Digital BW, The Print

I think it is an important point that the problem is "grain aliasing" 
and not grain itself.  The grain on a silver print is much less than 
the grain on a scanned print of the same negative.  In fact, a 
scanned print from a flatbed scanner often looks better than a 
print from a scanned negative from the Minolta.

James,  Thanks for your tips.  I have lowered my scan 
resolutions to 3200, but have not found that it has helped.  My 
most successful workaround involves selecting and blurring the 
specific areas where grain is too obvious on the print.  This is a 
slow process.

Microdol developer might be a solution for you, but I am 
scanning 30 years worth of negatives.  I will try the microdol for 
future work.

Thanks, Frank

http://www.culturalvisions.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "jamesmsims" 
<james@n...> wrote:
> Frank,
> 
> I am using the new Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro.  I primarily 
scan 
> Tri-X 6by7 negative and some 35mm.  Having just upgraded 
from a 
> 2400ppi scanner, I was seeing some grain I had not seen 
before.  
> 
> Research lead me to a phenomenon know as grain aliasing.  
As you 
> probably know, although I have not noticed it mentioned in this 
> thread thus far, Grain aliasing isn't real grain but an 
interference 
> pattern between film grain (dye clusters in color film) and the 
CCD 
> pixel size.
> 
> Check out the SilverFast grain reduction tutorial at 
> 
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/sf5-negafix/grain_reduction.
htm and 
> the rather technical but illuminating explanation at 
> http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm.
> 
> I finally took to undertaking a detailed empirical analysis of my 
> own, using a 200x microscope and comparing the negative, to 
the 
> pixels in Photoshop, to the Piezography print (again under the 
> microscope), not because I am technician rather than an artist, 
but 
> because I wanted to be aware if the technologies within my 
workflow 
> were interjecting something into my final product.
> 
> The answer, and this is my own subjective analysis using 
some pretty 
> in depth research and hard facts, that I am actually awed by 
how well 
> this scanner interprets the grain to render a digital facsimile. 
> 
> My only adjustment in my process was to switch from D76 to 
Microdol 
> and to lighten up on my agitation a little.  I liken this to when 
> (excuse the metaphor if it does not make sense) I traded in my 
BMW 
> for a Ducati... all the nuances of my riding style that did not 
even 
> show up on the older, slightly sloppier motorcycle, appeared 
as 
> explicit instructions to my new motorcycle.  We are in the 4000-
> 5000ppi threshold where the CCD pixel size is in the same 
space as 
> the grain (dye cloud), and as such, this phenomenon may 
raise it's 
> ugly head and create some pretty strange results.
> 
> There are all sorts of solutions proposed:
> 
> 1) slightly tweak the manual focus so that it does not react in 
such 
> an extreme manner to each grain.  This also will impact the 
overall 
> sharpness of the image, as landscape photographer, this did 
not work 
> for me at all.
> 
> 2) GEM seems to introduce other artifacts, plus it only works on 
> color scans, so my 255mb 16bit grayscale scan will triple in 
size.  
> This takes a lot of processing cycles as well.  Not the solution 
for 
> me.
> 
> 3) Get past the zone where the sampling and the grain are at 
> the 'same frequency'.  This would mean spending more than 
the $3,500 
> I just spent on my scanner or sending it out for drum scanning.  
I 
> shoot, develop and print in the same day.... so forget this.
> 
> 4) Use other software plug-ins or post processing tools to 
manage 
> grain.  This seemed to be a cure for the symptom and did not 
really 
> do what I want, which is to faithfully recreate my image 
throughout 
> the entire workflow all the way to the paper.
> 
> 5) Shift your grain size and scanning PPI so that they are 
farther 
> apart.  I have done this some.  I am scanning at 3200PPI and 
like I 
> mentioned, my development is tuned for finer grain, without 
forgoing 
> acutance (sharpness).  
> 
> The last option, and there are many more I am sure, seemed 
to work 
> best for my and what my criteria is.
> 
> A simple search in yahoo, looksmart, alta vista et al on 'grain 
> aliasing' will return a lot of information.
> 
> Hope I am offering useful information and not being redundant 
nor 
> pedantic.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> James
> www.blueskytech.info
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "david_nancy_bogart" 
> <david.g.harris@r...> wrote:
> > Frank,
> > 
> > Since the Multi Pro is the only scanner I have ever worked 
with, 
> > you can take this post for what it is worth. 
> > 
> > I too have found the same grain problem. In queries to 
Minolta 
> > and a myriad of other experts who should know, I have 
received 
> > no real explanation of why this is, and more importantly, no 
> > workable solution. I just attribute it to, as you say `it is
> > sharper than the Nikon' so maybe this is why the grain is 
more 
> > apparent. If you are able to find the answer, please let me 
know.
> > 
> > As far as the scanner USM-ing on its own as someone 
> > suggested, as you know this doesn't happen unless you've 
set 
> > it. That being said, I find I have to be extra careful with these 
> > scans in PhotoShop as normal sharpening will exacerbate 
the 
> > problem. As to the vivid colours, I don't put much seasoning 
into 
> > my image correction recipe. I find if I turn out a fairly bland 
> scan,
> > it opens with realistic colours.
> > 
> > But what do I know. The point of this reply is to let you know 
you 
> > are not alone.
> > 
> > David