Digital BW, The Print

I have a fairly large library of 35mm film taken some years ago of The Ohio State University Dance group.  The negs are tri-x, most shot at 400.  I plan to scan them with a Canon 4000 scanner.  Can anyone give me an idea of what level to scan at, given the info below?  

I plan to print glossy 8x10s, probably Epson gloss or semi gloss.  I want to replicate as far as possible the original pictures.  As I'm a kind of "out of the box" kind of guy, I been thinking of the Epson 2400 to print them.  I'm an amateur so I won't be selling any but I may give a few away and certainly plan to scatter a few around my house so some permanence is desirable.  I don't need 100+ years as I'm 79. <g>  Also, I don't want to fool with MIS or Cone inks and I'm wary of RIPs/curves.  I have both an IMac and a PC and I've fooled around with Elements simple stuff a little.  Will the 2400 suit my needs?  Is there a better choice?  And what about paper?  Do you think the Epson stuff (or Ilford GFS) will meet my wants?  Thanks for any help, I both need and appreciate it.  Harry

Have you priced out having a service scan them for you? Might be worth your labor time.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:18 PM, HarryB wrote:

> I have a fairly large library of 35mm film taken some years ago of The Ohio State University Dance group.  The negs are tri-x, most shot at 400.  I plan to scan them with a Canon 4000 scanner.  Can anyone give me an idea of what level to scan at, given the info below?  
> 
> I plan to print glossy 8x10s, probably Epson gloss or semi gloss.  I want to replicate as far as possible the original pictures.  As I'm a kind of "out of the box" kind of guy, I been thinking of the Epson 2400 to print them.  I'm an amateur so I won't be selling any but I may give a few away and certainly plan to scatter a few around my house so some permanence is desirable.  I don't need 100+ years as I'm 79. <g>  Also, I don't want to fool with MIS or Cone inks and I'm wary of RIPs/curves.  I have both an IMac and a PC and I've fooled around with Elements simple stuff a little.  Will the 2400 suit my needs?  Is there a better choice?  And what about paper?  Do you think the Epson stuff (or Ilford GFS) will meet my wants?  Thanks for any help, I both need and appreciate it.  Harry

On 6/2/2010 2:18 PM, HarryB wrote:
> I have a fairly large library of 35mm film taken some years ago of The Ohio State University Dance group.  The negs are tri-x, most shot at 400.  I plan to scan them with a Canon 4000 scanner.  Can anyone give me an idea of what level to scan at, given the info below?
>
> I plan to print glossy 8x10s, probably Epson gloss or semi gloss.  I want to replicate as far as possible the original pictures.  As I'm a kind of "out of the box" kind of guy, I been thinking of the Epson 2400 to print them.  I'm an amateur so I won't be selling any but I may give a few away and certainly plan to scatter a few around my house so some permanence is desirable.  I don't need 100+ years as I'm 79.<g>   Also, I don't want to fool with MIS or Cone inks and I'm wary of RIPs/curves.  I have both an IMac and a PC and I've fooled around with Elements simple stuff a little.  Will the 2400 suit my needs?  Is there a better choice?  And what about paper?  Do you think the Epson stuff (or Ilford GFS) will meet my wants?  Thanks for any help, I both need and appreciate it.  Harry
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

On 03/06/2010 HarryB wrote:
> I have a fairly large library of 35mm film taken some years ago of 
> The Ohio State University Dance group. The negs are tri-x, most shot 
> at 400. I plan to scan them with a Canon 4000 scanner. Can anyone 
> give me an idea of what level to scan at, given the info below? 


