scanner/Mac 
> OS 9.1:
> 
> For everyone with a Multi Pro wishing to use Vuescan (VS)on a 
> Mac with OS 9.1. The real VS 7.5 (non-beta) now works and it 
> works fine (though with occasional crashes; Hamrick may refine 
> it a little more in future) with the Multi-Pro (and also for the 
Scan 
> Elite II). (But don't even try to use any of the beta versions of 
7.5, 
> or 7.4 for that matter; you'll only frustrate yourself and waste a 
lot 

> of time.)
> 
> However, there are some tricks to using VS with the Minolta 
> firewire scanners....
> 
> 1. All the Minolta files must be removed from the 
> Systems/Extensions folder. I've made a folder to hold them. 
> These are:
> DS Elite Library
> MCM Library
> MFSBaseLib2887
> MFSFWDriver
> MFSFWExpLoader
> MFSFWFamily
> MFSLib2887
> 
> 2. If you use Photoshop, the Minolta Plug-In must be removed 
> from Photoshop's plug-in folder.
> 
> 3. Then reboot your computer (because you have removed 
> extensions). 
> 
> Note: You will not be able to use Minolta's proprietary scanning 
> software once the extensions and plug-in it requires are 
> removed, until you have re-installed them and re-booted again.
>  
> 4. When scanning with Vuescan, I highly recommend that you 
> close all other programs and devices, including modem, 
> photoshop, word processor(especially the word processor!), etc.
> 
> 5. I often find that I have to open and close Vuescan several 
> times until it recognizes the scanner.
> 
> 6. Assign lots of ram/memory to VS - I give it 250 megs.
> 
> Vuescan does work great with the Multi-Pro, once you get it up 
> and running, and once you learn to use VS effectively (it is not 
> intuitively easy to use like Minolta's software is). VS does seem 
> to still have a bug in the cropping function that can make it hard 
> to select crop areas; I found I had to experiment for awhile before 
> I could get it to work for me.
> 
> Good luck, and best wishes,
> James Lerager
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "culturalvisions" 
> <frank@c...> wrote:
> > 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 Minolt