Yes,
I used internegatives until recently for my display-print files. At
first I had just an HP 4c. Now I have an Epson Expression 1600 Pro with the
transparency adapter.
I
would enlarge MF negatives to 8x10 or 5x7, using a
very good enlarging lens and glass carrier (fabricated out of Gepe slide
glass). And, of course, the enlarger was carefully aligned before I'd make
an internegative.
The
8x10 film was Kodak's 7302, which is a very fine grain, slow,
blue-sensitive film that can be used under normal B&W safelights. I'd
tray develop it in Xtol, full-strength at room temperature for 4 to 6
minutes, depending on the contrast level I wanted. The gamma was about
1, plus or minus, depending on the time. So, the resulting negative
could easily be fit into the flatbed's limited dynamic range. Being a
regular silver negative, it would lay flat on the flatbed glass,
emulsion down, with no Newton rings.
I
found that even the old HP 4c at 400 dpi produced tremendous resolution
and sharpness from this method. The 4c's problem was noise. The Epson is,
of course, better, especially in the noise department.
I
now have a Nikon 8000. It will pull about 80 lp/mm off a test slide (not
a real-world film) on the horizontal bars, and about 60 lp/mm off the vertical
bars. (I think the difference relates to the light source and the direction
in which it is really collimated.) 80 lp/mm is about the theoretical
limit for 4000 dpi as I understand it. The internegative method with
the Epson can pull about 90 lp/mm off the test film.
So,
the internegative method actually beats the Nikon 8000 in pure lp/mm off
a test slide. In real world negatives that have already experienced the
contrast-reducing effects of the MTF of the lens and film, both systems see
about 50 - 60 lp/mm. That is, when I take a photo of a test target, the
film may see over 100 lp/mm, but the finest detail is too low-contrast to
be picked up by either scanning method.
Aside
from resolution, the Nikon 8000 wins the pure image-quality contest
due to its much lower flare. However, I have detected film popping. So I
just received a glass carrier, which I have yet to try.
The
Nikon wins more significantly in the productivity department. With the flatbed,
I'd do low-contrast, direct scans first to see what I liked.
However, what I like usually takes so much time to work up that I felt I
was wasting my time on the low-contrast scans. Yet, I didn't want to
go through the internegative-making process for all the images that I
wanted to work on a little just to see if they were worth going
further with.
So,
bottom line, the Nikon 8000 is important to me more for its productivity
advantages than for its image quality advantages.
I'm
early in the process of learning the Nikon, but so far what I've seen is
very impressive. I can go from negative to print on the wall in far less
time than before, and this is my real goal.
I
hope this helps you evaluate the pluses and minuses of the method's I've
used.