Digital BW, The Print

Robert:  I have an FS-4000, and I find it *much* better than the 2700 
dpi scanner that it replaced.  2700 dpi and ISO 400 silver film do 
some nasty aliasing.  With the FS4000, the grains look like the 
actual grains of the film as viewed with a powerful magnifier, rather 
than stuff 2x to 3x bigger.

The Nikon scanners use LED light sources, which are more collimated 
than the Canon's bulb.  So they actually emphasize grain more than 
the Canon.  The Nikons also have a grain reducer called GEM, which 
helps. 

T400CN and XP2 are less grainy than Tri-X by nature, and scan very 
well. But Tri-X handles low light and underexposure very well.  
Chromagenic films tolerate overexposure much better than 
underexposure. They can look beautiful in the midtones and 
highlights, but be very muddy and grainy in deep shadows.

My guess is that your grain aliasing problem may be a software 
problem, not a scanner problem.  The Canon FilmGet software lops 
quite a bit off the low and high ends of the image.  High contrast, 
which emphasizes grain. If you switch to VueScan, things are much 
much better, and you get the full scale, which you can adjust in your 
image editor. VueScan also has three degrees of software grain 
reduction--I've occasionally used the "Light" setting. 

Here's a Tri-X shot scanned on the FS-4000 with VueScan:
http://www2.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/2-03LonyaMischaWeb.jpg
As you can see, there is not a whole lot of grain, even though it's a 
crop of about 2/3 of the frame. In a letter size print, you can see a 
little grain texture in the print.  I could diminish it with grain 
reduction in VueScan, or I could use NeatImage.  But you know what?  
I preferred things unaltered.

For comparison, here's a T400CN shot under the similar conditions.  
It's smoother, even though it was scanned at only 2700 dpi (Nikon LS-
2000). Again, with VueScan:
http://www2.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/quartet.htm

If you really dislike grain, by all means use XP2, but shoot it at 
200, not 400, and give it an extra half stop when shadows are dark 
and important to your picture.  

Try VueScan ( http://www.hamrick.com ) before you think about dumping 
your scanner.

Also, if you're developing with D-76 or HC-100, try Kodak Xtol or 
Ilford DDX. 

Hope this helps,
--Peter

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" 
<LA_Native@h...> wrote:
> Alan:  Which scanner are you using for your Tri-X?  My Canon FS4000 
> doesn't take to Tri-X too well -- adding quite a bit of grain and 
> messing with the tonal qualities too much.  I've much better 
success 
> with chromogenics, especially XP-2.
> 
> Robert
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "A. Huntley" 
> <Alan.Huntley@c...> wrote:
> > Hello Robert,
> > 
> > I have yet to find digitally produced B&W to be to my 
> liking...maybe, it's
> > just too many years of shooting B&W film. Since I use medium and 
> large
> > format for all my B&W, grain, sharpness, and tonal 
> transitions/smoothness
> > are not issues for me. I'm also an old foggy who still shoots Tri-
X 
> and,
> > probably,
> > still has some Dektol coursing through my veins! <g> Nowadays, I 
> scan my
> > film and produce quite nice B&W images usually on PR with an 
Epson 
> 2200
> > driven by IP 5.6. I still miss the look of a finely crafted 
silver 
> print,
> > but do not
> > miss the darkroom at all.
> > 
> > Good luck with whatever direction your B&W path leads you.
> > 
> > Alan Huntley
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Robert" <LA_Native@h...>
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 9:43 AM
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Do most of you still shoot b&w on film?
> > 
> > 
> > To get your best b&w work using Epson's Ultrachrome printers, do 
you
> > generally shoot your subjects on film and scan it in?  Have you 
tied
> > shooting digitally, and were you at all satisfied with the end 
> result?