> I plan to print glossy 8x10s, probably Epson gloss or semi gloss. I 
> want to replicate as far as possible the original pictures. As I'm a 
> kind of "out of the box" kind of guy, I been thinking of the Epson 
> 2400 to print them. I'm an amateur so I won't be selling any but I 
> may give a few away and certainly plan to scatter a few around my 
> house so some permanence is desirable. I don't need 100+ years as I'm 
> 79. <g> Also, I don't want to fool with MIS or Cone inks and I'm wary 
> of RIPs/curves. I have both an IMac and a PC and I've fooled around 
> with Elements simple stuff a little. Will the 2400 suit my needs? Is 
> there a better choice? And what about paper? Do you think the Epson 
> stuff (or Ilford GFS) will meet my wants? Thanks for any help, I both 
> need and appreciate it. Harry

Harry, based on my experience with various Nikon 2700spi film scanners, 
and various Epson printers including the R2400, I'd suggest the 
following as starting points:

I would scan at 4000 spi. Scanning at lower resolution would save some 
time and disc space, but would limit your ability to capture the most 
detail from the negatives and allow for cropping. Scan in grayscale, 
either 8 bit or 16 bit -- 16 bit files will give more latitude for 
making large adjustments to tonal values, but each file will be about 40 
MB. 8 bit may prove to be suitable, at half the file size, provided you 
don't need lots of adjustment.

The Epson R2400 with standard Epson inks and Advanced B&W Photo settings 
should be suitable for your purposes. I prefer to use QuadtoneRIP 
myself, but you should be fine with the 'out of the box' Epson system. 
If you have not read them already, I commend Clayton Jones's web pages 
to you, starting with http://www.cjcom.net/articles/digiprn9b.htm in 
which he discusses printing with the R2400 on Silver Rag paper.

Cheers

-- 

Peter Marquis-Kyle

Harry, You sound like you already have the scanner? so the question is does
the 2400 give you a close enough print quality to equal what you used to
print in the darkroom?  The processing of the scan will be a big part of the
process. How much sharpening, where to set the levels to match output to
black by the printer paper combination. Perhaps if you give us a little more
information on hardware on hand, we might be able to come up with some best
way to get the job done. And in part as Mark suggest, you might want to sub
some of that out if not just to see the difference in quality if you haven't
done so in the past. 

 

If you don't already have a system like Datacolor's profiling package or a
Colormunki you might improve the quality enough to consider it at this
point. Are you looking for a neutral black or a warm tone print? 

 

 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

skype me with ejprinter

www.ericneilsenphotography.com/forum1

Let's Talk Photography

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of HarryB
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 1:19 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Advice needed

 

  

I have a fairly large library of 35mm film taken some years ago of The Ohio
State University Dance group. The negs are tri-x, most shot at 400. I plan
to scan them with a Canon 4000 scanner. Can anyone give me an idea of what
level to scan at, given the info below? 

I plan to print glossy 8x10s, probably Epson gloss or semi gloss. I want to
replicate as far as possible the original pictures. As I'm a kind of "out of
the box" kind of guy, I been thinking of the Epson 2400 to print them. I'm
an amateur so I won't be selling any but I may give a few away and certainly
plan to scatter a few around my house so some permanence is desirable. I
don't need 100+ years as I'm 79. <g> Also, I don't want to fool with MIS or
Cone inks and I'm wary of RIPs/curves. I have both an IMac and a PC and I've
fooled around with Elements simple stuff a little. Will the 2400 suit my
needs? Is there a better choice? And what about paper? Do you think the
Epson stuff (or Ilford GFS) will meet my wants? Thanks for any help, I both
need and appreciate it. Harry





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

I recently read a scanner review that said to scan 35mm b&w negs at no more than 3200 dpi since anything more is just enhancing the existing grain in the negative. I'm not an expert on this and was looking for advice for my own scanning efforts; I believed his analysis. Also, you should make a few test prints from scans of various sizes to see what the lowest dpi scan setting is that gives you the quality you're looking for at the finished size; in this case you said 8x10". You scan for the largest size you anticipate printing. A flatbed scanner with film adapter that can scan 24 frames at a time will save an enormous amount of time. 

The 2400 with out-of-the-box settings will serve you just fine, as would the 1400 at half the price. Actually, for general purpose prints nearly all consumer printers will provide excellent glossy prints; they've really got this stuff perfected. You could probably spend as little as $100 and be very satisfied. Again, the key is final use. If these were to be museum quality prints, you would choose higher end equipment; but you will be surprised how well the lower end printers are able to make very fine prints for the use you described.

