Digital BW, The Print

My experience with BO printing has been very good.  My preferred combination
was the MIS GP photo-black (Ultrachrome equiv) ink on the JetPrint Instant
dry glossy or Epson Premium Glossy for my 13x19.  I used the MIS bulk
bottles to refill cartridges.  For matte, I really liked the MIS VM black on
EEM paper.  

It gives me a grain that is similar to 35mm blow-ups.  On very light greys
it can be an aquired taste though.  Recently my 1280 broke and I am now
using an hp7960 with hp premium plus glossy, which gives me more of the
large-format glamour look, but I will repair the 1280 soon and use BO again
for the pictures that I want grain in.

Hope that was helpful.

Cheers,

Boris Wiedenfeld

www.bawphoto.com


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

At 04:34 PM 10/24/03 -0400, you wrote:
>My experience with BO printing has been very good.  My preferred combination
>was the MIS GP photo-black (Ultrachrome equiv) ink on the JetPrint Instant
>dry glossy or Epson Premium Glossy for my 13x19.  I used the MIS bulk
>bottles to refill cartridges.  For matte, I really liked the MIS VM black on
>EEM paper.
>
>It gives me a grain that is similar to 35mm blow-ups.  On very light greys
>it can be an aquired taste though.  Recently my 1280 broke and I am now
>using an hp7960 with hp premium plus glossy, which gives me more of the
>large-format glamour look, but I will repair the 1280 soon and use BO again
>for the pictures that I want grain in.
>
>Hope that was helpful.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Boris Wiedenfeld
>
>www.bawphoto.com

Boris,

I like the HP dither pattern better than the Epson for BO prints.  What ink 
are you using?  The standard HP inks are very short-lived.

AZ
Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us

Hi Alan,

I use the BO method as well and I'm somewhat pleased with the 
results. I use an Epson 2200 and I'm noticing that my prints look 
too brown.

Would it be safe to use one of the MIS black inks in my printer when 
doing BO?  For color, I imagine I would need to put the Epson Matte 
Black back into the machine or the printer profiles would not work 
properly. Correct? Does anyone see a risk in trying this?

Anyone out there doing BO printing with a 2200 with an ink other 
than the epson black matte?
Thanks,
David

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Alan Zinn 
<AZinn@n...> wrote:
> At 04:34 PM 10/24/03 -0400, you wrote:
> >My experience with BO printing has been very good.  My preferred 
combination
> >was the MIS GP photo-black (Ultrachrome equiv) ink on the 
JetPrint Instant
> >dry glossy or Epson Premium Glossy for my 13x19.  I used the MIS 
bulk
> >bottles to refill cartridges.  For matte, I really liked the MIS 
VM black on
> >EEM paper.
> >
> >It gives me a grain that is similar to 35mm blow-ups.  On very 
light greys
> >it can be an aquired taste though.  Recently my 1280 broke and I 
am now
> >using an hp7960 with hp premium plus glossy, which gives me more 
of the
> >large-format glamour look, but I will repair the 1280 soon and 
use BO again
> >for the pictures that I want grain in.
> >
> >Hope that was helpful.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Boris Wiedenfeld
> >
> >www.bawphoto.com
> 
> Boris,
> 
> I like the HP dither pattern better than the Epson for BO prints.  
What ink 

> are you using?  The standard HP inks are very short-lived.
> 
> AZ
> Build a Lookaround!
> The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
> NOW SHIPPING
> http://www.panoramacamera.us

Hi David,

Am not familar with the full set of MIS gray scale inks, but I know that the double 
black in the color set does not produce a photo quality black.  Is it the densest ink 
used in the gray scale set, or different?

Thanks
Bill

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "David Sinai" <dsinai@y...> 
wrote:

> Hi Alan,
> 
> I use the BO method as well and I'm somewhat pleased with the 
> results. I use an Epson 2200 and I'm noticing that my prints look 
> too brown.
> 
> Would it be safe to use one of the MIS black inks in my printer when 
> doing BO?  For color, I imagine I would need to put the Epson Matte 
> Black back into the machine or the printer profiles would not work 
> properly. Correct? Does anyone see a risk in trying this?
> 
> Anyone out there doing BO printing with a 2200 with an ink other 
> than the epson black matte?
> Thanks,
> David
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Alan Zinn 
> <AZinn@n...> wrote:
> > At 04:34 PM 10/24/03 -0400, you wrote:
> > >My experience with BO printing has been very good.  My preferred 
> combination
> > >was the MIS GP photo-black (Ultrachrome equiv) ink on the 
> JetPrint Instant
> > >dry glossy or Epson Premium Glossy for my 13x19.  I used the MIS 
> bulk
> > >bottles to refill cartridges.  For matte, I really liked the MIS 
> VM black on
> > >EEM paper.
> > >
> > >It gives me a grain that is similar to 35mm blow-ups.  On very 
> light greys
> > >it can be an aquired taste though.  Recently my 1280 broke and I 
> am now
> > >using an hp7960 with hp premium plus glossy, which gives me more 
> of the
> > >large-format glamour look, but I will repair the 1280 soon and 
> use BO again
> > >for the pictures that I want grain in.
> > >
> > >Hope that was helpful.
> > >
> > >Cheers,
> > >
> > >Boris Wiedenfeld
> > >
> > >www.bawphoto.com
> > 
> > Boris,
> > 
> > I like the HP dither pattern better than the Epson for BO prints.  
> What ink 
> > are you using?  The standard HP inks are very short-lived.
> > 
> > AZ
> > Build a Lookaround!
> > The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
> > NOW SHIPPING
> > http://www.panoramacamera.us

> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 07:42:14 -0000
> From: "Mark Hahn" <markhahn2000@...>
> Subject: Re: PWP and Black only printing
> 
> No, I'll say it with respect to 2200 output.  It
> isn't "photographic."  It may work with some images, but it will read
> more like a photographic etching than a photograph.  My eyes aren't
> that good anymore (after turning 40), but I can clearly see the dots.


I print both ways with different profiles and on the fact that black only
will read more like an etching, you are 100 percent wrong. Maybe that is
your experience but after 25 plus years in the wet the BO prints that I make
look wonderful with or without comparing them to anything else, they
certainly don't look etched.
Image made from a Hassy, Scala film rated at 100, scanned on SS120 and
printed BO - these images rock.


> Maybe some people like it and maybe I'd like it for other images, but
> not many people are going to mistake it for a photograph.


Everyone that I have sold one to has mistaken it for a photograph, should I
give their money back and sell it as an etching??

Jerry

Jerry  -
 
Give them their money back.  Then charge them for an etching.  I think etchings bring a bigger buck!
 
Tom Baker

Jerry Hadam <jerry@...> wrote:
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 07:42:14 -0000
> From: "Mark Hahn" <markhahn2000@...>
> Subject: Re: PWP and Black only printing
> 
> No, I'll say it with respect to 2200 output.  It
> isn't "photographic."  It may work with some images, but it will read
> more like a photographic etching than a photograph.  My eyes aren't
> that good anymore (after turning 40), but I can clearly see the dots.


I print both ways with different profiles and on the fact that black only
will read more like an etching, you are 100 percent wrong. Maybe that is
your experience but after 25 plus years in the wet the BO prints that I make
look wonderful with or without comparing them to anything else, they
certainly don't look etched.
Image made from a Hassy, Scala film rated at 100, scanned on SS120 and
printed BO - these images rock.


> Maybe some people like it and maybe I'd like it for other images, but
> not many people are going to mistake it for a photograph.


Everyone that I have sold one to has mistaken it for a photograph, should I
give their money back and sell it as an etching??

Jerry




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


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

Not wishing to jump into the fray with too much enthusiasm but I have 
been using VM and UT for a few years now.
And have also tried BO printing on many occaisions, I love the 
luminance etc but as with many, can't stand the dots, whether its at 
2880 or 1440...

However....
I do find that there are images that print better with BO than with 
my hextone set.
A few months ago I narrowed down what seems to be a glaringly obvious 
point.  My scanned film has grain.  My Scala work and Neopan work has 
grain.  Film highlights have dots - its grain. Grain works well with 
BO printing - Eureka.  I have several prints from Neo400 / 1600 that 
look significantly better with BO than with hex.

Now on the digital side, I have used a Fuji S2 for about a year and 
the pretty much noisless/grainless output compared to my 35mm film 
work means that the BO dots are much more visible as the black tries 
to make up the clear highlight end of the spectrum.

Therefore both methods clearly have advantages.  For me, using a 
dedicated 1290 means I can do both.  Since I hardly ever use film 
anymore, I do tend to predominantly print with UTs, but I would never 
understimate the strength of portraits or landscapes containing 
reasonably high levels of noise or grain printed with Black ink only.

Regards

Steve

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
<tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
> Jerry  -
>  
> Give them their money back.  Then charge them for an etching.  I 
think etchings bring a bigger buck!
>  
> Tom Baker
> 
> Jerry Hadam <jerry@p...> wrote:
> > Message: 8
> > Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 07:42:14 -0000
> > From: "Mark Hahn" <markhahn2000@y...>
> > Subject: Re: PWP and Black only printing
> > 
> > No, I'll say it with respect to 2200 output.  It
> > isn't "photographic."  It may work with some images, but it will 
read
> > more like a photographic etching than a photograph.  My eyes 
aren't
> > that good anymore (after turning 40), but I can clearly see the 
dots.
> 
> 
> I print both ways with different profiles and on the fact that 
black only
> will read more like an etching, you are 100 percent wrong. Maybe 
that is
> your experience but after 25 plus years in the wet the BO prints 
that I make
> look wonderful with or without comparing them to anything else, they
> certainly don't look etched.
> Image made from a Hassy, Scala film rated at 100, scanned on SS120 
and
> printed BO - these images rock.
> 
> 
> > Maybe some people like it and maybe I'd like it for other images, 
but
> > not many people are going to mistake it for a photograph.
> 
> 
> Everyone that I have sold one to has mistaken it for a photograph, 
should I

> give their money back and sell it as an etching??
> 
> Jerry
>

Steve

I couldn't agree more! 

