Jay,
I believe about all we can do is set up a work flow that optimize results with our particular scanner, whatever it may be. Trying to compare results from one scanner to another, especially different types of scanners, where fluid mounting may or may not be used, opens up something of a pandora's box.
It seems to me that the sharpness resulting from edge effects, which can only be captured with a very high resolution (assuming they are pictorial and not grossly exaggerated), is superior in the sense that it comes with no down side in terms of distracting tones. When you apply edge effects with USM you get noise, which may then require despeckling, ete. Edge lines from adjacency effects do not have any negatives in terms of tonal values, unless they are over done for the degree of magnification.
BTW, I want to add that I have at home now a friend's FlexTight Precision II scanner and I just made a few comparison scans of the same negative that I had previously scanned with an EverSmart Pro and with a V700, using 6X12 cm negative that has a lot of fine detail. Top resolution of the Precision II is 3200 ppi with this format, same as the maximum resolution of my Eversmart Pro. A comparison of the two shows that both have about the same sharpness, but the scan made with the Eversmart is much smoother while the one with the Imacon has a lot of grain. I had sharpening turned off for the scan with the Eversmart, which is routine for my way of workflow. With the Imacon I can not tell if sharpening is on or off. If it can be turned off, which I assume is the case, the two scans would probably be closer in terms of grain. But even with sharpness turned on a scan with the Eversmart has much finer grain than what I am getting with the Imacon.
Sandy
Bookmarks