JD, it could well be that terminology isn't always being used accurately. Let me try to rephrase this, because even though this horse that we're flogging is nearly dead, I do think there's an underlying issuethat is important: shouldn't we expect vendors to deliver what they promise and what can we do if they don't?
In a nutshell, I want to control the output density range of the B/W 4x5 negs I am scanning. Shadow density on the negative goes all the way to the base emulsion; highlight density on the negative goes to, according to the histogram, about 1.8. I'd like to have that represent something short of pure white so I use the manual mode and set the slider so that the white point correlates to, say, 2.2.
Here's the rub: that doesn't change the white point. If I choose the full scale option (rather than choosing manual), the scan does indeed put the densest highlight somewhere short of pure white (I've not taken the time to calculate whether it's actually placing it at the correct value). If I choose the auto option, it does indeed render 1.8D as pure white.
Incidently, the software does appear to respond properly when the medium is color, not B/W.
I appreciate the workarounds (and the most effective I've found so far is to scan it as a color positive, then use Photoshop to render it properly). And I appreciate the observations that there are "better" ways to get good results. But shouldn't the tools work as promised? Shouldn't a user be able to place the output density as desired? If the Dynamic Range feature doesn't work properly, let's just acknowledge it and find out from Microtek what it plans to do about it.
Or am I misunderstanding something here?
