On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:12:21 -0400, Robert Feinman
wrote:


Anyway, if you look at my results with the Minolta 5400 scanner I was
able to get 12-18x enlargements which look much better than would have
been done with a wet darkroom.
I think it may be a combination of new lens design, improved film and
much better detail capture when using a scanner. So I revise my
estimate upwards to about 12x when everything works optimally.


Yep, this is what a lot of us have seen.
Film scanning and digital darkroom
making sharper prints, and with better
tonality, than a wet darkroom.

When using my Pentax 67 and the Epson 4870 scanner the overall results
don't appear any better than what I got with 35mm. Perhaps older lens
design, more camera vibration (even with mirror up) and a much lower
resolution scanner (in spite of advertised numbers).
So depending on the workflow, medium format may not be noticeably better
than 35mm.
You can see the samples in the tips section of my web site.


I suggest it's the 4870 that's the weak
link here. Have you had one of your
good MF negatives scanned on a top-
notch film scanner? I think that might
cause you to change your tune.

I see noticeable differences between
35 and 645. But that's because I scan
both of them on the same 4000 dpi
scanner.

How does your scanner hold up against
comparable samples at my site below?

Back when I was scanning MF on an
Epson 1640 (supposedly 1600 dpi, but
seemingly half of that) I was somewhat
disappointed with MF.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
scan samples site:
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/