Hello Harry,

> I plan to print glossy 8x10s, probably Epson gloss or semi gloss.  I want to replicate as far as possible the original pictures.  As I'm a kind of "out of the box" kind of guy, I been thinking of the Epson 2400 to print them.  I'm an amateur so I won't be selling any but I may give a few away and certainly plan to scatter a few around my house so some permanence is desirable.  I don't need 100+ years as I'm 79. <g>  Also, I don't want to fool with MIS or Cone inks and I'm wary of RIPs/curves.  I have both an IMac and a PC and I've fooled around with Elements simple stuff a little.  Will the 2400 suit my needs?  Is there a better choice?  And what about paper?  Do you think the Epson stuff (or Ilford GFS) will meet my wants?  Thanks for any help, I both need and appreciate it.  
>>>>

The 2400 is an excellent printer for the glossy papers (be sure to use the Photo Black, not the Matte Black).  The K3 inks really work well on these papers.


>and I'm wary of RIPs/curves...

Peter already mentioned article #9b re the 2400 and Silver Rag paper 

   http://www.cjcom.net/articles/digiprn9b.htm

(these techniques can apply to any glossy paper).  This article recommends also reading article #9

   http://www.cjcom.net/articles/digiprn9.htm

...which details step-by-step a very effective but simple workflow for the 2400 in ABW mode which does not require linearization curves, custom profiles, etc.  The approach outlined in #9b is based on that.

From your description, I think the 2400 will be an excellent choice.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.1   http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm

Michael, In my workflow, I scan 35mm at 4000. I don't plan it to produce a
size image with the thinking that if I like what I've done I don't want to
go back and rescan to make a bigger image. The exception to that is scans
meant just for quick feed back or web scans. These never are meant to be
printed from and hold just enough information to give or get a thumbs up or
down to basic image content. 

 

Which scanner was reviewed along with what types of B&W films included in
the write up. I too have heard the adage about getting too much but that was
at least 5 years back, and while some things don't change, I'd still play
that idea of too much data out with all the newer processing tools of today.
Stepping down in printers at the on set can lead to greatly increased ink
cost later. If you plan to do a quantity of printing, then I'd highly
recommend the bigger printer. 

 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

skype me with ejprinter

www.ericneilsenphotography.com/forum1

Let's Talk Photography

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 11:47 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Advice needed

 

  

I recently read a scanner review that said to scan 35mm b&w negs at no more
than 3200 dpi since anything more is just enhancing the existing grain in
the negative. I'm not an expert on this and was looking for advice for my
own scanning efforts; I believed his analysis. Also, you should make a few
test prints from scans of various sizes to see what the lowest dpi scan
setting is that gives you the quality you're looking for at the finished
size; in this case you said 8x10". You scan for the largest size you
anticipate printing. A flatbed scanner with film adapter that can scan 24
frames at a time will save an enormous amount of time. 

The 2400 with out-of-the-box settings will serve you just fine, as would the
1400 at half the price. Actually, for general purpose prints nearly all
consumer printers will provide excellent glossy prints; they've really got
this stuff perfected. You could probably spend as little as $100 and be very
satisfied. Again, the key is final use. If these were to be museum quality
prints, you would choose higher end equipment; but you will be surprised how
well the lower end printers are able to make very fine prints for the use
you described.





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

On 03/06/2010 Michael wrote:
> I recently read a scanner review that said to scan 35mm b&w negs at 
> no more than 3200 dpi since anything more is just enhancing the 
> existing grain in the negative. 

This is fairly nonsensical if you consider that the grain is the image : 
the information contained by grain will be degraded some. I've done 
comparisons between scans at 2,700, 4000, 8000 and 12000ppi. It is true 
that scanning beyond 4,000ppi is very much a matter of diminishing 
returns, and that 4,000ppi gets almost all the useful image info assuming 
scanner optics that are up to it. But more ppi does help avoid grain 
aliasing artifacts, which are a recurrent (and insoluble) problem at 
2,700ppi and an occasional one at 4,000ppi with some materials.

