Digital BW, The Print

Todd Flashner wrote:

>  on 2/1/02 12:29 PM, mkravit wrote:
>
> > Todd,
> >
> > I think that negative film is in fact has more grain than
> > transparency film. Especially in the high speed range films. I
> > scanned some Portra 400 color negative film and it is grainy. I scan
> > Tri-X B/W negative film and it is grainy. Obviously T-Max 100 is very
> > fine grain.
> >
> > Fuji Velvia has almost no grain at all from my scanning experience.
>
> I think you and Harvey may be right about that, but what I find interesting
> is how much more the digital processes exacerbates the difference relative
> to conventional methods. IOW, take out a camera with interchangeable backs,
> like a Hassleblad. One back with ASA 100 neg, the other with ASA 100
> transparency. Shoot the same image on each film. Make a 24x24" C-print of
> the neg and R-print (or ciba) of the chrome. The C-print from the neg
> probably won't look much grainer than the R-print from the chrome. Scan the
> two on a drum and output to an Epson and the two will look miles apart.
>
> I haven't conducted such a test, so may be I'm wrong, but that's my sense.
>
> Todd
>

Todd,
I think you are right.   It does have something to do with contemporary scanning
process, and this has been discussed quite a bit on the scanner lists.

An interesting side bar on all of this is that several years ago, it was
acceptable even the norm, to shoot in 35mm format for magazines (like fashion)
and then, along came contemporary digital scanning and all of a sudden,
everything had to be shot in medium format.

It was postulated by some, way more knowledgeable that I, that the 'grain'
problem was really a type of 'noise' problem, but a problem nonetheless.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC






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