Digital BW, The Print

Doug,

>...I've found that when I go from scanned B&W originals, I
>get substantially more grain than I'm used to in wet printing.  ...

That was one of my early impressions also.  Coming from the darkroom, I'd
settled on Tmax 100 developed to maximize sharpness (at the cost of more
grain).  However, with digital, I've had to go the opposite direction.  The
"Unsharp mask" tool makes sharpness (relative local contrast) easy, but
getting rid of the grain seems much harder.  So, I switched from Tmax and my
sharpening development routine to Tech Pan to get the best grain, even if
the sharpness is not as good as my old Tmax.

Many say it is the scanners that do this.  So, I took an enlarged test chart
and matched the local contrast with a scanned test chart.  The relative
grain was the same.  The main difference I saw was that the enlarged test
chart was simply soft compared to what I was able to do with Photoshop. 

My conclusion is that, while there are differences in spectral v. diffusion
light sources in the various enlargers and scanners, the main differences
are that the lenses are very effective at softening grain, and unsharp
masking is magic that allows us to make much sharper images than was easily
possible in the enlarger days.  This sharpness, however, includes the grain.

I use the GEM system and have Neat as well to control the grain.  Both are
quite effective.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com