> I'm not an expert on this and was 
> looking for advice for my own scanning efforts; I believed his 
> analysis. Also, you should make a few test prints from scans of 
> various sizes to see what the lowest dpi scan setting is that gives 
> you the quality you're looking for at the finished size; in this case 
> you said 8x10". You scan for the largest size you anticipate 
> printing. 

Personally I scan at max optical res possible, just because I don't want 
to have to do it again. Too much data is never a problem, it's just disk 
storage space. Too little is a problem.

> A flatbed scanner with film adapter that can scan 24 frames 
> at a time will save an enormous amount of time.

Not as much as you'd hope. For one thing you can only multiple frames like 
that at some median exposure, which is only satisfactory if all your film 
has similar density range. But the main issue is that scanning is only the 
start. You will normally have to spend considerable time in 
post-production on each image if you want any sort of decent quality. 
Defects have to be repaired, black and white points (levels) have to be 
set, and B&W neg film in particular needs lots of curve work because its 
density curve is S-shaped, to match the inverse characteristics of bromide 
paper. Exposure and development determine which parts of the curve are 
used, and the OD of the image. Scanners transfer with a simple gamma 
function. Usually B&W scan tonality is horrible unless curves are worked upon.

-- 
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk

Re: scanner resolution. Here's a link to a review of the scanner I'm using, the Epson 4870. It's in this review that the comment was made regarding 3000 dpi as being the max setting for b&w negative film; read a couple of pages to get the gist of what he's talking about.

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204870/page_6.htm

Michael K

On 04/06/2010 Michael wrote:
> Re: scanner resolution. Here's a link to a review of the scanner I'm 
> using, the Epson 4870. It's in this review that the comment was made 
> regarding 3000 dpi as being the max setting for b&w negative film; 
> read a couple of pages to get the gist of what he's talking about.
> 
> http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204870/page_6.htm

It's really up to you and your budget for TB disks (and the backups). Of 
course everything slows down with larger scans.

There's no point scanning at more than the native resolution of the 
scanner, as better interpolation can be achieved in PS, or specialist s/w, 
if needed. Equally you can always downsample from a larger file.

Personally I find scanning so tedious I only want to ever do it once, even 
if that means lots of disk space for 16 bit master TIFF's that I can 
produce derivatives from. With a V700, some of my 6x6cm scans are ~280MB. 
  35mm @4000ppi from a Polaroid4000 are 110MB. However if you know for 
sure you will never want to print at bigger than 7x5", 240-300ppi is 
sufficient for inkjets.

-- 
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk

Michael, this section is I believe what caught your eye. 

 

"The answer is simple, you can squeeze more detail out from the film, of
course there is a trade off. A 5x4 scan at 4800 dpi is going to produce a
whopping and unmanageable file size of 1.27 gb, a 35mm slide at the same
resolution produces a 88.26mb file. You will need a high specification
computer with lots of RAM to work on 35mm scans and you can forget about
doing anything else whilst working with the 5x4 scans. For everyday ink jet
printing needs this resolution is way over the top, a resolution of 3200 or
2400 will be more than enough."

 

In addition to my Nikon 9000 and Epson V750, I have a Epson 3200 ( just
sitting now - any buyers) and he refers to writing up that unit a year ago.
Those are older scanner - the 3200 and 4870, good for what they are, but
older. At the time of that write up, in 2004?, RAM and HD space was much
more expensive than today. He also did qualify his statement with "way over
the top" . There are for sure trade offs when working with your system.
Today a 64 bit system is quite normal and back then not so much. Point being
that looking at the date of reviews is almost equally important to what is
being said as the context for the authors statement might be really
important to how you interpret what he is saying.

