Digital BW, The Print

Hey Paul,

What's the GEM system?  I'm familiar with NeatImage.  How do they 
compare?
Thanks,
Randy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> 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