Digital BW, The Print

As I recall, form the scanner lists, in general, color neg. films on all
scanners appear grainier than transparency films because of  the algorithms used
to get rid of the orange mask.

A reason that there might be more apparent grain in a drum scanner could be the
the 'quality' of the light used (PMT vs. CCD), like the difference between a
condenser vs. diffused light source enlarger.  It could also have to do with
that fact that ccd scanners have 'bloom' and are inherently less sharp, so that
they don't render the grain as well.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC



Todd Flashner wrote:

>  Any Idea why that is? I mean in conventional photography I don't notice
> C-prints as being much more (any more?) grainy than R-prints or Cibas. Why
> do PMT scanners record neg film as so much more grainy than chromes?
>
> Todd
>
> > Todd,
> >
> > I don't shoot 35mm so I can not really opine on the grain of a 35mm scan. I
> so
> > shoot 120 and 4x5 and scan T-Max 100 and Fuji Astia regularly. I have
> scanned
> > Kodak Portra Neg film with good results, but obviously negative films is
> > granier than transparency film.
> >
> > Mike
>
> >
> >> Harvey,
> >>
> >> I really should have re-phrased that. Without going to the expense of
> buying
> >> drum scanners, they have found that the the Polaroid is the next best
> scanner
> >> on the market. They have tested them all.
> >>
> >> Mike
> >
> > Mike, as you have access to a high quality CCD scanner and a drum could you
> > comment on which you prefer for color negative material, particularly 35mm
> > and 120mm formats? I've only gotten a couple of drum scans of color neg but
> > it did seem *considerably* more grainy than CCD scans of the same materials.
>
>





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