Digital BW, The Print

To the list --

I'm planning to purchase either the Minolta Scan Multi Pro or the Polaroid 
120 to scan many years of 2¼×2¼ Tri-X negatives (developed in D-76). I hope 
someone with experience can answer several questions:

1. Is either the Polaroid or the Minolta preferable for producing a sharp 
image without exaggerating the grain at 2000/3200/4000/4800 ppi?

2. Is the grain in a monochrome scan better or worse than that of an RGB 
scan reduced to monochrome in Photoshop using the CHANNEL MIXER?

3. I don't like the softened, glowy look of prints from even 
slightly-diffused negatives like those I've seen produced by grain 
reduction software such as the NEAT demo <http://absoft.hotbox.ru/> or the 
QUANTUM MECHANIC PRO demo <http://www.camerabits.com/>. Can anyone 
recommend an anti-grain solution superior to either of these?

4. (For James) -- concerning your experience (quoted below) -- did you have 
the Minolta's Digital-ICE³ turned on or off?   I understand that ICE³ isn't 
intended for use with black-and-white negatives, but what effect do you see 
when it is off compared to turning it on in a B&W scan?

Thanks for whatever information anyone can provide.

-- Victor Landweber


At 03:01 AM 1/27/2002 +0000, James 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