Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
It's only as condescending as you want it to be. I don't see anything bad in the word 'fun'. Personally I wouldn't do photography if it wasn't fun. And I take photography very seriously. I didn't say 'funny' so I don't know why you're talking about Avedon and Penn 'having a giggle'.
What I meant was that it is a specialty that only few people have as a priority and it's not worth sacrificing the scan quality for it.
The fact is that it is a scanner, not a sort of enlarger. It's not the same. If you know how scanners such as the Nikon CS9000 or the Microtek work you know that there's no way how they could have a glassless carrier that holds the neg fllat, lets you scan multiple images in one go and scan the neg edge to edge.
And I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by 'rebate' (I'm not a native English speaker). If you're just talking about having a little bit of the black frame edges in the scan then it will probably let you do that (the Nikon does). If, however, you're talking about scans that include all the edge markings on the film (brand, frame number, etc.) then you're out of luck.
Type 55 wasn't a medium format film. Besides, if you want to go retro (which I'm not trying to belittle) at a certain point you gotta ask yourself if it's not just better to make a darkroom print and then scan that. And if that's not a possibility because you want really big enlargements then you're going to need drum scans anyways.
Well obviously I know how the Microtek scanner worked. As I said,
I owned one. I don't want or need the entire strip, including all frame
and manufacturer's markings. But I do need to scan the entire image
and at least a part of "the black," as you say. The Microtek could not
scan the full frame so I sold it.
It's pointless to tell me how to present my work -- whether it's you
suggesting I scan prints, or clayne suggesting my needs are "trivial,"
and asking whether presenting my work full-frame is "really so
critical to [my] photography." The point is that my vision, my
photography does require it, and I already have a tool that enables
me to do that -- the Epson 4990. That is the standard against which
I measure the new Plustek, and I suspect that my requirements are
not so esoteric as you all suggest.