Digital BW, The Print

I agree that the process described by the OP is unnecessarily complicated.
For (silver) B&W film, I scan (NikonScan) 16-bit grayscale, negative.
However, I¹m now using chromogenic B&W film (XP2 and Kodak 400CN) and scan
(16 bit) in negative RGB mode.  In PS, I convert to Lab mode, discard the
color channels and convert to grayscale.  This result in a ~44MB file.

But I have not proven to myself that this is better than a direct scan into
grayscale.

Harry

PS  For this group, which is preferred, top or bottom posting?


On 5/21/07 10:53 AM, "skefford_1" <keff.antispam@...> wrote:

>  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , Mike Tiktinsky
> <mtiktinsky@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > I scan b&w negatives as if they were color positives:  16 bit per
>> > channel (48 bit) and convert from neg to positive in photoshop.  I
>> > have much more data to then manipulate the image.
>> > 
> ...
> 
> Whilst the file is 3 times larger, what is the point? Just because
> there is more data, that by itself gives you no advanatge. You coulld
> always scan in 16 bit grayscale, and then change to RGB in PS.
> 
> The advantage that it might give you is that one of the channels on
> the scanner might be a little noiser than the others. By not using
> this channel, you might get a better image. That's the theory anyway.
> But, if you use Vuescan, then you can then control which channel to
> use, bit still get the smaller file sizes associated with grayscale
> images instead of RGB file.
> 
> Steve (only a BSc!)
> 
 

-- 

Harry F. Lockwood




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]