Digital BW, The Print

I've done lots of homework in recent weeks researching what is the 
best scanner for b&w negs as well as  chrome and color neg., with the 
emphasis on B&W.  I would appreciate some feedback from those who 
have direct experience with Nikon IV ED/4000 , Minolta dual elite II, 
Canon 4000 and Microtek 4000tx,& also the Epson 3200, or equivalent 
scanner.

Thanks in advance,
Mike Kless

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "borismg 
<mgkless@h...>" <mgkless@h...> wrote:
> I've done lots of homework in recent weeks researching what is the 
> best scanner for b&w negs as well as  chrome and color neg., with 
the 
> emphasis on B&W.  I would appreciate some feedback from those who 
> have direct experience with Nikon IV ED/4000 , Minolta dual elite 
II, 
> Canon 4000 and Microtek 4000tx,& also the Epson 3200, or equivalent 
> scanner.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Mike Kless

I have been using the Nikon 4000 for about a month. I am generally 
pleased with the results, although I spend a lot of time cleaning up 
the scans in Photoshop. Despite my best efforts( de-linting cloth and 
air-gun) I still get quite a bit of dust and other particulate matter 
on the scan . The Digital Ice doesn't work with B%W unless you use 
chromogenic film.I was amazed at how fast the scans are performed, 
but this is the first high end scanner i've owned. Great detail in 
thefinal image.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "borismg 
<mgkless@h...>" <mgkless@h...> wrote:
> I've done lots of homework in recent weeks researching what is the 
> best scanner for b&w negs as well as  chrome and color neg., with 
the 
> emphasis on B&W.  I would appreciate some feedback from those who 
> have direct experience with Nikon IV ED/4000 , Minolta dual elite 
II, 
> Canon 4000 and Microtek 4000tx,& also the Epson 3200, or equivalent 
> scanner.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Mike Kless

Also, I forget to mention that Nikon has a great technical assistance 
number that seems to always be available day or night . I'm not sure 
of the exact hours , but it may be 24 hours /day.I had to call a few 
times initially and never had to wait more than a minute to speak to 
a representative.

> I've done lots of homework in recent weeks researching what is the
> best scanner for b&w negs as well as  chrome and color neg., with the
> emphasis on B&W.  I would appreciate some feedback from those who
> have direct experience with Nikon IV ED/4000 , Minolta dual elite II,
> Canon 4000 and Microtek 4000tx,& also the Epson 3200, or equivalent
> scanner.

Hi Mike,

It depends on what you mean by "best".  I believe the Leafscan is the best
scanner, as far as image quality, for B&W because it scans B&W using a
single ND filter, instead of three color filters and then simply converting
the RGB to a single channel using some canned mix.

As to the scanners you mention, people can get vastly different results
simply by scanning B&W as RGB, and doing the conversion in PhotoShop, or if
the scanner driver has the option of specifying your own mix.  "Better" may
have a lot more to do with the workflow than the scanner in the case of the
scanners that scan B&W as RGB.  So, in your quest, you may want to ask what
the workflow is when people give their opinion, as well as ask which one
gives better scans right out of the box, as you may not want to do the PS
tweaking.

Regards,

Austin

Okay, a subject that's been debated before but worth revisiting: I've 
noticed no difference in quality between my TMY scans (on my 
Sprintscan 4000) scanned as 16-bit image using Vuescan and those 
scanned as 48-bit RGB. I'm not saying there may not be a difference, 
just that I don't see it. I'm not looking for an argument, just the 
best scans I can get with my setup. Is there something I'm missing 
here in my workflow that would lead me to see a quality increase by 
scanning RGB and then converting to BW in PS? I've tried the RGB 
approach, using the channel mixer to get to grayscale, but, again, 
there doesn't seem to be a noticiable difference in quality. Also, 
I'm aware of the how the different channels can differing amounts of 
noise, etc. -- but, again, I don't see much difference when I compare 
my 16-bit grayscale image scans with the 48-bit RGB image scans, 
other than larger files and more PS steps.

Chris Hargens

DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > I've done lots of homework in recent weeks researching what is the
> > best scanner for b&w negs as well as  chrome and color neg., with 
the
> > emphasis on B&W.  I would appreciate some feedback from those who
> > have direct experience with Nikon IV ED/4000 , Minolta dual elite 
II,
> > Canon 4000 and Microtek 4000tx,& also the Epson 3200, or 
equivalent
> > scanner.
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> It depends on what you mean by "best".  I believe the Leafscan is 
the best
> scanner, as far as image quality, for B&W because it scans B&W 
using a
> single ND filter, instead of three color filters and then simply 
converting
> the RGB to a single channel using some canned mix.
> 
> As to the scanners you mention, people can get vastly different 
results
> simply by scanning B&W as RGB, and doing the conversion in 
PhotoShop, or if
> the scanner driver has the option of specifying your own 
mix.  "Better" may
> have a lot more to do with the workflow than the scanner in the 
case of the
> scanners that scan B&W as RGB.  So, in your quest, you may want to 
ask what
> the workflow is when people give their opinion, as well as ask 
which one
> gives better scans right out of the box, as you may not want to do 
the PS

> tweaking.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin

And...Chris...you bring up another stellar point, I forgot to mention.
CHOICE OF FILM!  Different scanners scan the same film differently, mostly
because of light source.  I'd also add that when seeking out information,
people mention what film they use, and how it's developed (if known).  I
find different development gives VASTLY different scanning results.

Personally, I find the TMAX films in XTOL hags to scan.  I prefer
Tri-X/Plus-X in D-76 1:1/75F and that gives me the best B&W scans.  Delta
100 is exceptional as well.  I do pre-soak, and use constant agitation.

Needless to say, this question has so many variables, it's difficult to
answer straight out.

