Digital BW, The Print

In my Black & White InfraRed Images I develop to enhance the grain...

The last thing I want is prints that obscure the grain..

Quite the opposite of most of my work..

Keith

Truman,

Inkjet does a very good job at maintaining grain detail if the information
is in the scan. This is especially true for the 1280 and other Epson
printers that can print at 2880 dpi. With that setting I can bring out the
grain pattern of Tmax 400 developed in pyro PMK developer which tends to
obscure the grain. Pushed high speed 35mm film should not be a problem for
inkjet prints.

Martin Wesley
http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



----- Original Message -----
From: "Truman Prevatt" <tprevatt@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 2:50 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] What if grain is "necessary"


> Many years ago I saw an exhibit in Baltimore called "Florida Condo." The
> photographer was clearly putting across the message of the deplorable
> way we as a culture treat the eldest in our society (at least at that
> time). Key to conveying this message was the grain of the images.
> Technically he used 35mm,  with under exposure and over development with
> concentrated HC110 to maximize the grain and retained the grain by
> printing on a high gloss finish paper with a condenser enlarger head. .
>
> The exhibit was quite good. My question is how faitfully would inkjet
> printing display this grain - that was a key to the photographs?
>
> Thanks
> Truman
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

In a message dated 5/9/02 6:03:11 PM, tprevatt@... writes:

>Many years ago I saw an exhibit in Baltimore called "Florida Condo." The
>
>photographer was clearly putting across the message of the deplorable 
>way we as a culture treat the eldest in our society (at least at that 
>time). Key to conveying this message was the grain of the images. 
>Technically he used 35mm,  with under exposure and over development with
>
>concentrated HC110 to maximize the grain and retained the grain by 
>printing on a high gloss finish paper with a condenser enlarger head. .
>
>The exhibit was quite good. My question is how faitfully would inkjet 
>printing display this grain - that was a key to the photographs?

The inkjet is less of an issue than the scanner... people often feel they are 
"scanning down to the grain" when in fact they are seeing the first 
artifacting caused by grain interference, and a lot of that is noise, with a 
"grainy" texture. For an image of the type you are looking for, any form of 
grain, simulated grain (from a Photoshop filter) or noise from the grain (in 
a medium rez scan) might do the trick... or you might want to be picky and 
scan at very high rez to be sure you are capturing the film grain accurately. 

Then the only printing issue is the resolution you are printing this grain 
at; if its so fine the inkjet can't do it justice, its probably to fine to be 
meaningful to the image at reasonable viewing distances. Of course this would 
be an instance where you would want to use very high rez files to the 
printer. Not the typical 240 dpi, but 360 or more... even 720 dpi at final 
print size, since you are not printing smooth grays, but something more like 
a bit mapped black and white.

C. David Tobie
Design Cooperative
CDTobie@...

That's a good point. What the scanner sees may be more akin to the 
interference patterns of the light as it interacts with the grain 
structure of the film. Maybe even some defraction frings - but those 
would be almost impossibe to see. This is part of the reason I used a 
cold light head on my enlarger.

I've built darkrooms in three different houses over the past 25 years. 
We moved about two years ago and built a new house and I was getting the 
bug to build another darkroom in the basement. My wife put her foot down 
and demanded I check into digital instead of taking up space in the 
basement. Developing film doesn't take any space and I love my RB67. I 
want to thank eveyone for their input come upto speed on the issues in 
digital photography and what scanner and printer to aquire.  What I've 
learned has made my wife very happy:-).

Thanks again.

Truman

PS Anyone interested in buying an Omega 4x5 enlarger.

CDTobie@... wrote:

>
> The inkjet is less of an issue than the scanner... people often feel 
> they are
> "scanning down to the grain" when in fact they are seeing the first
> artifacting caused by grain interference, and a lot of that is noise, 
> with a
> "grainy" texture. For an image of the type you are looking for, any 
> form of
> grain, simulated grain (from a Photoshop filter) or noise from the 
> grain (in
> a medium rez scan) might do the trick... or you might want to be picky 
> and
> scan at very high rez to be sure you are capturing the film grain 
> accurately.
>
> Then the only printing issue is the resolution you are printing this 
> grain
> at; if its so fine the inkjet can't do it justice, its probably to 
> fine to be
> meaningful to the image at reasonable viewing distances. Of course 
> this would
> be an instance where you would want to use very high rez files to the
> printer. Not the typical 240 dpi, but 360 or more... even 720 dpi at 
> final
> print size, since you are not printing smooth grays, but something 
> more like
> a bit mapped black and white.
>
> C. David Tobie
> Design Cooperative
> CDTobie@...

