Digital BW, The Print

I also use Vuescan and have had good results, especially with the latest
version with the IT8 calibration facility and ICC profile support.  However,
I am a fan of the HDR output from Silverfast, and I have had my best black
and white scans and Portra scans (I find Portra a tricky neg to get good
scans from) with the 48-bit HDR Colour setting, scanning black and white as
colour transparency.  The 16-bit HDR Greyscale is also not too bad for black
& white negs, although I prefer to control the conversion from the rgb scan
data to greyscale myself rather than to let the scanner software decide.

Simon

----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what? (was: Epson3200 - Test
results)


> Thanks for these Simon. I can't get good scans from silverfast and I use
> Vuescan. Looks interesting - thanks again
>
> Julian
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Simon Lamb" <simon@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 6:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what? (was: Epson3200 -
Test
> results)
>
>
> > Julian
> >
> > I don't really want to get into the sharpness, detail, contrast etc.
> debate
> > as it has probably been done here and on other forums before.  Let me
> > explain by what I mean when I say the detail is there with an example of
a
> > couple of scans.  This URL points to a part of the photo-i forum where I
> > posted a soft scan and this was sharpened by Vincent to show that the
> detail
> > was indeed present:
> >
> >
>
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.pl?s=3e7591d91447ffff;a
> > ct=ST;f=36;t=1;st=100
> >
> > As you can see, the creases in the skin under the eye, the black detail
> > lines in the blue part of the eye, the freckles on the nose in the
bottom
> > left side of the image and the red vein in the left side of the eye are
> all
> > apparently missing in the soft scan, but with sharpening the detail is
> > there.  This is not manufactured detail - you can't manufacture a vein
in
> an
> > eye or a freckle on a nose.  I also have some shots of bushed and trees
> and
> > the detail is definitely there.  I worked on this some more to get the
> > colour right but I haven't uploaded that sample yet.
> >
> > This soft effect is worse on 35mm.  With 6X6 scans the detail is there
in
> > the untouched scanned image and the amount of sharpening required is
> > significantly less.  Here are two URLs, one of a Velvia slide and one of
a
> > Portra neg.  Both are 6X6 and both had bags of details:
> >
> > http://www.sclamb.com/scancomp/Church.jpg
> >
> > http://www.sclamb.com/scancomp/Glen%20Portra.jpg
> >
> > I have worked with the 3200 for a while now and am getting the best
scans
> > using Silverfast Ai, with the scanner profile calibrated using an IT8
> > target.  I also find the Silverfast scans are visibly sharper than the
> Epson
> > Scan scans, even though all sharpening is switched off.  I have also had
> > great success with black and white & Portra scans using the HDR output
> > capability of Silverfast and doing all manipulation on the raw data in
PS.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 5:06 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what? (was: Epson3200 -
> Test
> > results)
> >
> >
> > > exactly my point! I'd be interested in how you can say that 'the
detail
> is
> > > there' if the scan appears very soft. I can give the appearance of
> > > sharpness - as i do - by USM tricks - but the details (I'm thinking
here
> > of
> > > thin branches, trees etc - the usual difficult suspects) are missing.
> When
> > > people say the 1680/3200 are sharp, what they are really saying is
> 'sharp
> > > enough for them' - but as to some form of 'absolute' sharpness (I feel
> > > Austin about to dive in;-0 ) they are very second rate IMO compared to
> > film
> > > scanners.
> > >
> > > Julian
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Simon Lamb" <simon@...>
> > > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 5:47 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what? (was: Epson3200 -
> > Test
> > > results)
> > >
> > >
> > > > Julian
> > > >
> > > > I must be losing the thread here.  What Polaroid and Minolta are you
> > > > comparing scans with?  If the Multi Pro and SS120 then you cannot
> > compare
> > > > flatbed to dedicated film scanner.  My 3200 scans appear very soft
but
> > > look
> > > > great after sharpening in PS, and all the detail is there.
> > > >
> > > > Simon
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>
> > > > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:53 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what? (was:
Epson3200 -
> > > Test
> > > > results)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > well mine is. and I've had it serviced twice. There really is no
> > > > comparison
> > > > > with scans I've done on both a Minolta and Polaroid film scanner
of
> > the
> > > > same
> > > > > neg.
> > > > >
> > > > > Julian
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Simon Lamb" <simon@...>
> > > > > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 4:26 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what? (was:
> Epson3200 -
> > > > Test
> > > > > results)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Julian
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The 1680 cannot be producing softer scans than the 3200 and I am
> > > getting
> > > > > > excellent results with just PS sharpening.  I have definitely
> found
> > > > > > artifacts appearing when doing any sort of sharpening in the
scan
> > > > > software,
> > > > > > especailly is smooth, even tones such as blue sky.  I have also
> > found
> > > > that
> > > > > > UltraSharpen Pro produces much better results than plain USM.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Simon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>
> > > > > > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 2:43 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what? (was:
> > Epson3200 -
> > > > > Test
> > > > > > results)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > You are dead right - it is better to leave sharpening until
PS,
> > BUT
> > > > the
> > > > > > > optics in the 1680 are so soft that I need both. BTW I only do
> > this
> > > in
> > > > > > BW -
> > > > > > > for colour I do all the sharpening (I use Ultra Sharpen Pro)
in
> > PS.
> > > > One
> > > > > > test
> > > > > > > I do is to take a blank neg and use a sharp knife to make a
> score
> > > and
> > > >
> > > > > then
> > > > > > > experiment with various amounts of sharpening to get a fine
> line.
> > > > > Flatbed
> > > > > > > scanners IME just cannot get the sharpness of a film scanner.
> > People
> > > > > talk
> > > > > > > resolution numbers all the time but ignore the 'look' of
> scanners.
> > I
> > > > > note
> > > > > > > that this is happening with cameras i.e. the Kodak is 'better'
> > than
> > > > the
> > > > > > > canon because it has more megapixels, noone seems to be
bothered
> > > about
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > image quality!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Julian
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Alessandro Pardi" <alessandro.pardi@...>
> > > > > > > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:14 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what? (was:
> > > Epson3200 -
> > > > > > Test
> > > > > > > results)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Julian,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > do you get better results with a pre-sharpening at scan
time?
> I
> > > > always
> > > > > > > read
> > > > > > > > that it's better to leave the sharpening to Photoshop.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alessandro
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: Julian Thomas [mailto:julianthomas@...]
> > > > > > > > > Sent: domenica 16 marzo 2003 12:06
> > > > > > > > > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what? (was:
> > > > > Epson3200 -
> > > > > > > > > Test results)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >  I cannot get satisfactory scans (sharp) without applying
> 3x3
> > > > > > > > > > pixel unsharp mask in the scanning application
(Silverfast
> > Ai
> > > > 6).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Me too on a 1680. I need a 3x3 in the scanner software
plus
> > the
> > > > > usual
> > > > > > > > > unsharp mask tricks in PS. Just as an example - I had some
> > > > > > > > > scans done on a
> > > > > > > > > minolta of 6x6 cm negs. On the 1680 I have to use the same
> > > > > > > > > amount of unsharp
> > > > > > > > > mask on a 600x600 pixel 75ppi jpeg as i did on the 4800ppi
> > > > > > > > > minolta tiff
> > > > > > > > > file. Colour is harder as the 3x3 gives me a halo effect.
> I've
> > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > shooting a BW landscape project (ok Nij stop laughing) and
> the
> > > > > lackof
> > > > > > > > > sharpness is pissing me off big time
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Julian