Digital BW, The Print

Victor,

To be clear, I did my research and experimentation because I was 
seeing grain, or something like it in my prints (PiezoBW on an Epson 
1280 8X10 and 12X15). 

The outcome of my analysis is that the Minolta does a fabulous job -  
something I really needed to honest with myself about so I could take 
advantage of a 30-day return policy.

I swithched to Microdol from D76, not because of grain aliasing, but 
because some of my landscape consist of delicate tonality and 
textures, such as sand dunes or reflections on dark boggy pools.  I 
like grain at time, but not in these situations.

I propose that the Minolta will absolutely satisfy you with regard to 
dynamic range and resolution (without amplifying grain).  I love 
medium format, but I also do a fair amount of 35mm (something about 
the size and speed sets me free to experiment, shooting fast and 
handheld... this seem to actually does something to enhance my medium 
format shooting).  I bring this up because I love the 4800ppi 
scanning for these smaller negative.

Regards,

James

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Victor Landweber 
<victor@l...> wrote:
> 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