Re: filmscanners: BWP seeks scanner

[Nicholas Hartmann <polyglot@execpc.com>]

>You don't directly mention the size of the prints you wish to produce,
>although you allude with the 870 printer something like 8 x 12" or
>smaller.  Unlike silver images, which simply have larger grain making up
>the components of the image, without any true resolution loss, in the
>digital realm, since even 4000 dpi scanners do not capture all that is
>on a 35mm frame, you end up with softness and loss of detail if you go
>too large.

For the moment I will stick to the 870 printer, because it makes no sense
for me to buy another printer until I know more about the medium. That
limits my output size to an 8x12" full-frame image, and in fact I will
probably print no larger than 5.5x8" or so for a while. Some day, however,
I would love to graduate to a wider-carriage printer that lets me get
12x18" images on suitable paper, and I would consider that the upper limit.

>If indeed you are going to keep to that 8" x 12" or smaller sizes, my
>experience is that I get "grainy" B&W images with even a 2400 dpi
>scanner when I enlarge to that size.  In fact, with unsharp masking,
>which is necessary with any digital scan, you might find that with a
>2700 dpi scanner, the grain of a 400 ISO film might even get exaggerated.

Great! Although I'm sure my expectations and inclinations will change, for
the moment I do want to wring every possible piece of information out of my
negatives.

>If you are mainly printing black and white, you might want to look at
>Jon Cone's Piezography Inks, which allow for using four or six densities
>of black ink and special drivers to make very nice black and white prints.

I've heard a lot about Piezography and seen some stunning output. For the
moment, however, Cone offers no solution for the 870's "chipped" ink
cartridges, so I will bide my time. But I am very interested in eventually
trying out a quad-tone B&W inkset, whether Piezography or some other
variety.

-- Nick