Regards,

Austin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Hargens <ldmr@...> [mailto:ldmr@...]
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:13 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] best scanner for b&w
>
>
> Okay, a subject that's been debated before but worth revisiting: I've
> noticed no difference in quality between my TMY scans (on my
> Sprintscan 4000) scanned as 16-bit image using Vuescan and those
> scanned as 48-bit RGB. I'm not saying there may not be a difference,
> just that I don't see it. I'm not looking for an argument, just the
> best scans I can get with my setup. Is there something I'm missing
> here in my workflow that would lead me to see a quality increase by
> scanning RGB and then converting to BW in PS? I've tried the RGB
> approach, using the channel mixer to get to grayscale, but, again,
> there doesn't seem to be a noticiable difference in quality. Also,
> I'm aware of the how the different channels can differing amounts of
> noise, etc. -- but, again, I don't see much difference when I compare
> my 16-bit grayscale image scans with the 48-bit RGB image scans,
> other than larger files and more PS steps.
>
> Chris Hargens
>
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin Franklin"
> <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > > I've done lots of homework in recent weeks researching what is the
> > > best scanner for b&w negs as well as  chrome and color neg., with
> the
> > > emphasis on B&W.  I would appreciate some feedback from those who
> > > have direct experience with Nikon IV ED/4000 , Minolta dual elite
> II,
> > > Canon 4000 and Microtek 4000tx,& also the Epson 3200, or
> equivalent
> > > scanner.
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > It depends on what you mean by "best".  I believe the Leafscan is
> the best
> > scanner, as far as image quality, for B&W because it scans B&W
> using a
> > single ND filter, instead of three color filters and then simply
> converting
> > the RGB to a single channel using some canned mix.
> >
> > As to the scanners you mention, people can get vastly different
> results
> > simply by scanning B&W as RGB, and doing the conversion in
> PhotoShop, or if
> > the scanner driver has the option of specifying your own
> mix.  "Better" may
> > have a lot more to do with the workflow than the scanner in the
> case of the
> > scanners that scan B&W as RGB.  So, in your quest, you may want to
> ask what
> > the workflow is when people give their opinion, as well as ask
> which one
> > gives better scans right out of the box, as you may not want to do
> the PS
> > tweaking.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Austin
>
>
> 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/
>
>

On 02/21 12:20, Austin Franklin wrote:
> 
> Personally, I find the TMAX films in XTOL hags to scan.  I prefer
> Tri-X/Plus-X in D-76 1:1/75F and that gives me the best B&W scans.  Delta
> 100 is exceptional as well.  I do pre-soak, and use constant agitation.

Sorry to keep this thread going but I'll be moving soon and I probably
won't be able to set up even a simple setup for processing film for a
while. 

Any thoughts about scanning C-41 type B&W film and scanning?  XP2?
TC400?

TIA!

-- 
Eric

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Eric Maquiling 
<eric@m...> wrote:
> On 02/21 12:20, Austin Franklin wrote:
> > 
> > Personally, I find the TMAX films in XTOL hags to scan.  I prefer
> > Tri-X/Plus-X in D-76 1:1/75F and that gives me the best B&W 
scans.  Delta
> > 100 is exceptional as well.  I do pre-soak, and use constant 
agitation.
> 
> Sorry to keep this thread going but I'll be moving soon and I 
probably
> won't be able to set up even a simple setup for processing film 
for a
> while. 
> 
> Any thoughts about scanning C-41 type B&W film and scanning?  XP2?
> TC400?
> 
> TIA!
> 
> -- 
> Eric


I frequently scan my 4X5 100TMAX negatives with an Epson 2450 and 
have been pleased with the results. My scans appear to be better 
when the negatives look a bit thin.  I have recently been using a 
workflow that I got from Shutterbug (October issue?) in that I scan 
at 16bit POSITIVE then use levels and curves, and then invert and 
adjust again.  This seems to work very well.

I have experimented with scanning at 48bit RGB but I see no 
difference in my results. I have read many postings on those who 
have tried XP2 Super etc. and they are able to use digital ice and 
like the results they get.  I don't use XP2 anymore since I want 
negatives that are as permanent as possible.

I have seen Paul Roarks photos in a Gallery and other places and I 
can tell you he gets AMAZING quality using a Bronica 645RF with 
TMAX100 or Tech Pan.  He has one gallery print that is approximately 
20X24 called "Boulders" that was incredible and easily matches the 
4X5 format.  I could not tell the difference between that digital 
print and a traditional silver print.

So I hope he responds to your question.

Hope this helps!

-Jerry

Hi Eric,

> > Personally, I find the TMAX films in XTOL hags to scan.  I prefer
> > Tri-X/Plus-X in D-76 1:1/75F and that gives me the best B&W
> scans.  Delta
> > 100 is exceptional as well.  I do pre-soak, and use constant agitation.
>
> Sorry to keep this thread going but I'll be moving soon and I probably
> won't be able to set up even a simple setup for processing film for a
> while.

Why?  That's what this list is for, and the discussion is right on topic,
IMO.

> Any thoughts about scanning C-41 type B&W film and scanning?  XP2?
> TC400?
>
> TIA!

I'd like to hear what others have to say about this as well.  I don't do any
ICE, DICE, MICE or any of the dust/scratch removal, so that issue doesn't
effect me, but I did recently buy a roll of B&W Chromogenic film (T400CN),
and wanted to see how it scanned.  I will expose it and have it developed
prior to scanning ;-)  I'll let you know, and I'll post some pictures.

Regards,

Austin

> I'd like to hear what others have to say about this as well.  I
don't do any
> ICE, DICE, MICE or any of the dust/scratch removal, so that issue
doesn't
> effect me, but I did recently buy a roll of B&W Chromogenic film
(T400CN),
> and wanted to see how it scanned.  I will expose it and have it
developed
> prior to scanning ;-)  I'll let you know, and I'll post some pictures.