 

He also mentions the unsharp masking. This is key to getting good digital
images not just scans. So with your workflow, you should play around with
file sizes and output setting on a few to get a handle on when and how much
to apply for that scanner. Using very little USM in scanning can be a good
thing and then small steps along the editing path. What other tools are in
your tool box for sharpening. I'd consider, Nik sharpen for RAW and output
sharpening as well as Q Image for print output. Although I have seen nice
work using Topaz detail these days too. Lots of choices with regard to how
and when to sharpen you digital file.  

 

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

skype me with ejprinter

www.ericneilsenphotography.com/forum1

Let's Talk Photography

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 11:33 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Advice needed

 

  

Re: scanner resolution. Here's a link to a review of the scanner I'm using,
the Epson 4870. It's in this review that the comment was made regarding 3000
dpi as being the max setting for b&w negative film; read a couple of pages
to get the gist of what he's talking about.

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204870/page_6.htm

Michael K





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

Eric is right. The date of reviews is really important. 

I routinely scan black & white 4x5 negatives at 5,000spi and 16-bit pixel depth into 1Gb files. These files are Photoshoped QUICKLY and EASILY, typically with 4-8 layers using a $3,100 computer that contains a single 3.0GHz quadcore processor, 8Gb RAM, and a solid state HardDrive that is reserved for Photoshop scratch. For backups, I use inexpensive 1Tb external HardDrives. 

By the way, if I were to buy another computer today, I would load it with 16Gb of RAM. 

Randall R. Bresee.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "E.Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:

>
> Michael, this section is I believe what caught your eye. 
> 
> "The answer is simple, you can squeeze more detail out from the film, of
> course there is a trade off. A 5x4 scan at 4800 dpi is going to produce a
> whopping and unmanageable file size of 1.27 gb, a 35mm slide at the same
> resolution produces a 88.26mb file. You will need a high specification
> computer with lots of RAM to work on 35mm scans and you can forget about
> doing anything else whilst working with the 5x4 scans. For everyday ink jet
> printing needs this resolution is way over the top, a resolution of 3200 or
> 2400 will be more than enough."
> 
> In addition to my Nikon 9000 and Epson V750, I have a Epson 3200 ( just
> sitting now - any buyers) and he refers to writing up that unit a year ago.
> Those are older scanner - the 3200 and 4870, good for what they are, but
> older. At the time of that write up, in 2004?, RAM and HD space was much
> more expensive than today. He also did qualify his statement with "way over
> the top" . There are for sure trade offs when working with your system.
> Today a 64 bit system is quite normal and back then not so much. Point being
> that looking at the date of reviews is almost equally important to what is
> being said as the context for the authors statement might be really
> important to how you interpret what he is saying.
> 
> Eric Neilsen Photography
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
> Dallas, TX 75226

> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 11:33 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Advice needed
> 
> 
> Re: scanner resolution. Here's a link to a review of the scanner I'm using,
> the Epson 4870. It's in this review that the comment was made regarding 3000
> dpi as being the max setting for b&w negative film; read a couple of pages
> to get the gist of what he's talking about.
> 
> http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204870/page_6.htm
> 
> Michael K

Thanks, Eric. What caught my attention was the last paragraph & sentence on this page:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204870/page_7.htm

Now with all the skill and equipment owned by folks who read this, maybe someone could do an independent test using their high-end equipment and post the results. In other words, can you scan 35mm film at higher than 3200 dpi and get a better file or does the grain somehow appear accentuated. There's nothing like an actual file to look at rather than all our varying theories. Anyone up for this?

Michael K

On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Michael <michael3442@...> wrote:

>
>
> Thanks, Eric. What caught my attention was the last paragraph & sentence on
> this page:
> http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204870/page_7.htm
>
> Now with all the skill and equipment owned by folks who read this, maybe
> someone could do an independent test using their high-end equipment and post
> the results. In other words, can you scan 35mm film at higher than 3200 dpi
> and get a better file or does the grain somehow appear accentuated. There's
> nothing like an actual file to look at rather than all our varying theories.
> Anyone up for this?
>
> Michael K
>
>  _
>

