RE: filmscanners: what defines this quality?

["Dan Honemann" <danh@selectsa.com>]

> This quality you're looking for comes from perfect practice
> in every step of the image-taking and image-making process.
>
> It involves far more than "the perfect film scanner."

Understood.  But perfect practice in every step of the process means
eliminating any potential weak links in the chain.  That's why I'm being
particular about which scanner.  I know I can dedicate my time and energy to
perfecting the use of the tools; that's why I want to find tools that will
reward that effort.

> Start with a large negative.  Use the slowest, finest-
> grained films.  Use a tripod.  Use the finest lenses.
> Use mirror lock-up (if the camera is an SLR.)  If you're
> after sharpness, use the right aperture (not f/64, but
> about 3 or 4 stops below wide-open.)

Yes, I'm doing all of this (when practical)--but purposely confining myself
to 35mm for now.  It would seem a waste to bother shooting nature scenes
with tripod, mirror lockup (not necessary with a rangefinder),
cable-release, middle apertures, Leica optics and Velvia film only to use a
scanner that degrades the image to that of a hand held shot through a point
and shoot.

> I could go on and describe some of the things you ought
> to do in Photoshop, (after acquiring "the perfect scan")
> but that's even more off-topic.  Oh, and we haven't
> discussed printers, papers and inks yet, oh my <g>.

Yeah, I realize that I've wandered OT on this, and should take up the rest
on Digital Silver.  I'm really just looking for the right scanner and
sanning techniques here; I can get the rest from other more appropriate
sources.  But I appreciate what you're saying.

> Bottom line is, there's only so far you can go (in terms
> of enlargement) with 35 mm film.  Sure, you can blow it
> up to almost any size you want, but the same image on
> a larger slide/negative will always yield a better print.

Again, understood.  But as long as I'm in 35 mm format, I want to squeeze
the most I possibly can from it.  I imagine we all do.

> Which is why I'm now screwing around with 645 cameras,
> and the associated bulk and $$$ involved in all that.

I know the temptation well.  So far I've managed to resist, but I'm sure
it's only a matter of time (though I'm such an extremist that when I leave
35mm it will likely be for 8x10).

Thanks for your thoughts,
Dan