Digital BW, The Print

Gary, 
The new Epson 4990 has 8x10 trannie scanning capability. I don't know 
about the quality but the 4x5 scanning on the 4870 is excellent, so 
this may be worth investigating.

Jules


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Gary Barnett 
<barnettart@m...> wrote:
> Hear, hear! I shot almost nothing but Tri-X in the '70s and kept 
> banging my head against the wall whenever I enlarged to 16x20. I 
was 
> not into grain. What I really should have been using was an 8x10, 
which 
> I eventually picked up. However, in hind sight, the grainy quality 
of 
> those Tri-X images has turned out to be part of the charm. If you 
scan 
> Tri-X and attempt to make it look like T-Max or better, you will 
need 
> to enlarge those scans on screen and blur out every piece of grain 
> manually...not recommended for the faint of heart. My film scanner 
has 
> the ability to set a negative USM value (-60 out of ±255 is 
> recommended) and also allows for defocusing the lens (it's an 
Imacon 
> Flextight II) by a tiny amount, and between these two settings I 
can 
> minimize the grain to some extent without losing sharpness 
discernably. 
> There's even a proprietary noise option that tends to smooth out 
> clumping in the grain if used properly. Then USM in Photoshop seems 
to 
> take up the slack.
> 
> But in the long run, the question really is why? Grain is in our 
> heritage, like monotypes, glass negatives, etc. Just because a 
great 
> digital camera can be set to avoid generating noise does not mean 
that 
> our B&W history should be re-written. I always shot my Tri-X at 
ASA200 
> AND overdeveloped the film, after I realized the grain was truly a 
> wondrous feature. One of the best rolls I ever shot was left in 
> overheated developer by mistake, looked nearly solid black, made 
for 
> very long exposure times under the enlarger, and produced some 
wedding 
> shots that drove my brother in law nuts with delight! So I left the 
> Plus-X for the 8x10, and got to have whichever effect I wanted 
without 
> bruising my head anymore.
> 
> BTW, does anyone have a great method for scanning 8x10 negs on a 
> flatbed? I use the Linotype-Hell Ultra Saphir 2 with Silverfast AI 
6, 
> but there seems to be a problem with horizontal banding (or even 
thin 
> lines) when I try this (I'm at novice level with this software, to 
make 
> things worse). My Imacon, unfortunately, goes up only to 4x5. I 
> couldn't afford the big one that handles 8x10. For now, I have been 
> sending out my 8x10s for drum scans, which is fine but expensive. 
Any 
> advice...I think I saw some ideas about wet-mounting...would be 
> appreciated. I am wondering if the banding is indicative of poor or 
out 
> of adjustment mechanics in the transparency adapter because it 
never 
> happens with reflective art.
> 
> ;-)
> Gary
> 
> > Message: 18
> >    Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:14:40 -0700
> >    From: "Mike Johnston" <wpajohnson@q...>
> > Subject: RE: Really Grainy Tri X scans
> >
> >
> > You could treat the quality as a feature instead of a problem.
> > Mike J.