Digital BW, The Print

Steve,

>...I currently use 2 camera systems - the Contax 645 and
>the Canon 1N ...
> At the moment I have a relatively cheap scanner, the
>Epson 2450 Photo.  I have not been that impressed ...

>So my question now is should I upgrade my scanner to, say,
>a Nikon 8000 ...

Yes.  The Nikon 8000 made a huge difference in my overall workflow.  With
medium format Tech Pan I print at 22 x 28 inches in my 7500 with Ultra Tone
inks and get essentially perfect images.  The sharpness holds up even when
people get their noses into the print, and the image is virtually grainless.

So, if those are your goals, the Nikon 8000 -- or an equivalent scanner with
a grain reduction option -- will be much better than the alternative
solutions that I lived with until the 8000 was available.


>... can a scanner get close to a high end digital camera these days?

For B&W work, I think the question should be reversed.

Recall that the digital cameras use RGGB sensors, typically.  Each one of
those colors is called a "pixel" in the ads/resolution ratings.  With a
scanner, however, each pixel is a full RGB pixel (or grayscale pixel).  So,
the B&W resolution of digital cameras is not as high as the scanners' rated
resolution.  If, for example, I applied a "red filter" in the computer to a
digital camera's "pixel," I'd have, effectively, 1/4 the rated pixels.

The color image quality of the digital cameras is great, but for B&W, I
think we have a few years to wait before the portable digital cameras will
be able to match medium format B&W film.  In fact, the B&W, high resolution
market may be so small that digital cameras for that market may never be in
my budget category.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com