I've shot several rolls of XP2 lately and they scan very nicely on my
CanoScan FS4000US. At 4000dpi I find that the scanner is usually
matching or exceeding the resolution of the film, and with FARE dust
removal I don't have to spend ages spotting the pictures afterwards. I
also like that I can go from 50 to 800 iso on the same roll of film.
My local lab has a tendecy to scratch the film though, that's annoying.

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Eric Maquiling [mailto:eric@...] 
> Verzonden: vrijdag 21 februari 2003 18:23
> Aan: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Onderwerp: Re: [Digital BW] best scanner for b&w
> 
> 
> On 02/21 12:20, Austin Franklin wrote:
> > 
> > Personally, I find the TMAX films in XTOL hags to scan.  I prefer 
> > Tri-X/Plus-X in D-76 1:1/75F and that gives me the best B&W scans.  
> > Delta 100 is exceptional as well.  I do pre-soak, and use constant 
> > agitation.

Boy hated I the TMAX films, when I tried them years ago. Back to Tri-X
1:1 !! Never change a winning team :-)


> 
> Sorry to keep this thread going but I'll be moving soon and I 
> probably won't be able to set up even a simple setup for 
> processing film for a while. 


I don't have a permanent dark room either. But hey, putting a film in a
tank can be done in a closet, bathroom or whereever (black bag!). And
developing on the kitchen sink gives exactly the same results (all other
things being equal) as the most elaborate dark room!!

FWIW,
Ton Guiking

On 02/21 19:13, Ton Guiking wrote:
> 
[...]

> I don't have a permanent dark room either. But hey, putting a film in a
> tank can be done in a closet, bathroom or whereever (black bag!). And
> developing on the kitchen sink gives exactly the same results (all other
> things being equal) as the most elaborate dark room!!

That's what I do now, with a changing bag.  I'd like to get one of
those changing tents in the future.  I don't know if I can be
organized 'nugh to keep everything together during the move :)

Maybe I should just stick a few tanks, changing bags, d-76/rodinol,
and fixer in a bucket all ready to go.  Hmmmm...

-- 
Eric

I've scanned XP2, both as 16-bit image and as 48-bit RGB image -- and 
have found that it has a proclivity to noise in the shadows. I've 
spoken with others who have met with same problem. From what I hear, 
the Kodak chromogenic films have less noise.

Chris Hargens

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin 
Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> 
> > > Personally, I find the TMAX films in XTOL hags to scan.  I 
prefer
> > > Tri-X/Plus-X in D-76 1:1/75F and that gives me the best B&W
> > scans.  Delta
> > > 100 is exceptional as well.  I do pre-soak, and use constant 
agitation.
> >
> > Sorry to keep this thread going but I'll be moving soon and I 
probably
> > won't be able to set up even a simple setup for processing film 
for a
> > while.
> 
> Why?  That's what this list is for, and the discussion is right on 
topic,
> IMO.
> 
> > Any thoughts about scanning C-41 type B&W film and scanning?  XP2?
> > TC400?
> >
> > TIA!
> 
> I'd like to hear what others have to say about this as well.  I 
don't do any
> ICE, DICE, MICE or any of the dust/scratch removal, so that issue 
doesn't
> effect me, but I did recently buy a roll of B&W Chromogenic film 
(T400CN),
> and wanted to see how it scanned.  I will expose it and have it 
developed
> prior to scanning ;-)  I'll let you know, and I'll post some 
pictures.

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin

I have a Nikon 4000 and so far I have no complaints, I have actually
switched over to using the c-41 films because of the ICE and the scans I get
with it.  I really like the Porta 400 black and white film, also, the Ilford
XP2.  I have even bought some of that cheap Kodak, three in a box, black and
white c-41 film they sell at places like Walgreen's (drugstore), all with
good results.  I always scan in grayscale mode myself, but then again I
haven't done much testing against scanning with RGB.  One thins I have done
recently is try out the free trial version of VueScan with my Nikon and I
have to say I think I am going to purchase it, I really like the scans I
get, better then those with the Nikon software...except for the "$40" it
plasters over my scans.. :)

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...] 
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 11:03 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] best scanner for b&w

Hi Eric,

> > Personally, I find the TMAX films in XTOL hags to scan.  I prefer
> > Tri-X/Plus-X in D-76 1:1/75F and that gives me the best B&W
> scans.  Delta
> > 100 is exceptional as well.  I do pre-soak, and use constant agitation.
>
> Sorry to keep this thread going but I'll be moving soon and I probably
> won't be able to set up even a simple setup for processing film for a
> while.

Why?  That's what this list is for, and the discussion is right on topic,
IMO.

> Any thoughts about scanning C-41 type B&W film and scanning?  XP2?
> TC400?
>
> TIA!

I'd like to hear what others have to say about this as well.  I don't do any
ICE, DICE, MICE or any of the dust/scratch removal, so that issue doesn't
effect me, but I did recently buy a roll of B&W Chromogenic film (T400CN),
and wanted to see how it scanned.  I will expose it and have it developed
prior to scanning ;-)  I'll let you know, and I'll post some pictures.

Regards,

Austin


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/ 



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

I found CN400 35mm a very friendly film to scan. Great latitude and
virtually grainlees

on 2/21/03 12:23 PM, Eric Maquiling at eric@... wrote:

On 02/21 12:20, Austin Franklin wrote:
> 
> Personally, I find the TMAX films in XTOL hags to scan.  I prefer
> Tri-X/Plus-X in D-76 1:1/75F and that gives me the best B&W scans.  Delta
> 100 is exceptional as well.  I do pre-soak, and use constant agitation.

Sorry to keep this thread going but I'll be moving soon and I probably
won't be able to set up even a simple setup for processing film for a
while. 

Any thoughts about scanning C-41 type B&W film and scanning?  XP2?
TC400?

TIA!




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

What was wrong with T Max 100? I found it great! 400 was too grainy though.