No, it's not worth the effort.  Each film/developer/technique combo and
scanner type and technique will vary the results.  For instance, with grainy
film wet-mounting the film on my Canon 9950F flatbed lead to a huge increase
in quality, whereas doing the same thing with my Screen Cezanne gives no
visual difference.  In addition, going above 2400 spi with my Canon lead to
no increase in quality, whereas with the Cezanne and super fine-grained
film, I see increased quality up to 6000 spi.   This variability means that
if you want the best quality, then you have to run your own tests with your
own equipment, materials and techniques. They aren't hard to do, and they're
much more valuable than any third party tests, especially since you can
compare prints at your final output size, which is by far the most important
thing.  In my case, while I can see increased quality moving from 4000 spi
(samples per inch) to 6000 (samples per inch) in some cases, these
differences do not show up at my max print size for that format.  Thus
scanning at the higher resolution is a waste of time and storage space in my
case.  "But you might want to print bigger!"  While some might, I won't.  I
would never print a 35mm negative bigger than full frame on an 11x14 sheet
of paper, and more often I use an 8x10 sheet with generous borders.  Having
a file big enough to make 20x24s just doesn't make sense for me.  It might
for you.


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

Michael, Peter got that right there. But you also hit it too.(see below)
There is nothing like the actual file and there is nothing like your
workflow. While we could do all that work, you may not have 1/2 or more of
the same. Some decision made in a workflow are making their influence down
stream.   

 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

skype me with ejprinter

www.ericneilsenphotography.com/forum1

Let's Talk Photography

 

There's
> nothing like an actual file to look at rather than all our varying
theories.
> 
>
> Michael K
>
> _
>

No, it's not worth the effort



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

On 05/06/2010 Michael wrote:
> can you scan 35mm film at higher than 3200 dpi and get a better file 
> or does the grain somehow appear accentuated. There's nothing like an 
> actual file to look at rather than all our varying theories. Anyone 
> up for this?


With CCD line or matrix scanners, lower optical PPI is likely to 
exaggerate, not reduce grain, through grain aliasing.

I believe I was the first person to describe this phenomenon, in response 
to a Polaroid technical inquiry c.1999 (they didn't understand why a 
customer was seeing increased apparent grain with some materials).

Grain aliasing was subsequently written up by Pete Andrews at 
http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm
-- 
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk

Tony Sleep <TonySleep@...> wrote:
>
> 
> With CCD line or matrix scanners, lower optical PPI is likely to 
> exaggerate, not reduce grain, through grain aliasing.
> 
> I believe I was the first person to describe this phenomenon, in response 
> to a Polaroid technical inquiry c.1999 (they didn't understand why a 
> customer was seeing increased apparent grain with some materials).
> 
> Grain aliasing was subsequently written up by Pete Andrews at 
> http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm
> -- 

That's interesting and may explain why my Tmax 100 scans  with the Nikon 8000 are sometimes disappointing in their apparent graininess. 

I wonder if that also explains the apparent exageration of  grain and  dots that we occasionally see with the 3MK 1800 workflow.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

On 6/7/2010 2:23 PM, Paul wrote:
>
> Tony Sleep <TonySleep@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > With CCD line or matrix scanners, lower optical PPI is likely to
> > exaggerate, not reduce grain, through grain aliasing.
> >
> > I believe I was the first person to describe this phenomenon, in 
> response
> > to a Polaroid technical inquiry c.1999 (they didn't understand why a
> > customer was seeing increased apparent grain with some materials).
> >
> > Grain aliasing was subsequently written up by Pete Andrews at
> > http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm
> > --
>
> That's interesting and may explain why my Tmax 100 scans with the 
> Nikon 8000 are sometimes disappointing in their apparent graininess.
>
It certainly could.  I routinely enable multi-pass scanning (4 passes) 
in NikonScan
with my LS9000, which helps considerably.

Dana



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

In reading some of the Piezography K7 documentation, I read that files should be in Gamma 2.2 profile and that I should change the Photoshop grayscale color space to Gamma 2.2.

That's all well and good.

However, I have numerous grayscsle files with an embedded Dot Gain 20% profile.

The Piezography docs says "as a rule, you should never convert a grayscale image from one profile or gamma to another in order to keep the smoothest tonal transitions possible".

This seems like a Catch 22. 

Don't a need to convert my files from Dot Gain 20% to Gamma 2.2 before printing?

And, if so, should I select "Perpetual" or "Relative Colormetic"?

If you are using the K7-2880-(papername) curves that are part of the download package of QuadTone RIP - those are made with the Piezography profiler. In 2005 when we changed from PiezographyBW ICC to Piezography K7, we changed the gamma of the "profile" or the "curve" from Gamma 1.8 of the ICC version to a Gamma of 2.2 for the QTR version.

So we do print with a Gamma of 2.2 and your display should be calibrated to Gamma 2.2 - even if you use the D50 standard - option in a 2.2 Gamma instead of 1.8.

For legacy files you either start over or simply convert them from whatever your working space was (in your case Dot Gain 20%) to Gamma 2.2 using Perceptual.

Because the old version 2000 - 2002 PiezographyBW did not follow and congruent gamma or contrast curve from printer model to printer model, there were some whacked out Printing Ink Setups that were saved as the working space. Those you would not probably want to convert. Those were only suitable as Preview working spaces.

For Windows you do not have a Previewing space in any regard for QTR because it operates stand alone. But if you image in Photoshop you will want to work in a Gamma of 2.2 as your working space - hence converting to it...

From Mac - one prints directly out of Photoshop.

regards,

Jon Cone
Piezography


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "ausdlk" <ausdlk@...> wrote:

>
> In reading some of the Piezography K7 documentation, I read that files should be in Gamma 2.2 profile and that I should change the Photoshop grayscale color space to Gamma 2.2.
> 
> That's all well and good.
> 
> However, I have numerous grayscsle files with an embedded Dot Gain 20% profile.
> 
> The Piezography docs says "as a rule, you should never convert a grayscale image from one profile or gamma to another in order to keep the smoothest tonal transitions possible".
> 
> This seems like a Catch 22. 
> 
> Don't a need to convert my files from Dot Gain 20% to Gamma 2.2 before printing?
> 
> And, if so, should I select "Perpetual" or "Relative Colormetic"?
>

Have been using a Canon i9900 printer a couple of years.  Lately been thinking of printing BW, and have been wondering if any have experience with this one.  If so, which Inks are recommended and refilling for cartridges, etc.  Thanks for any input.

 Ye Ol' Codger    Bob, & Nadine

   







________________________________

From: Michael <michael3442@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, June 5, 2010 8:42:48 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Advice needed

  
Thanks, Eric. What caught my attention was the last paragraph & sentence on this page:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204870/page_7.htm

Now with all the skill and equipment owned by folks who read this, maybe someone could do an independent test using their high-end equipment and post the results. In other words, can you scan 35mm film at higher than 3200 dpi and get a better file or does the grain somehow appear accentuated. There's nothing like an actual file to look at rather than all our varying theories. Anyone up for this?

Michael K


 

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

I've used a Canon i9900 with standard Canon inks with great success 
using both Ilford Classic gloss and Hahnemuhle PhotoRag Pearl.

Assuming you want a glossy, thin paper (ie: for mounting), the 
Canon/Ilford combination is only slightly cold toned with a nice 
separation and D-Max.

Philip

Thanks for the info...

 Ye Ol' Codger    Bob, & Nadine

Over 3000 Photos of our Travels.
http://rjohnston.zenfolio.com/




________________________________

From: Philip Procter <pprocter@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, June 21, 2010 4:06:46 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re:Canon i9900 Printer

  
I've used a Canon i9900 with standard Canon inks with great success 
using both Ilford Classic gloss and Hahnemuhle PhotoRag Pearl.

Assuming you want a glossy, thin paper (ie: for mounting), the 
Canon/Ilford combination is only slightly cold toned with a nice 
separation and D-Max.

Philip


 

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