----- Original Message -----

From: <CDTobie@...>
To: <tprevatt@...>;
<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 7:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] What if grain is "necessary"


>

(snip)

> Then the only printing issue is the resolution you are printing this grain
> at; if its so fine the inkjet can't do it justice, its probably to fine to
be
> meaningful to the image at reasonable viewing distances. Of course this
would
> be an instance where you would want to use very high rez files to the
> printer. Not the typical 240 dpi, but 360 or more... even 720 dpi at final
> print size, since you are not printing smooth grays, but something more
like
> a bit mapped black and white.

Actually for very grainy photos a mono-ink or black only print at high
printer resolution can work extremely well.

Martin

Truman Prevatt  wrote:
> PS Anyone interested in buying an Omega 4x5 enlarger.

No...I just sold mine on ebay for $455. This will help pay for the 
Howtek 4000 drum scanner I purchased on ebay. Make room for 
a drumscanner and don't tell your wife I told you any of this.

Best,

John V.

Please report how you like the Howtek after you play with it awhile.
Since it's 4000 ppi, I'd like to know just how much better it is than a
Polaroid SS120, Minolta Pro, or Imacon Photo.
 
Lloyd

-----Original Message-----
From: johnvphoto [mailto:johnnyv@...] 
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 10:58 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] What if grain is "necessary"


Truman Prevatt  wrote:
> PS Anyone interested in buying an Omega 4x5 enlarger.

No...I just sold mine on ebay for $455. This will help pay for the 
Howtek 4000 drum scanner I purchased on ebay. Make room for 
a drumscanner and don't tell your wife I told you any of this.

Best,

John V.




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor	

 
ADVERTISEMENT


 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.2053425.3521449.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705
019182:HM/A=1046314/R=1/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=3225> 	
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.2053425.3521449.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705
019182:HM/A=1046314/R=2/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=3225>

Height:	   4 5 6 7 ft  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 in	
Weight:	  	
Sex:	   F  M	
	
 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=194081.2053425.3521449.1829184/D=egrou
pmail/S=1705019182:HM/A=1046314/rand=375034880> 	

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service. 




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

Just read a review of the Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO in Pop. Photo. 
(June issue) and they said a 6x7 scan at 48-bit color (and I assume the 
full 4800 dpi resolution) took 2 hours, 14 minutes. I almost have to think 
this is a mistake. Definitely something to think about.

Jeff Greer

At 03:52 PM 05/10/2002 -0500, you wrote:

>Please report how you like the Howtek after you play with it awhile.
>Since it's 4000 ppi, I'd like to know just how much better it is than a
>Polaroid SS120, Minolta Pro, or Imacon Photo.
>
>Lloyd
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: johnvphoto [mailto:johnnyv@...]
>Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 10:58 AM
>To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Digital BW] What if grain is "necessary"
>
>
>Truman Prevatt  wrote:
> > PS Anyone interested in buying an Omega 4x5 enlarger.
>
>No...I just sold mine on ebay for $455. This will help pay for the
>Howtek 4000 drum scanner I purchased on ebay. Make room for
>a drumscanner and don't tell your wife I told you any of this.
>
>Best,
>
>John V.
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.2053425.3521449.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705
>019182:HM/A=1046314/R=1/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=3225>
>
><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.2053425.3521449.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705
>019182:HM/A=1046314/R=2/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=3225>
>
>Height:    4 5 6 7 ft  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 in
>Weight:
>Sex:       F  M
>
>
><http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=194081.2053425.3521449.1829184/D=egrou
>pmail/S=1705019182:HM/A=1046314/rand=375034880>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
>other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- Include your full name with your message.
>- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
>keep them short.
>- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
>header.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
>"flames."
>- Complete your Yahoo profile.
>- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
>resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service.
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and 
>other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- Include your full name with your message.
>- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
>them short.
>- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
>"flames."
>- Complete your Yahoo profile.
>- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various 
>resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

J Greer <jgpinfo@...> writes:

> Just read a review of the Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO in Pop. Photo. 
> (June issue) and they said a 6x7 scan at 48-bit color (and I assume the 
> full 4800 dpi resolution) took 2 hours, 14 minutes. I almost have to think 
> this is a mistake. Definitely something to think about.

A reviewer of my acquaintance (but his review wasn't for
Pop. Photo. I'm sure, so it's a separate data point) reported times in
that range.  And higher, at least when connected to slow computers. 
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  New TMDA anti-spam in test
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
        Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
                 Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/

That may have been with the ICE, GEM, whatever options turned on. 
That will really slow down a scan. In a simple test, I was able to 
spot a slide in far less time than it took for the scanner to scan 
with ICE on. Very likely system dependent as well... did they give 
the specs of the computer used?

Tim

> Just read a review of the Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO in Pop. Photo. 
> (June issue) and they said a 6x7 scan at 48-bit color (and I assume the 
> full 4800 dpi resolution) took 2 hours, 14 minutes. I almost have to think 
> this is a mistake. Definitely something to think about.
> 
> Jeff Greer

-- 
Tim Spragens

http://www.borderless-photos.de
http://www.borderless-photos.com

I vaguely remember someone posting that there is a 
considerable difference in scanning speed from inside 
Photoshop using the plug-in and using the Minolta application 
from outside.

Was the review based on scanning from inside Photoshop? 
Does anyone have any real world experience with this scanner in 
the list?

Butch Hulett

Minolta quotes the following specs for the Scan Multi Pro:
"35mm film: Max. 4800 x 4800 dpi
Medium format film (120/220): Max. 3200 x 4800* dpi
* Max. 4800 x 4800 dpi by interpolation"

Also curious about Pop Photo's 02:14:00 (16bit color) scan time. To me,
their testing is usually pretty specific, but they still seem to be learning
on the digital end. For instance, is this using interpolated 4800 res, or
max optical? Firewire or Ultra SCSI? Standalone mode or PS Plugin? They seem
to imply that this doesn't reflect enabling multisampling mode, but don't
specify if they disabled Digital ICE, which at least on my Nikon is enabled
by default and can almost double overall start-scan-to-file-save times (and
can't be used on B&W film anyway). I mean, Minolta quotes 230-250 *SECONDS*
for 6x9 (ICE3 off). Even allowing for the what might charitably be referred
to as "optimistic" numbers scanner/printer manufacturers like to brag about,
we're talking a 3300% increase here! Geez, hopefully high-bit grayscale will
at least only take 1/3 the time...whatever that time actually is.

In any case, glad to see that someone is at least taking another step
towards freeing us from drum scanner-related bankruptcy.

Doug

> Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 17:38:36 -0500
> From: J Greer <jgpinfo@...>
> Subject: Renamed: MF Film Scanners
> 
> Just read a review of the Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO in Pop. Photo.
> (June issue) and they said a 6x7 scan at 48-bit color (and I assume the
> full 4800 dpi resolution) took 2 hours, 14 minutes. I almost have to think
> this is a mistake. Definitely something to think about.
> 
> Jeff Greer
> 
> At 03:52 PM 05/10/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>> Please report how you like the Howtek after you play with it awhile.
>> Since it's 4000 ppi, I'd like to know just how much better it is than a
>> Polaroid SS120, Minolta Pro, or Imacon Photo.
>> 
>> Lloyd

/smile/

I tested the Nikon 8000 and the Multipro for a week.
For me it was an easy task to decide - the multi pro!

However there are no perfect scanners - Drumscans are better
in the whole - but now I seldom send for those!

/smile/

"The Hassle-Blade" fan!
Bo Wrangborg
Made in Sweden




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tim Spragens" 
<t.spragens@c...> wrote:

> I've had mine for a couple of months, scanned slide film as well as 
> B&W negative with it. I have only seen extremely slow times when I 
> had ICE turned on.
> 
> Tim
> 
> > Was the review based on scanning from inside Photoshop? 
> > Does anyone have any real world experience with this scanner in 
> > the list?
> 
> -- 
> Tim Spragens
> 
> http://www.borderless-photos.de
> http://www.borderless-photos.com

Hi digital Eyes!

Want to add the following!

Thankyou for taking this up with grain - I felt alone in this 
landscape of "DOTLESS" - read your books(sometime grain enhace the 
feeling of "sharpness!!!) and - admire photoes where
grain is an important ingrediense in expression if needed or wanted!

Grain is , not allways, but sometimes more important than "dotless"
For me often grain VERY important - to express, and impact the "pic."

I want it all - my tools - grain to "dotless".

OK - don't get upset - I usede the "dotless" in somwhat "nasty" way - 
but it felt right just now - when I have read so much of the "lupes" 
looking for "dotless" - and I hope "dotless" is not upsetting some 
special brand or equipment. (You know what I'm saying?)

There has been oa sport going on "this or that" system - for "dotless!
I don't care! Do You?

Take it as a TRUE satir if you feel so!

Flames????

Aren't we some sort of photografers?

"Hassle-blad and Minolta Pro scammer! /smile/
Bo Wrangborg
Made in Sweden 
55++ grand years old!





talBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "sm7bxd" <sm7bxd@y...> wrote:
> /smile/
> 
> I tested the Nikon 8000 and the Multipro for a week.
> For me it was an easy task to decide - the multi pro!
> 
> However there are no perfect scanners - Drumscans are better
> in the whole - but now I seldom send for those!
> 
> /smile/
> 
> "The Hassle-Blade" fan!
> Bo Wrangborg
> Made in Sweden
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tim Spragens" 
> <t.spragens@c...> wrote:
> > I've had mine for a couple of months, scanned slide film as well 
as 
> > B&W negative with it. I have only seen extremely slow times when 
I 

> > had ICE turned on.
> > 
> > Tim
> > 
> > > Was the review based on scanning from inside Photoshop? 
> > > Does anyone have any real world experience with this scanner in 
> > > the list?
> > 
> > -- 
> > Tim Spragens
> > 
> > http://www.borderless-photos.de
> > http://www.borderless-photos.com

I've had mine for a couple of months, scanned slide film as well as 
B&W negative with it. I have only seen extremely slow times when I 
had ICE turned on.

Tim

> Was the review based on scanning from inside Photoshop? 
> Does anyone have any real world experience with this scanner in 
> the list?

-- 
Tim Spragens

http://www.borderless-photos.de
http://www.borderless-photos.com

The only thing they say is the computer had 512 MB of RAM. Not very helpful.

My Win 2000 PC has 384 MB RAM and I don't get times anywhere near 2 hours 
on my Polaroid SprintScan 120. Now, I haven't tried a 48 bit color neg scan 
at 4000 dpi (only 24 bit at 2400, and 6 x 4.5, to boot), but I can't see 
the scans being in the 2 hour range. But the SS 120 doesn't have ICE-like 
technology, either.

They do say that using ICE, ROC, and GEM will increase time 
"significantly." Wish they were more thorough in their test (like, how 
about scan times with this stuff off, if indeed it is what produced the 2+ 
hour scan). The review is only one page.

Jeff Greer

At 10:27 AM 05/11/2002 +0100, you wrote:

>That may have been with the ICE, GEM, whatever options turned on.
>That will really slow down a scan. In a simple test, I was able to
>spot a slide in far less time than it took for the scanner to scan
>with ICE on. Very likely system dependent as well... did they give
>the specs of the computer used?
>
>Tim
>
> > Just read a review of the Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO in Pop. Photo.
> > (June issue) and they said a 6x7 scan at 48-bit color (and I assume the
> > full 4800 dpi resolution) took 2 hours, 14 minutes. I almost have to think
> > this is a mistake. Definitely something to think about.
> >
> > Jeff Greer
>
>--
>Tim Spragens
>
>http://www.borderless-photos.de
>http://www.borderless-photos.com
>
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and 
>other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- Include your full name with your message.
>- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
>them short.
>- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
>"flames."
>- Complete your Yahoo profile.
>- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various 
>resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> > Just read a review of the Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO
>>in Pop. Photo.
> > (June issue) and they said a 6x7 scan at 48-bit color
>>(and I assume the
> > full 4800 dpi resolution) took 2 hours, 14 minutes.

>The only thing they say is the computer had 512 MB of RAM.

>My Win 2000 PC has 384 MB RAM and I don't get times
>anywhere near 2 hours on my Polaroid SprintScan 120....

>They do say that using ICE, ROC, and GEM will increase time
>"significantly."

Note that the Minolta with medium format film has an optical resolution of
3200 x 4800 dpi.  (The Nikon 8000 does 4K x 4K dpi with MF film.)

I have the Nikon 8000, and I agree that GEM slows it down very considerably,
but not to 2 hours.  I have 512 MB RAM on a Win 98, and I notice the hard
disk is being accessed continuously with these big, slow GEM scans.  I have
not been able to tell how much RAM would handle a MF scan with the special
programs running, but I'd guess 1 GB would not be overkill.  (Of course my
W98 machine is limited to 512, so I just take a break while it's doing its
scanning.)

I have found that, contrary to some reviewers' comments, GEM does work fine
with normal B&W, silver-based film.  I don't bother with ICE.

I also found the glass carrier to be necessary.

When I scan a B&W negative, I call it a monochrome positive, which gives
ample latitude to use the histogram in the preview for setting white and
black points.  (The monochrome negative setting will clip one of the ends.)

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

Which MF glass carrier do you have for the 
8000\ufffdthe one for strip film or the one for single 
frame? Does it allow a greater scan area--can you 
get the frame edges on both sides--than the 
glassless strip carrier?
Thanks
Peter Lindman

> > > Just read a review of the Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO
> >>in Pop. Photo.
> > > (June issue) and they said a 6x7 scan at 48-bit color
> >>(and I assume the
> > > full 4800 dpi resolution) took 2 hours, 14 minutes.
> 
> >The only thing they say is the computer had 512 MB of RAM.
> 
> >My Win 2000 PC has 384 MB RAM and I don't get times
> >anywhere near 2 hours on my Polaroid SprintScan 120....
> 
> >They do say that using ICE, ROC, and GEM will increase time
> >"significantly."
> 
> Note that the Minolta with medium format film has an optical resolution of
> 3200 x 4800 dpi.  (The Nikon 8000 does 4K x 4K dpi with MF film.)
> 
> I have the Nikon 8000, and I agree that GEM slows it down very considerably,
> but not to 2 hours.  I have 512 MB RAM on a Win 98, and I notice the hard
> disk is being accessed continuously with these big, slow GEM scans.  I have
> not been able to tell how much RAM would handle a MF scan with the special
> programs running, but I'd guess 1 GB would not be overkill.  (Of course my
> W98 machine is limited to 512, so I just take a break while it's doing its
> scanning.)
> 
> I have found that, contrary to some reviewers' comments, GEM does work fine
> with normal B&W, silver-based film.  I don't bother with ICE.
> 
> I also found the glass carrier to be necessary.
> 
> When I scan a B&W negative, I call it a monochrome positive, which gives
> ample latitude to use the histogram in the preview for setting white and
> black points.  (The monochrome negative setting will clip one of the ends.)
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other 
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them 
> short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various 
> resources on the homepage. 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
>

I have glass carrier FH-869G.  It is one big window that allows me to put
the negatives where ever I want.  So, I've marked the 6x6 dividing
line/frame spacing for the first 2 frames, and I put my 645 2-frame strip so
that the frame space coincides with the mark.  I then tell the scanner I
have 6x6 in it.

It does allow full frame views.

With silver film, no masks are needed.  For color film, to avoid rings on
the bottom (non-anti-newton-ring glass) there are loose masks that hold the
film off the glass.  (The top glass is anti-newton-ring.)

Paul
_____________________

-----Original Message-----
From: plindman@... [mailto:plindman@...]
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 7:47 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Renamed: MF Film Scanners


Paul,

Which MF glass carrier do you have for the
8000\ufffdthe one for strip film or the one for single
frame? Does it allow a greater scan area--can you
get the frame edges on both sides--than the
glassless strip carrier?
Thanks
Peter Lindman
> > > Just read a review of the Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO
> >>in Pop. Photo.
> > > (June issue) and they said a 6x7 scan at 48-bit color
> >>(and I assume the
> > > full 4800 dpi resolution) took 2 hours, 14 minutes.
>
> >The only thing they say is the computer had 512 MB of RAM.
>
> >My Win 2000 PC has 384 MB RAM and I don't get times
> >anywhere near 2 hours on my Polaroid SprintScan 120....
>
> >They do say that using ICE, ROC, and GEM will increase time
> >"significantly."
>
> Note that the Minolta with medium format film has an optical resolution of
> 3200 x 4800 dpi.  (The Nikon 8000 does 4K x 4K dpi with MF film.)
>
> I have the Nikon 8000, and I agree that GEM slows it down very
considerably,
> but not to 2 hours.  I have 512 MB RAM on a Win 98, and I notice the hard
> disk is being accessed continuously with these big, slow GEM scans.  I
have
> not been able to tell how much RAM would handle a MF scan with the special
> programs running, but I'd guess 1 GB would not be overkill.  (Of course my
> W98 machine is limited to 512, so I just take a break while it's doing its
> scanning.)
>
> I have found that, contrary to some reviewers' comments, GEM does work
fine
> with normal B&W, silver-based film.  I don't bother with ICE.
>
> I also found the glass carrier to be necessary.
>
> When I scan a B&W negative, I call it a monochrome positive, which gives
> ample latitude to use the histogram in the preview for setting white and
> black points.  (The monochrome negative setting will clip one of the
ends.)
>
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them
> short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Two hours scanning time? My Polaroid Sprintscan 120 will scan a 6x7 
neg at 4000 dpi in less than a couple of min. Plus, most of that time 
is spent in prescan. I use a Win 2000 pc with 768 MB of Ram. Of 
course, I'm also using SilverFast AI software. But what good is ICE 
with B&W?

Bruce McElhaney
McElhaney Portrait Studio
Livonia, MI




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., J Greer <jgpinfo@u...> 
wrote:
> The only thing they say is the computer had 512 MB of RAM. Not very 
helpful.
> 
> My Win 2000 PC has 384 MB RAM and I don't get times anywhere near 2 
hours 
> on my Polaroid SprintScan 120. Now, I haven't tried a 48 bit color 
neg scan 
> at 4000 dpi (only 24 bit at 2400, and 6 x 4.5, to boot), but I 
can't see 
> the scans being in the 2 hour range. But the SS 120 doesn't have 
ICE-like 
> technology, either.
> 
> They do say that using ICE, ROC, and GEM will increase time 
> "significantly." Wish they were more thorough in their test (like, 
how 
> about scan times with this stuff off, if indeed it is what produced 
the 2+ 
> hour scan). The review is only one page.
> 
> Jeff Greer
> 
> At 10:27 AM 05/11/2002 +0100, you wrote:
> >That may have been with the ICE, GEM, whatever options turned on.
> >That will really slow down a scan. In a simple test, I was able to
> >spot a slide in far less time than it took for the scanner to scan
> >with ICE on. Very likely system dependent as well... did they give
> >the specs of the computer used?
> >
> >Tim
> >
> > > Just read a review of the Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO in Pop. 
Photo.
> > > (June issue) and they said a 6x7 scan at 48-bit color (and I 
assume the
> > > full 4800 dpi resolution) took 2 hours, 14 minutes. I almost 
have to think
> > > this is a mistake. Definitely something to think about.
> > >
> > > Jeff Greer
> >
> >--
> >Tim Spragens
> >
> >http://www.borderless-photos.de
> >http://www.borderless-photos.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
Polls and 
> >other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> >Please follow these basic guidelines:
> >- Include your full name with your message.
> >- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> >- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages 
to keep 
> >them short.
> >- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
header.
> >- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> >"flames."
> >- Complete your Yahoo profile.
> >- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
various 
> >resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

<kmcelhaney@t...> wrote:
> Two hours scanning time? My Polaroid Sprintscan 120 will 
scan a 6x7 
> neg at 4000 dpi in less than a couple of min. Of 
> course, I'm also using SilverFast AI software. But what good is 
ICE 
> with B&W?

I've noticed with my Polaroid 4000 that a full rez scan in Silverfast 
takes about two minutes. With Polaroid's Insight it takes over 
four minutes.

I was very intimidated at first with SilverFast and used Insight for 
a long time. But now SilverFast is a breeze to use - once you 
know how to use it.

Best,

John V.

Thanks Paul. I've been sitting on the fence about the 
glass carrier. There aren't any stores locally that 
stock either one so it was  good to get your feedback.
Peter

> I have glass carrier FH-869G.  It is one big window that allows me to put
> the negatives where ever I want.  So, I've marked the 6x6 dividing
> line/frame spacing for the first 2 frames, and I put my 645 2-frame strip so
> that the frame space coincides with the mark.  I then tell the scanner I
> have 6x6 in it.
> 
> It does allow full frame views.
> 
> With silver film, no masks are needed.  For color film, to avoid rings on
> the bottom (non-anti-newton-ring glass) there are loose masks that hold the
> film off the glass.  (The top glass is anti-newton-ring.)
> 
> Paul
> _____________________
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: plindman@... [mailto:plindman@...]
> Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 7:47 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Renamed: MF Film Scanners
> 
> 
> Paul,
> 
> Which MF glass carrier do you have for the
> 8000\ufffdthe one for strip film or the one for single
> frame? Does it allow a greater scan area--can you
> get the frame edges on both sides--than the
> glassless strip carrier?
> Thanks
> Peter Lindman
> > > > Just read a review of the Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO
> > >>in Pop. Photo.
> > > > (June issue) and they said a 6x7 scan at 48-bit color
> > >>(and I assume the
> > > > full 4800 dpi resolution) took 2 hours, 14 minutes.
> >
> > >The only thing they say is the computer had 512 MB of RAM.
> >
> > >My Win 2000 PC has 384 MB RAM and I don't get times
> > >anywhere near 2 hours on my Polaroid SprintScan 120....
> >
> > >They do say that using ICE, ROC, and GEM will increase time
> > >"significantly."
> >
> > Note that the Minolta with medium format film has an optical resolution of
> > 3200 x 4800 dpi.  (The Nikon 8000 does 4K x 4K dpi with MF film.)
> >
> > I have the Nikon 8000, and I agree that GEM slows it down very
> considerably,
> > but not to 2 hours.  I have 512 MB RAM on a Win 98, and I notice the hard
> > disk is being accessed continuously with these big, slow GEM scans.  I
> have
> > not been able to tell how much RAM would handle a MF scan with the special
> > programs running, but I'd guess 1 GB would not be overkill.  (Of course my
> > W98 machine is limited to 512, so I just take a break while it's doing its
> > scanning.)
> >
> > I have found that, contrary to some reviewers' comments, GEM does work
> fine
> > with normal B&W, silver-based film.  I don't bother with ICE.
> >
> > I also found the glass carrier to be necessary.
> >
> > When I scan a B&W negative, I call it a monochrome positive, which gives
> > ample latitude to use the histogram in the preview for setting white and
> > black points.  (The monochrome negative setting will clip one of the
> ends.)
> >
> > Paul
> > http://www.PaulRoark.com
> >

>

I haven't tested ICE - times here - it's a pain anyhow!
48 bits color!

Here 6x6 "Hassle-blade" neg out of it's borders!

The longest time for my multi pro is when multisampling my 6x6 16 
times and have continous autofucus 54 minutes coffybreak! 4800 dpi.
That is near 4000 real dpi as they have somthing called linjar 
interplating - and the carrige go on step forword and half a step 
bakwards. 

Doing a "4000" dpi scan at 4800 in soft NO multisampling about 6 
minutes - 3200 dpi almost 5 minutes (4 minutes 40 seconds)

A one pass 4800 TRUE dpi 24x36 a little over 3 minutes.

But who cares!
Look around on the net! 

I sold ne of my a cars to get that one! An instrument instead of a 
scanner - I was so amazed when the Region Head Hospital tested Nikon 
and Minolta - and guess - it was choosed by the hospital 
photografers - it was the minolta that was bought in "party and 
minute". I know the testers - and took part of there tests.

I decided to sell a one of my cars. And the result - i love it!
This is my last scanner - then it's all digital in some three Years!

I do this for hobby (Ok I'm 55++ years old and have been in 
photobusiness also) but the camera tought me to see! An never ending 
styry (ok - I might see for another ten Years to come! 

PC-gear:
750 Meg ASUS A7V333 - 333 mhz rammudules - raid - and here I prefere 
the Firewire - because it's a hot connection - You don't have to 
restart the computer as with SCSI - and you can calmly put it on in 
XP You hear a "clink" and you go to the soft start scanning.
Hot equippment soakes air and dust. So when You have scanned You 
cover the scanner and switch it of - and so on!

I would like to see life comparement NIKON - Multi Pro in a magasin 
made by real pros- but I dont care - I only have three 1290 printers -
but 6x6 allows me to make "cut outs" and still have very very sharp 
scans - and for 24x36 - 4800 dpi scanns are not shit!

There are lots of places on the net - but I have seen no comparing.

Let's say "it's good enought for me!

2 hours scantime for 6x7 must be with ICE and 16 times multisamling, 
continous autofocusing GEM and ROC - 48 bit etc etc.

Then I'm amazed - not longer!

Talked to Minolta Scandinavia - (Norway and Sweden) that not one 
Multi pro has been redelivered because of despair. 

Of cause the NIKON MF must be good as well - it costs more!
And it's a NIKON!!!!

/smile/

Remember there 4000 model - that has nonsharp corners - why by 
expensive Nikon - floating - xxx-lens glases - when the scanner gives 
weak corners.

However there are no ideal scanner - only drumscanners - but that's 
another league I think!

For hobby I really recomend the Multi PRO in favor of the more 
expensive Nikon MF scanner. /smile/

As I said - some missinformation must be going on out there!
Or is my scanner a turbo one - I don't think so!

By the way - my D-max is better than my friends Nikon MF scanner -
he borrows it now and then - as I don't use it so often.

I have other jobs to do as well!

For me it's either "Switch on" or "Switch off" - just now it's on - 
day and night!

As old I am I really like my wet darkroom as well - have a feeling 
that this quading is soon industry and can be bought and implemented 
on every inkjet or Xerox in some time.

By the way - "What is Fine ART" - we don't use that in Sweden - is it
"l'art pour l'art"? (French - like "Art for art itself"?)

I have fun doing quad - PIEZO - Pauls VM - but it is not silver - 
it's 
carbon (but corbon is in the same family as diamonds) - Who cares as 
long as it is this good!

Sorry for my Swinglish - Swedish-English that is!

Regards

"The old Hassle-Blade man"
Bo Wrangborg
Made in Sweden




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., plindman@a... wrote:
> Thanks Paul. I've been sitting on the fence about the 
> glass carrier. There aren't any stores locally that 
> stock either one so it was  good to get your feedback.
> Peter
> > I have glass carrier FH-869G.  It is one big window that allows 
me to put
> > the negatives where ever I want.  So, I've marked the 6x6 dividing
> > line/frame spacing for the first 2 frames, and I put my 645 2-
frame strip so
> > that the frame space coincides with the mark.  I then tell the 
scanner I
> > have 6x6 in it.
> > 
> > It does allow full frame views.
> > 
> > With silver film, no masks are needed.  For color film, to avoid 
rings on
> > the bottom (non-anti-newton-ring glass) there are loose masks 
that hold the
> > film off the glass.  (The top glass is anti-newton-ring.)
> > 
> > Paul
> > _____________________
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: plindman@a... [mailto:plindman@a...]
> > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 7:47 AM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Renamed: MF Film Scanners
> > 
> > 
> > Paul,
> > 
> > Which MF glass carrier do you have for the
> > 8000
the one for strip film or the one for single
> > frame? Does it allow a greater scan area--can you
> > get the frame edges on both sides--than the
> > glassless strip carrier?
> > Thanks
> > Peter Lindman
> > > > > Just read a review of the Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO
> > > >>in Pop. Photo.
> > > > > (June issue) and they said a 6x7 scan at 48-bit color
> > > >>(and I assume the
> > > > > full 4800 dpi resolution) took 2 hours, 14 minutes.
> > >
> > > >The only thing they say is the computer had 512 MB of RAM.
> > >
> > > >My Win 2000 PC has 384 MB RAM and I don't get times
> > > >anywhere near 2 hours on my Polaroid SprintScan 120....
> > >
> > > >They do say that using ICE, ROC, and GEM will increase time
> > > >"significantly."
> > >
> > > Note that the Minolta with medium format film has an optical 
resolution of
> > > 3200 x 4800 dpi.  (The Nikon 8000 does 4K x 4K dpi with MF 
film.)
> > >
> > > I have the Nikon 8000, and I agree that GEM slows it down very
> > considerably,
> > > but not to 2 hours.  I have 512 MB RAM on a Win 98, and I 
notice the hard
> > > disk is being accessed continuously with these big, slow GEM 
scans.  I
> > have
> > > not been able to tell how much RAM would handle a MF scan with 
the special
> > > programs running, but I'd guess 1 GB would not be overkill.  
(Of course my
> > > W98 machine is limited to 512, so I just take a break while 
it's doing its
> > > scanning.)
> > >
> > > I have found that, contrary to some reviewers' comments, GEM 
does work
> > fine
> > > with normal B&W, silver-based film.  I don't bother with ICE.
> > >
> > > I also found the glass carrier to be necessary.
> > >
> > > When I scan a B&W negative, I call it a monochrome positive, 
which gives
> > > ample latitude to use the histogram in the preview for setting 
white and
> > > black points.  (The monochrome negative setting will clip one 
of the

> > ends.)
> > >
> > > Paul
> > > http://www.PaulRoark.com
> > >
> 
> >