Jerry




Ton Guiking wrote:

> 
>>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>>Van: Eric Maquiling [mailto:eric@...] 
>>Verzonden: vrijdag 21 februari 2003 18:23
>>Aan: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>>Onderwerp: Re: [Digital BW] best scanner for b&w
>>
>>
>>On 02/21 12:20, Austin Franklin wrote:
>>
>>>Personally, I find the TMAX films in XTOL hags to scan.  I prefer 
>>>Tri-X/Plus-X in D-76 1:1/75F and that gives me the best B&W scans.  
>>>Delta 100 is exceptional as well.  I do pre-soak, and use constant 
>>>agitation.
>>
> 
> Boy hated I the TMAX films, when I tried them years ago. Back to Tri-X
> 1:1 !! Never change a winning team :-)
> 
> 
> 
>>Sorry to keep this thread going but I'll be moving soon and I 
>>probably won't be able to set up even a simple setup for 
>>processing film for a while. 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a permanent dark room either. But hey, putting a film in a
> tank can be done in a closet, bathroom or whereever (black bag!). And
> developing on the kitchen sink gives exactly the same results (all other
> things being equal) as the most elaborate dark room!!
> 
> FWIW,
> Ton Guiking
> 
> 
> 
> 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/ 
> 
> 
>

XP2 is a great film for scanning, sharp, very fine grain, great tones, etc.

Jerry





THOMAS MOORE wrote:

> I found CN400 35mm a very friendly film to scan. Great latitude and
> virtually grainlees
> 
> on 2/21/03 12:23 PM, Eric Maquiling at eric@... wrote:
> 
> On 02/21 12:20, Austin Franklin wrote:
> 
>>Personally, I find the TMAX films in XTOL hags to scan.  I prefer
>>Tri-X/Plus-X in D-76 1:1/75F and that gives me the best B&W scans.  Delta
>>100 is exceptional as well.  I do pre-soak, and use constant agitation.
> 
> 
> Sorry to keep this thread going but I'll be moving soon and I probably
> won't be able to set up even a simple setup for processing film for a
> while. 
> 
> Any thoughts about scanning C-41 type B&W film and scanning?  XP2?
> TC400?
> 
> TIA!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [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
> 
> 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/ 
> 
> 
>

Hi Jerry,

> What was wrong with T Max 100?

Not a thing, it's a very nice film/developer combination, though I like the
tonality of Plus-X/D-76 1:1 better.

> 400 was too grainy though.

Agreed, and that is more what my comment was to.

Regards,

Austin

If you can avoid the Epson flatbeds and still pay your rent I would.  I have a 2450 (previous to the 3200) and the underside of the glass is not user cleanable.  It can develop a haziness which makes the scanner useless.  The local Epson authorized repair shop doesn't seem to understand what I mean by clean.

For 6x7 it is a reasonable thought still somewhat soft scanner.  Useless for 35mm.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "borismg <mgkless@h...>" <mgkless@h...> wrote:

> I've done lots of homework in recent weeks researching what is the 
> best scanner for b&w negs as well as  chrome and color neg., with the 
> emphasis on B&W.  I would appreciate some feedback from those who 
> have direct experience with Nikon IV ED/4000 , Minolta dual elite II, 
> Canon 4000 and Microtek 4000tx,& also the Epson 3200, or equivalent 
> scanner.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Mike Kless

Kodak's Portra scans better than the XP2 or TC400n. It actually comes out
B&W before you adjust anything!

XP2 is my favorite for wet darkroom, but I admit the new Kodak is damn good.
Sharp and grain is very smooth.

Chris
New Orleans

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Maquiling" Subject: Re: [Digital BW] best scanner for b&w


> On 02/21 12:20, Austin Franklin wrote:
> >
> > Personally, I find the TMAX films in XTOL hags to scan.  I prefer
> > Tri-X/Plus-X in D-76 1:1/75F and that gives me the best B&W scans.
Delta

> > 100 is exceptional as well.  I do pre-soak, and use constant agitation.
>
> Sorry to keep this thread going but I'll be moving soon and I probably
> won't be able to set up even a simple setup for processing film for a
> while.
>
> Any thoughts about scanning C-41 type B&W film and scanning?  XP2?
> TC400?
>
> TIA!
>
> --
> Eric

> XP2 is a great film for scanning, sharp, very fine grain, great 
tones, etc.

Although I agree that XP2 is a nice film and scans well,
I am beginning to think Provia 100F is a better choice for me.
Of course it's a color reversal film, but in the digital domain
that isn't a problem and many advantages acrue:

- you can get virtual R, G, and B filters using the Channel
  Mixer to convert to B&W

- the colored original can sometimes make it easier to
  create masks (e.g. a blue sky behind a brown foreground)

- Provia's grain is even finer than XP2

- if you accidentally take a shot that would be better in color,
  you've got it

Of course, to be fair, it has to be said that Provia is of course
more expensive (to buy and to process) that XP2, and of
course has much less exposure latitude.

One might could have most of these advantages and avoid
at least the second disadvantage by using color C41 film -
but I find it a real pain to scan well, at least on my 2450.

John

on 2/21/2003 2:24 PM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:48:28 -0000
> From: "Chris Hargens <ldmr@...>" <ldmr@...>
> Subject: Re: best scanner for b&w
> 
> I've scanned XP2, both as 16-bit image and as 48-bit RGB image -- and
> have found that it has a proclivity to noise in the shadows. I've
> spoken with others who have met with same problem. From what I hear,
> the Kodak chromogenic films have less noise.
> 
> Chris Hargens


Chris,

I'll second this observation.  The Kodak chromogenic films have much less
grain/noise in the shadows and scan beautifully.  The Kodak film has the
orange mask and may not print as well as the Ilford on silver paper in a
traditional darkroom. But the Kodak film scans very well and the consumer
"kodak Black and White" seems to be just as good as the professional
versions and cost less and is easy to find at the local
drugstore/supermarket.
 
-Bruce

"Christopher Williams" <leicachris@w...> wrote:
> Kodak's Portra scans better than the XP2 or TC400n. It actually 
comes out
> B&W before you adjust anything!
> 
> XP2 is my favorite for wet darkroom, but I admit the new Kodak 
is damn good.
> Sharp and grain is very smooth.

I agree completely.  Portra 400 B&W is absolutely the best film I 
have ever scanned.  I haven't gone into a wet darkroom in 4 
years, so I can't comment on how these films behave there, but 
for scanning, I can't imaging it getting any nicer than the C41 
Kodak B&W Portra.

Justin

Firstly, Im trying to scan on a Nikon LS4000 and I can never get 
consistent scans of true B&W film so I gave up on that approach - 
this is about digital B&W so the purity isnt there anyway.

I tried the chromogenics and found that these films tend to lack 
sharpness - especially XP2 and scanning at 4000 dpi. But then 
thinking about it, using a chromogenic and telling yourself that your 
shooting B&W might be therapeutic but its analogous to printing B&W 
with a CMYK ink set.

Ive now come to terms with shooting colour print film and using the 
channel mixer in PS as a proxy for filter control as the best way I 
can get a digital smooth-grain B&W image. I primarily shoot with an 
M6 these days so I'm often concerned about keeping shutter speeds 
under 1/1000th in daylight with the apeture opened so the best film I 
found for this process is Fuji's NPC 160 portrait film.

just another view...
Craig

I've also gone totally to shooting NPS (medium format) and converting to
greyscale. I've been using a plugin from The Imaging Factory - Convert
To BW Pro.

http://www.theimagingfactory.com/

The control of the conversion is superior to all of the other methods
I've used (channel mixer, Russell Brown's technique, etc.)

Stan

-----Original Message-----
From: craig <craygc@...> [mailto:craygc@...] 
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 7:26 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] best scanner for b&w

Firstly, Im trying to scan on a Nikon LS4000 and I can never get 
consistent scans of true B&W film so I gave up on that approach - 
this is about digital B&W so the purity isnt there anyway.

I tried the chromogenics and found that these films tend to lack 
sharpness - especially XP2 and scanning at 4000 dpi. But then 
thinking about it, using a chromogenic and telling yourself that your 
shooting B&W might be therapeutic but its analogous to printing B&W 
with a CMYK ink set.

Ive now come to terms with shooting colour print film and using the 
channel mixer in PS as a proxy for filter control as the best way I 
can get a digital smooth-grain B&W image. I primarily shoot with an 
M6 these days so I'm often concerned about keeping shutter speeds 
under 1/1000th in daylight with the apeture opened so the best film I 
found for this process is Fuji's NPC 160 portrait film.

just another view...
Craig


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/

I agree.  I have scanned it for a few years and am always impressed 
with the results.  It is different than other Ilford films (Fp4+, for 
example,developed in HD11), but it scans beautifully.  (I rate it at 
320 rather than 400.)

The only problem I have is finding a lab that takes reasonable care 
with the negatives at a reasonable price.

Steve


 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Olson 
<jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> XP2 is a great film for scanning, sharp, very fine grain, great 
tones, etc.
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THOMAS MOORE wrote:
> > I found CN400 35mm a very friendly film to scan. Great latitude 
and
> > virtually grainlees
> > 
> > on 2/21/03 12:23 PM, Eric Maquiling at eric@m... wrote:
> > 
> > On 02/21 12:20, Austin Franklin wrote:
> > 
> >>Personally, I find the TMAX films in XTOL hags to scan.  I prefer
> >>Tri-X/Plus-X in D-76 1:1/75F and that gives me the best B&W 
scans.  Delta
> >>100 is exceptional as well.  I do pre-soak, and use constant 
agitation.
> > 
> > 
> > Sorry to keep this thread going but I'll be moving soon and I 
probably
> > won't be able to set up even a simple setup for processing film 
for a
> > while. 
> > 
> > Any thoughts about scanning C-41 type B&W film and scanning?  XP2?
> > TC400?
> > 
> > TIA!
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [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
> > 
> > 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/ 

> > 
> > 
> >

I have a Nikon 4000 ED and it should do a good job for you.  16-bit scans at
16x sampling take a while, but they are good.   PlusX in D76 1:1 scans well,
as does Agfa 25 in Rodinal (but it is discontinued).  Kodak Portra 400 b&w
is best of all, great tonal range and sharp.  But if you are young I would
avoid the chromogenic films as they are not archival.  Depending on your
style of photography, another solution is to abandon 35mm and get a 4x5 and
a good flatbed film scanner.  Your film and developer choices will become
much less critical, although even in large format, TriX and D76 1:1 is hard
to beat.

  --Ken

----- Original Message -----
From: <mgkless@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 1:56 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] best scanner for b&w


> I've done lots of homework in recent weeks researching what is the
> best scanner for b&w negs as well as  chrome and color neg., with the
> emphasis on B&W.  I would appreciate some feedback from those who
> have direct experience with Nikon IV ED/4000 , Minolta dual elite II,
> Canon 4000 and Microtek 4000tx,& also the Epson 3200, or equivalent
> scanner.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Mike Kless
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

Provia, nor any other chrome, has the exposure latitude of B&W, so it's
really not an issue, is it?

What I don't get --since this thread has progressed into the PLI-- is why
the worry, worry about getting such fine grain --then scanning B&W?  If
you're making it digital, why not shoot it digital?

When I shoot B&W film, it's for darkroom prints.

Seth

=Although I agree that XP2 is a nice film and scans well,
=I am beginning to think Provia 100F is a better choice for me.
=Of course it's a color reversal film, but in the digital domain
=that isn't a problem and many advantages acrue:
=

Seth,

> What I don't get --since this thread has progressed into the PLI-- is why
> the worry, worry about getting such fine grain --then scanning B&W?  If
> you're making it digital, why not shoot it digital?
>
> When I shoot B&W film, it's for darkroom prints.

