Digital BW, The Print

Roger wrote:
>> Or for example multisampling/long exposure with a Nikon 8000 
>> on wet mounted color negative film like I do. Similar 
>> artefacts seen in digital HDR can show though. In this case 
>> higher noise in the highlights for color negative.
>>
>> Exposure bracketing on a DSLR isn't bad either if the 
>> subject allows it, goes faster between shots than on an 
>> analogue MF camera.
> 
> I'm surprised you see a reduction in scanner noise in *color* negative
> highlights using multiexposure scans.  I usually find that if I set
> the overall scanner exposure correctly the entire dynamic range of the
> color negative is well within the scanner's range and nowhere near the
> scanner's Dmax.  Some B&W negs and slides do benefit from this
> technique.  I use Photomatix's combine exposures feature to blend
> bracketed scans (and DSLR shots).  I like it better than HDR and
> tonemapping.
> 
> 

It isn't the dynamic range or Dmax not captured by the 
scanner but its problem with reproducing the tone values 
accurately from the compressed range of the color negative 
that can be solved with multisampling and spreading the 
result on 16 bit. The noise in the highlights is what I 
still see though so it just works not as good in dense parts 
of the color negative. The long exposure is what I use for 
B&W negative and there I see the same (not similar) 
artefacts in the shadows observed in digital HDR. Nothing 
special just Vuescan's tools. Few times I scan slides. I 
agree that it could have been written more clearly.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |