Digital BW, The Print

There is at least 10 times more detail in a neg than in a print.  So if
you want a lot of detail, you need to scan the negative. However, you
can get excellent prints from scanned prints, IF you have an excellent
print to start with. Much better than you would think. You need to
develop scanning and photoshop skills to do really nice work in digital
photography. Read all you can on the subjects.

Jerry

> printing  quite a bit and I don't like the thought of doing it in PS.
> Have any of
> you scanned a silver print and then printed it out? Are the results
> as good as
> scanning a neg? And if so, would there be any recommendations about
> how
> to do a scan for that?
> 
> Thanks for your help!
> 
> jeff hargrove
> photography
> http://home.wanadoo.nl/jeffhargrove
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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:
> - 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/

Jerry,

Thanks for the reply. I will be conducting an experiment comparing a 
print from a scanned print and a print from the neg of the same photo. 
I am curious about all this!

Jeff

On vendredi, oct 18, 2002, at 03:43 Asia/Taipei, Jerry Olson wrote:

> There is at least 10 times more detail in a neg than in a print.  So if
> you want a lot of detail, you need to scan the negative. However, you
> can get excellent prints from scanned prints, IF you have an excellent
> print to start with. Much better than you would think. You need to
> develop scanning and photoshop skills to do really nice work in digital
> photography. Read all you can on the subjects.
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
> > printing  quite a bit and I don't like the thought of doing it in PS.
> > Have any of
> > you scanned a silver print and then printed it out? Are the results
> > as good as
> > scanning a neg? And if so, would there be any recommendations about
> > how
> > to do a scan for that?
> >
> > Thanks for your help!
> >
> > jeff hargrove
> > photography
> > http://home.wanadoo.nl/jeffhargrove
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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:
> > - 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/
>
<image.tiff>
>
>
> 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
>
> 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:
> - 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 
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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 Service.

jeff hargrove
photography
http://home.wanadoo.nl/jeffhargrove


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

Greetings,

I have checked the Archives, but cannot find an answer.

I have a Spectrocam Photospectrometer that I use in conjunction with
ProFiler Pro software for generating colorsync profiles when printing from
my 7000.  I have just discovered how to measure densities using the
Spectrocam...WOW!

While I can read the densities of my gray scale step wedge printouts, these
numbers are sensless without a reference.  Any suggestions on how I can come
up with a set of "base-line" numbers or values for each of the steps on a 21
step grayscale?

Appreciate any advice you folks might have...Craig
------------------------------------------
http:www.craigsterling.com "Photography With a Sense of Place"

I just saw this thread, and I have only been printing b&w  for the last year from scanned b&w prints.  They look great, certainly no lack of detail. They are scanned fron good prints to begin with, tho.  I would challenge anyone to pick one of these prints as scanned from a print rather than one printed from a scanned neg.  I can't imagine any more detail.
Just my 2 cents.
David Aschkenas

I know they can be excellent, but can anyone tell me why you wouldn't
get far 
better detail if you scanned a negative with about 10 times the detail
of the print?

Jerry

I have scanned excellent 8x10 prints and made digital prints same size
from the scan,
and if anything the digital print was even better than the original for
detail, sharpness, and tone. This SHOULD NOT be the case, but it is.


daschkenas@... wrote:

> 
> I just saw this thread, and I have only been printing b&w  for the last year from scanned b&w prints.  They look great, certainly no lack of detail. They are scanned fron good prints to begin with, tho.  I would challenge anyone to pick one of these prints as scanned from a print rather than one printed from a scanned neg.  I can't imagine any more detail.
> Just my 2 cents.
> David Aschkenas
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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:
> - 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 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jeff Hargrove 
<jhargrov@c...> wrote:
I will be conducting an experiment comparing a 
> print from a scanned print and a print from the neg of the same 
photo.


Jeff,

The real question here is WHY would you want to go to that 
trouble? Are you gonna do that with every single keeper image 
that you make -- develop the neg, go to the darkroom with it, 
make a print, spot the print, then scan that print, then reprint it on 
inkjet paper?

If you can't get a better print from a neg, then you need to take all 
that enthusiasm and get a better film scanner. It's just silly to do 
it that way. Sometimes, you just gotta look at yourself in the 
mirror and say, "I don't care if (for whatever lame reason) that my 
inkjet prints are better from silver prints scanned from flatbed, 
there's just somewhere that I draw the line, and this is it". Just 
the theory alone should bug you to no end.

Why not then take that inkjet print that you make and then 
rephotograph it again with a film camera, and then reprint it 
(again) in the darkroom? Given your mindset here, that 
third-generation would be even better! And why stop there; go 
ahead and scan *that* print and keep going.

I could see the case for a twisted case of Performance Art here; 
that's the only merit I can see in this line of thought. Like a rat 
looking for more cheese, a man just keeps repeating the 
process, in hopes of it getting better.

I'm kidding you, but not really. Get a good scanner. Scan the neg. 
Make an inkjet print. Or, just make a silver print in the darkroom. 
Oil and water don't mix. Well, they do in theory, but you can get a 
visual clue as to what the result looks like.

Stop the madness.

MT, http://marktucker.com/

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

From: "Craig J. Sterling" <craig@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] My Spectrocam as a Densitometer


> Greetings,
>
> I have checked the Archives, but cannot find an answer.
>
> I have a Spectrocam Photospectrometer that I use in conjunction with
> ProFiler Pro software for generating colorsync profiles when printing from
> my 7000.  I have just discovered how to measure densities using the
> Spectrocam...WOW!
>
> While I can read the densities of my gray scale step wedge printouts,
these
> numbers are sensless without a reference.  Any suggestions on how I can
come
> up with a set of "base-line" numbers or values for each of the steps on a
21
> step grayscale?
>
> Appreciate any advice you folks might have...Craig

Craig,

I am not sure what you are looking for as a base-line number. The Spectrocam
is giving you Visual or Neutral density and this is an actual measurement in
log form of how much light is reflected from what you are measuring. Density
= log10(1/Reflectance)

As a guideline, paper white is usually in the range of 0.06 to 0.08. Silver
fiber prints have a Dmax values ranging from 2.0 to as much as 2.8 depending
upon brand, development and toning. Carbon pigment inkjet prints have Dmax
values in the 1.4 to 1.9 range depending upon ink, paper and workflow. 1.6 -
1.7 would be a typical values.

A word of caution on the Spectrocam. It does not accurately measure
densities above 1.7. Antonis did a comparison between a X-Rite 810, X-Rite
Digital Swatchbook and a Spectrocam. Both the Spectrocam and the Swatchbook
read low as the density exceeds 1.7. It may be that these hand held units do
not have a bright enough light source to get good readings when the matte
blacks get really dark.

Martin Wesley

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

In respons to Marks comments, I whole heartedly agree.  In my case the reason 
that I began scanning prints to make digital prints was the project started 
out as going through 30 years worth of existing "favorite" prints.  These 
were various sizes, and printed on various papers, some with different kinds 
of toning.  Although I have all of the negatives filed, it was a much easier 
process to scan the print that I held in my hand, rather than look for the 
neg.
By reprinting digitally, I could size things consistently, and tone them 
consistently.  Remember Portriga from the 1970's, it seems that every box and 
grade number would tone a little differently.  By going digital, I could 
reach a common ground.
I am about to purchase a leafscan 45, so all new imagery will be scanned from 
negs, tho the quality that I am getting from prints looks great.
David Aschkenas

Martin,

Thanks for your comments.  I tried it last evening.  I think you are
correct...Spectrocam doesn't read the low values accurately or consistently.

Mr. Tucker's comments regarding taking pictures rather than being so
techno-anal were well expressed and appreciated.  I am more than enough in
the ball park with respect to the curves I have made and the "out of the
box" ones from Paul Roark...I have finally settled on a paper, and now it is
time to get to work!!!

After a while, all this "what is blacker" and "what paper is sharper"
becomes very subjective.  IMHO, photography is more about the image than the
process...at least for me.

Best...Craig 
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.craigsterling.com  "Photography with a Sense of Place"

> From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 00:43:23 -0700
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] My Spectrocam as a Densitometer
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Craig J. Sterling" <craig@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 2:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] My Spectrocam as a Densitometer
> 
> 
>> Greetings,
>> 
>> I have checked the Archives, but cannot find an answer.
>> 
>> I have a Spectrocam Photospectrometer that I use in conjunction with
>> ProFiler Pro software for generating colorsync profiles when printing from
>> my 7000.  I have just discovered how to measure densities using the
>> Spectrocam...WOW!
>> 
>> While I can read the densities of my gray scale step wedge printouts,
> these
>> numbers are sensless without a reference.  Any suggestions on how I can
> come
>> up with a set of "base-line" numbers or values for each of the steps on a
> 21
>> step grayscale?
>> 
>> Appreciate any advice you folks might have...Craig
> 
> Craig,
> 
> I am not sure what you are looking for as a base-line number. The Spectrocam
> is giving you Visual or Neutral density and this is an actual measurement in
> log form of how much light is reflected from what you are measuring. Density
> = log10(1/Reflectance)
> 
> As a guideline, paper white is usually in the range of 0.06 to 0.08. Silver
> fiber prints have a Dmax values ranging from 2.0 to as much as 2.8 depending
> upon brand, development and toning. Carbon pigment inkjet prints have Dmax
> values in the 1.4 to 1.9 range depending upon ink, paper and workflow. 1.6 -
> 1.7 would be a typical values.
> 
> A word of caution on the Spectrocam. It does not accurately measure
> densities above 1.7. Antonis did a comparison between a X-Rite 810, X-Rite
> Digital Swatchbook and a Spectrocam. Both the Spectrocam and the Swatchbook
> read low as the density exceeds 1.7. It may be that these hand held units do
> not have a bright enough light source to get good readings when the matte
> blacks get really dark.
> 
> Martin Wesley
> 
> http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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:
> - 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
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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/
>

Any suggestions on how I can come
> up with a set of "base-line" numbers or values for each of the steps on a 21
> step grayscale?

Craig,

those "base-line" numbers are also known as "linearization" and there are 
several ways to approach that, but none may be practical for your purposes:

- with devices that put down dots or haftones, common prepress practice is to 
consider that 50% means that in a given area (haftone dot) there are equal 
parts paper white and black ink. Other percents follow that logic until at 100% 
there is only solid ink. Software translates these from density numbers to dot 
percents based on the density of the pure black and the pure white. Dot gain 
is then also calculated.

- with continuous tone devices, a manufacturer may provide a set of ideal 
densities for each step, based - again - on the density of the max black and 
white. 

- in all cases, the transition from white to black has a slope, known as gamma, 
and obviously there are many ways to lay down these steps, based on your 
chosen gamma. If you can lay down a grayscale that matches a working gray 
space in photoshop - such as 1.8 or, more likely, 2.2 - you'll have an easier 
time going from scan to monitor view to print. That's the route that ImagePrint 
has taken, as an example.

I know it's all a little theoretical, but maybe it can point to a solution for you.

Antonis

David

I would be curious to kow how you scan your prints, what dpi, etc.

Thanks

Jeff

> I just saw this thread, and I have only been printing b&w  for the 
> last year from scanned b&w prints.  They look great, certainly no lack 
> of detail. They are scanned fron good prints to begin with, tho.  I 
> would challenge anyone to pick one of these prints as scanned from a 
> print rather than one printed from a scanned neg.  I can't imagine any 
> more detail.
> Just my 2 cents.
> David Aschkenas
>

jeff hargrove
photography
http://home.wanadoo.nl/jeffhargrove


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

Mark,

Thanks for the comments. I must agree with you.
I am in the experimental stage. I don't plan on doing all my 
photography silver print-scan-digital print. I want to reprint my 
archives mostly while trying to learn how to use PS and the whole 
digital printing process. I want to understand the differences between 
scanned prints and scanned negatives in regards to my photography for 
this purpose. I have to see this for myself in order to learn.

Jeff

jeff hargrove
photography
http://home.wanadoo.nl/jeffhargrove


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jeff Hargrove 
<jhargrov@c...> wrote:
I have to see this for myself in order to learn.


Jeff,

It also hurts to hit your thumb with a hammer. Please take our 
advice on this matter too; I would hope that you wouldn't have to 
see that for yourself either.

Some experiments are worth pursuing, because they might have 
long term value and use. Others, it's better to just nip them in the 
bud.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Mark Tucker" <mark@m...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jeff Hargrove 
> <jhargrov@c...> wrote:
> I have to see this for myself in order to learn.
snip...

Mark, I apreciate your efforts to minimize this youngster's pain, but
one thing comes to mind about this issue. Almost every beautifully
done fine art photography book we see is made from scans of, or
rephotograghed, final darkroom prints.
Obviously this is changing, but there it is. Just a thought.
When I was but a digital thumb sucker, I first scanned prints since
the scanned negs needed a mind numbing amount of editing while the
prints had already been worked in the darkroom. Worked ok. Also my
crummy little flatbed did a much better job on larger reflective scans
than little film scans.
Something one wants to work beyond though, I agree.
Tyler

I have been getting the best results scanning my b&w prints at the native, 
optical, resolution of my scanner, a UMax Mirage II, at 700 dpi, and then 
adjusting the print size to what I want and letting the dpi fall where ever 
it does.
I print at 1440 with an epson 1280 either on Somerset Velvet enhanced or 
legion photo matte.
David Aschkenas