Tom Scales writes ...
> But should you really have to do that? Isn't that adding a lot of
manual
> intervention to compensate for a design flaw? I'm really interested
in the
> LS4000, but I never have to go to this trouble with my SS4000.
Was it a design flaw or a tradeoff? I won't claim to know for
sure ... except to point out we've always been confronted with similar
tradeoffs. The best enlargers have always offered diffused
illumination or better contrast with point source illumination.
However, to take best advantage of point source illumination and
potential edge sharpness we needed better resolution. And then, we
were confronted with a need for glass carriers because of the
^inherent^ loss of depth of focus (a law of physics).
With regard to SS4000 vs LS-4000, there are analogies here. A
choice of illumination, the optimum optics and a subsequent need for
decreased depth-of-focus. For a buyer the question which remains is
which type of illumination suits your exposures and films best.
Independent of the need for IR, an educated guess would be, for
negatives and better color gamut, you might opt for increased edge
contrast and the Nikon (and flat film) ... but for an all around
better solution, negatives or slides, the Polaroid.
What remains is an A-B comparison for both print film and a slide,
of the same 2mm area, Nikon vs Polaroid (... Tony? ...)
my US$0.02 ... shAf :o)