I not clear what you are saying, but I do know that you can't get the same
results shooting digital that you can scanning film for B&W.  I shoot medium
format, and get outstanding results scanning my film and printing digitally,
better than darkroom prints.

What is "PLI" BTW?

Austin

Sunday, February 23, 2003, 12:00:22 PM, Seth Rossman wrote:

SR>  If
SR> you're making it digital, why not shoot it digital?


For so many reasons I do not know where to start.

Just curious as to what your thinking is in that if we scan the
negatives we should just do digital images in the first place?

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

L i n k s  t o  m y  g a l l e r i e s:
http://fujirangefinder.com/document.php?id=246

PLI is the Photo-Lab-Index.  The bible of chemical developing, etc.

Seth

=-----Original Message-----
=From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...] 
=Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 3:15 PM
=To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
=Subject: RE: [Digital BW] best scanner for b&w
=
=
=Seth,
=
=> What I don't get --since this thread has progressed into the 
=PLI-- is 
=> why the worry, worry about getting such fine grain --then scanning 
=> B&W?  If you're making it digital, why not shoot it digital?
=>
=> When I shoot B&W film, it's for darkroom prints.
=
=I not clear what you are saying, but I do know that you can't 
=get the same results shooting digital that you can scanning 
=film for B&W.  I shoot medium format, and get outstanding 
=results scanning my film and printing digitally, better than 
=darkroom prints.
=
=What is "PLI" BTW?
=
=Austin
=
=
=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/ 
=
=
=

=Just curious as to what your thinking is in that if we scan 
=the negatives we should just do digital images in the first place?
=
Once you scan, you ARE digital. 

It's just a LOT of extra work.  Processing, scanning plus all the Photoshop
work.  But, add dust removal, etc. to the equation.

Don't get me wrong.  I have two D1s. And, an F100 and Hasselblad 503CW for
film.  Still have a B&W darkroom. 

Right after getting the D1's I was very skeptical for quite a while.  Then I
wound up on a job in Italy and Crete.  I shot EVERYTHING important on both
digital and Provia (35mm).  I am here to tell you that have slides that are
NO better than the digital when printed on EAM.  

I WILL admit if I were making murals or 30x40's I would use the film.  But I
don't do that.  Even in that case I would go to a 4x5 inter-neg.

/r,

Seth

I normally shoot 4x5 Tmax 400 and scan 2400 dpi. There is no way that 
the current digital cameras can compare. First I have much more control 
on your contract control and dynamic range through controlling the 
negative development. This is in my opinion where the digitals have to 
get much better before they can claim to be "as good as film." The only 
way to do that is with at least 16 bits.  Third is for an 8x10 - even a 
16-20 I am throwing away a boatload of information when when I print.

Yes it's a bit more work but IMO it is worth every second of it.

Truman

Seth wrote:

>=Just curious as to what your thinking is in that if we scan 
>=the negatives we should just do digital images in the first place?
>=
>Once you scan, you ARE digital. 
>
>It's just a LOT of extra work.  Processing, scanning plus all the Photoshop
>work.  But, add dust removal, etc. to the equation.
>
>Don't get me wrong.  I have two D1s. And, an F100 and Hasselblad 503CW for
>film.  Still have a B&W darkroom. 
>
>Right after getting the D1's I was very skeptical for quite a while.  Then I
>wound up on a job in Italy and Crete.  I shot EVERYTHING important on both
>digital and Provia (35mm).  I am here to tell you that have slides that are
>NO better than the digital when printed on EAM.  
>
>I WILL admit if I were making murals or 30x40's I would use the film.  But I
>don't do that.  Even in that case I would go to a 4x5 inter-neg.
>
>/r,
>
>Seth
>
>
>
>
>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/ 
>
>
>
>  
>

> =Just curious as to what your thinking is in that if we scan
> =the negatives we should just do digital images in the first place?
> =
> Once you scan, you ARE digital.
>
> It's just a LOT of extra work.

It's not a "LOT" of extra work, especially since the results are far
superior.

> Processing, scanning plus all the
> Photoshop
> work.  But, add dust removal, etc. to the equation.

I don't do dust removal, I do no work in PS except to resize the image
before printing.

> Right after getting the D1's I was very skeptical for quite a
> while.  Then I
> wound up on a job in Italy and Crete.  I shot EVERYTHING important on both
> digital and Provia (35mm).  I am here to tell you that have
> slides that are
> NO better than the digital when printed on EAM.

You must be making small prints then.  For certain applications, digital is
far better, no doubt.  BUT...you are also talking color here, NOT B&W.  For
B&W there is a significant difference in quality between converting RGB from
a digital camera to grayscale.

> I WILL admit if I were making murals or 30x40's I would use the
> film.  But I
> don't do that.

Understood.  I find anything 8x10 or larger really does better with film,
and I primarily print 13x19 or larger, so I really prefer film.

To go back to your claim of digital takes less work, for me that isn't
true...for what I would use digital for that is.  Happy snaps.  I can bring
my 36 exposure roll to the local store, get double prints, all for $15.
There are no quickie digital printing places near here, and the ones I've
seen are tedious to use.  You have to stand there at the machine and specify
every print size etc.  Talk about a waste of time!

The other issue with digital is storage.  Film is so much easier to store,
and know that it'll be around for a very long time.  Technically, digital
could outlast film, no doubt...but as of right now, for me, for happy snaps,
film is far easier.

Regards,

Austin

Sunday, February 23, 2003, 2:21:12 PM, Seth wrote:

S> =Just curious as to what your thinking is in that if we scan 
S> =the negatives we should just do digital images in the first place?
S> =
S> Once you scan, you ARE digital.

True enough.  But even though I might scan my B&W negs I still get the
benefits of choosing which film to use for the result I want not to
mention the control I have in developing my film too.

S> It's just a LOT of extra work.\ufffd Processing, scanning plus all the Photoshop
S> work.\ufffd But, add dust removal, etc. to the equation.

IMO, it's not "extra work" at all compared to darkroom.  Personally I
disliked all the chemical mixing, set up, temperature controlling,
working in the dark and then CLEAN UP!  Ugh.  To me all those things
more than offset for all the digital "extra work".  Oh, and dust
removal was always part of my traditional darkroom experience too.


Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

L i n k s  t o  m y  g a l l e r i e s:
http://fujirangefinder.com/document.php?id=246

There was an article not long ago in Design Graphics, an Australian
Graphics design magazine. They compared a 4x5 digital back on a Sinar
and 4x5 velvia. The digital quality ran circles around the Velvia. So IF
you have the best
equipment, you CAN better film. But most of us will never have a hundred
grand for a digital back.

Jerry



Truman Prevatt wrote:

> 
> I normally shoot 4x5 Tmax 400 and scan 2400 dpi. There is no way that
> the current digital cameras can compare. First I have much more control
> on your contract control and dynamic range through controlling the
> negative development. This is in my opinion where the digitals have to
> get much better before they can claim to be "as good as film." The only
> way to do that is with at least 16 bits.  Third is for an 8x10 - even a
> 16-20 I am throwing away a boatload of information when when I print.
> 
> Yes it's a bit more work but IMO it is worth every second of it.
> 
> Truman
> 
> Seth wrote:
> 
> >=Just curious as to what your thinking is in that if we scan
> >=the negatives we should just do digital images in the first place?
> >=
> >Once you scan, you ARE digital.
> >
> >It's just a LOT of extra work.  Processing, scanning plus all the Photoshop
> >work.  But, add dust removal, etc. to the equation.
> >
> >Don't get me wrong.  I have two D1s. And, an F100 and Hasselblad 503CW for
> >film.  Still have a B&W darkroom.
> >
> >Right after getting the D1's I was very skeptical for quite a while.  Then I
> >wound up on a job in Italy and Crete.  I shot EVERYTHING important on both
> >digital and Provia (35mm).  I am here to tell you that have slides that are
> >NO better than the digital when printed on EAM.
> >
> >I WILL admit if I were making murals or 30x40's I would use the film.  But I
> >don't do that.  Even in that case I would go to a 4x5 inter-neg.
> >
> >/r,
> >
> >Seth
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 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/

> There was an article not long ago in Design Graphics, an Australian
> Graphics design magazine. They compared a 4x5 digital back on a Sinar
> and 4x5 velvia. The digital quality ran circles around the Velvia. So IF
> you have the best
> equipment, you CAN better film. But most of us will never have a hundred
> grand for a digital back.

Jerry,

That was a scanning back, and as such, gives FAR superior results than a one
shot back.  I have a 7k scanning back for my Hasselblad.  It produces
AMAZING results.  I'd say some aspects are better than film, and some
aren't.  But, I can't very well take pictures of the kids with it, unless
they hold VERY still ;-)

Regards,

Austin

Sunday, February 23, 2003, 6:34:54 PM, Jerry Olson wrote:

JO> There was an article not long ago in Design Graphics, an Australian
JO> Graphics design magazine. They compared a 4x5 digital back on a Sinar
JO> and 4x5 velvia. The digital quality ran circles around the Velvia. So IF
JO> you have the best
JO> equipment, you CAN better film. But most of us will never have a hundred
JO> grand for a digital back.

JO> Jerry


"Better" is a very subjective term.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

L i n k s  t o  m y  g a l l e r i e s:
http://fujirangefinder.com/document.php?id=246

Austin Franklin wrote:

> But, I can't very well take pictures of the kids with it, unless
>they hold VERY still ;-)
>
>
>  
>
Freeze-drying and stuffing them always worked well for me..
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 




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

> > But, I can't very well take pictures of the kids with it, unless
> >they hold VERY still ;-)
> >
> Freeze-drying and stuffing them always worked well for me..
> Keith

Hum.  In that order?

;-)

I get better results with 48bit RGB scanning, picking only one of the three
channels, for the following two reasons:
 
1) Channel noise.
2) Channel disalignment.
 
Typically, although both issues are obviously scanner dependent, one of the
channels is the best in the noise department, and the three channels are not
perfectly aligned. Using *any* channel mix will therefore degrade the final
image, unless you only pick a single channel (i.e. a 100% 0% 0% mix).
I repeat that you should verify how much your own scanner suffers from these
problems, but they are visible in both my Canon FS4000 and Epson 3200.
 
Alessandro
-----------------------
Jerry wrote:
 
 > I frequently scan my 4X5 100TMAX negatives with an Epson 2450 and 
 > have been pleased with the results.  
<snip>
 > I have experimented with scanning at 48bit RGB but I see no 
 > difference in my results.  
<snip>
 
 > -Jerry





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor	

ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=17050191
82:HM/A=1464858/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_Cquo_1/g22l
p?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl> 	
 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=246920.2960106.4328965.2848452/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1464858/rand=621591289> 	

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
<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
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . 



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

Alessandro

I agree with your post, although I tend to use the LAB mode and select to use only the lightness channel.  On an off topic issue, could you email me at simon@sclamb and tell me if you find your 3200 scans to be soft.

Thanks.

Simon

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Alessandro Pardi 
  To: 'DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com' 
  Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 9:02 AM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] best scanner for b&w


  I get better results with 48bit RGB scanning, picking only one of the three
  channels, for the following two reasons:

  1) Channel noise.
  2) Channel disalignment.

  Typically, although both issues are obviously scanner dependent, one of the
  channels is the best in the noise department, and the three channels are not
  perfectly aligned. Using *any* channel mix will therefore degrade the final
  image, unless you only pick a single channel (i.e. a 100% 0% 0% mix).
  I repeat that you should verify how much your own scanner suffers from these
  problems, but they are visible in both my Canon FS4000 and Epson 3200.

  Alessandro
  -----------------------
  Jerry wrote:

  > I frequently scan my 4X5 100TMAX negatives with an Epson 2450 and 
  > have been pleased with the results.  
  <snip>
  > I have experimented with scanning at 48bit RGB but I see no 
  > difference in my results.  
  <snip>

  > -Jerry


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

Sorry, should have been simon@...

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Simon Lamb 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 9:12 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] best scanner for b&w


  Alessandro

  I agree with your post, although I tend to use the LAB mode and select to use only the lightness channel.  On an off topic issue, could you email me at simon@sclamb and tell me if you find your 3200 scans to be soft.

  Thanks.

  Simon
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Alessandro Pardi 
    To: 'DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com' 
    Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 9:02 AM
    Subject: RE: [Digital BW] best scanner for b&w


    I get better results with 48bit RGB scanning, picking only one of the three
    channels, for the following two reasons:

    1) Channel noise.
    2) Channel disalignment.

    Typically, although both issues are obviously scanner dependent, one of the
    channels is the best in the noise department, and the three channels are not
    perfectly aligned. Using *any* channel mix will therefore degrade the final
    image, unless you only pick a single channel (i.e. a 100% 0% 0% mix).
    I repeat that you should verify how much your own scanner suffers from these
    problems, but they are visible in both my Canon FS4000 and Epson 3200.

    Alessandro
    -----------------------
    Jerry wrote:

    > I frequently scan my 4X5 100TMAX negatives with an Epson 2450 and 
    > have been pleased with the results.  
    <snip>
    > I have experimented with scanning at 48bit RGB but I see no 
    > difference in my results.  
    <snip>

    > -Jerry


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


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  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. 



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

Richard-

I guess that's why I hesitate to respond to some of these things.  I think
my original intent was that the Digital B&W stuff was becoming "Darkroom
processes," thus the PLI crack.  I notice that some knew what it was, so
must have been around awhile.

Your next statement confuses me, though. Sounds as though you are afgreeing.
After telling me why the film has more control, it now looks as though you
have given that up.  Actually, I was referring to the film, processing,
drying, etc. as the "extra work" when you then move it to digital scans.  No
matter.
=
=IMO, it's not "extra work" at all compared to darkroom.  
=Personally I disliked all the chemical mixing, set up, 
=temperature controlling, working in the dark and then CLEAN 
=UP!  Ugh.  To me all those things more than offset for all the 
=digital "extra work".  Oh, and dust removal was always part of 
=my traditional darkroom experience too.
=
To all-  Those that want to spend the money on their craft for
top-of-the-line digital will get the result that competes with 120 or 4x5.
IMPO. Personally, I wouldn't spend $10-20,000 on a digital back for my
Hassie --I'd shoot film. 

 I neither want to start a film vs. digital thread, nor do I believe that
one media is superior at all times. Film rivals digital in many ways!
Digital rivals film in many ways. But B&W prints from EITHER medium can
compete with each other. PROPERLY done, the viewer would be hard pressed to
know where the digital file came from.

/r,

Seth

If you have your house all done in plastic, use the excess duct tape (the
baby sitter's friend) <BGGG>.

=Austin Franklin wrote:
=
=> But, I can't very well take pictures of the kids with it, 
=unless they 
=>hold VERY still ;-)
=>
=>
=>  
=>
=Freeze-drying and stuffing them always worked well for me.. Keith

Now THAT's Funny!  (I have no kids).

Jerry

> Austin Franklin wrote:

> > But, I can't very well take pictures of the kids with it, unless
> >they hold VERY still ;-)


> Freeze-drying and stuffing them always worked well for me..
> Keith

But, Jerry...my question still remains unanswered.  Can you stuff them AFTER
freeze drying them, or do you have to stuff them first?

Austin

> Now THAT's Funny!  (I have no kids).
>
> Jerry
>
>
> > Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> > > But, I can't very well take pictures of the kids with it, unless
> > >they hold VERY still ;-)
>
>
> > Freeze-drying and stuffing them always worked well for me..
> > Keith

Stuff 'em first, then you don't have to disturb the delicate features
that the freeze dry process places on the 
insect. kid. or wombat, or freeze dryee.

Jerry





Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> But, Jerry...my question still remains unanswered.  Can you stuff them AFTER
> freeze drying them, or do you have to stuff them first?
> 
> Austin
> 
> > Now THAT's Funny!  (I have no kids).
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> >
> > > Austin Franklin wrote:
> >
> > > > But, I can't very well take pictures of the kids with it, unless
> > > >they hold VERY still ;-)
> >
> >
> > > Freeze-drying and stuffing them always worked well for me..
> > > Keith
> 
> 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/

But freeze drying turns the skin pasty- especially on kids. A good 
taxidermist is the answer!

Truman

Jerry Olson wrote:

>Stuff 'em first, then you don't have to disturb the delicate features
>that the freeze dry process places on the 
>insect. kid. or wombat, or freeze dryee.
>
>Jerry
>
>
>
>
>
>Austin Franklin wrote:
>  
>
>>But, Jerry...my question still remains unanswered.  Can you stuff them AFTER
>>freeze drying them, or do you have to stuff them first?
>>
>>Austin
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Now THAT's Funny!  (I have no kids).
>>>
>>>Jerry
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Austin Franklin wrote:
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>But, I can't very well take pictures of the kids with it, unless
>>>>>they hold VERY still ;-)
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Freeze-drying and stuffing them always worked well for me..
>>>>Keith
>>>>        
>>>>
>>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/
>>    
>>
>
>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/ 
>
>
>
>  
>



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