Any suggestions on how to bring back real, good looking
(old-fashioned) "grain" in(to) the world of digital B&W capture? So
far I haven't come across a software solution that can emulate the
special aesthetical quality of high-speed-film grain. 

Regards

Chatzebussi 

> A few months ago I narrowed down what seems to be a glaringly
obvious 
> point.  My scanned film has grain.  My Scala work and Neopan work
has 
> grain.  Film highlights have dots - its grain. Grain works well
with 
> BO printing - Eureka.  I have several prints from Neo400 / 1600
that 
> look significantly better with BO than with hex.
> 
> Now on the digital side, I have used a Fuji S2 for about a year and 
> the pretty much noisless/grainless output compared to my 35mm film 
> work means that the BO dots are much more visible as the black
tries 
> to make up the clear highlight end of the spectrum.

Maybe raise the digicam's ISO so you increase the noise level in the 
picture?

Rad

chatzebussi wrote:

> Steve
> 
> I couldn't agree more! 
> 
> Any suggestions on how to bring back real, good looking
> (old-fashioned) "grain" in(to) the world of digital B&W capture? So
> far I haven't come across a software solution that can emulate the
> special aesthetical quality of high-speed-film grain. 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Chatzebussi 
> 
> 
>>A few months ago I narrowed down what seems to be a glaringly
> 
> obvious 
> 
>>point.  My scanned film has grain.  My Scala work and Neopan work
> 
> has 
> 
>>grain.  Film highlights have dots - its grain. Grain works well
> 
> with 
> 
>>BO printing - Eureka.  I have several prints from Neo400 / 1600
> 
> that 
> 
>>look significantly better with BO than with hex.
>>
>>Now on the digital side, I have used a Fuji S2 for about a year and 
>>the pretty much noisless/grainless output compared to my 35mm film 
>>work means that the BO dots are much more visible as the black
> 
> tries 
> 
>>to make up the clear highlight end of the spectrum.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 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@yahoogroups.com, Conrad Weiser
<radimus@p...> wrote:

Rad

I think this not what I am after. At least I feel that noise and grain
are (visually) not the same. But then I am not an expert. Thanks
anyway for the hint.

Chatzebussi 

> Maybe raise the digicam's ISO so you increase the noise level in the 
> picture?
> 
> Rad
> 
> chatzebussi wrote:
> > Steve
> > 
> > I couldn't agree more! 
> > 
> > Any suggestions on how to bring back real, good looking
> > (old-fashioned) "grain" in(to) the world of digital B&W capture? So
> > far I haven't come across a software solution that can emulate the
> > special aesthetical quality of high-speed-film grain. 
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > Chatzebussi 
> > 
> > 
> >>A few months ago I narrowed down what seems to be a glaringly
> > 
> > obvious 
> > 
> >>point.  My scanned film has grain.  My Scala work and Neopan work
> > 
> > has 
> > 
> >>grain.  Film highlights have dots - its grain. Grain works well
> > 
> > with 
> > 
> >>BO printing - Eureka.  I have several prints from Neo400 / 1600
> > 
> > that 
> > 
> >>look significantly better with BO than with hex.
> >>
> >>Now on the digital side, I have used a Fuji S2 for about a year and 
> >>the pretty much noisless/grainless output compared to my 35mm film 
> >>work means that the BO dots are much more visible as the black
> > 
> > tries 
> > 
> >>to make up the clear highlight end of the spectrum.
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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/ 
> > 
> >

Playing with the Gaussian noise will yeild a decent grain effect.  I 
have played around with it trying to "hide" digital noise in 
the "grain."  To get a Tmax3200 kind of effect I may try printing one 
BO on a 2200... just might work out better that way.

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chatzebussi" 
<chatzebussi@y...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Conrad Weiser
> <radimus@p...> wrote:
> 
> Rad
> 
> I think this not what I am after. At least I feel that noise and 
grain
> are (visually) not the same. But then I am not an expert. Thanks
> anyway for the hint.
> 
> Chatzebussi 
> 
> > Maybe raise the digicam's ISO so you increase the noise level in 
the 
> > picture?
> > 
> > Rad
> > 
> > chatzebussi wrote:
> > > Steve
> > > 
> > > I couldn't agree more! 
> > > 
> > > Any suggestions on how to bring back real, good looking
> > > (old-fashioned) "grain" in(to) the world of digital B&W 
capture? So
> > > far I haven't come across a software solution that can emulate 
the
> > > special aesthetical quality of high-speed-film grain. 
> > > 
> > > Regards
> > > 
> > > Chatzebussi 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >>A few months ago I narrowed down what seems to be a glaringly
> > > 
> > > obvious 
> > > 
> > >>point.  My scanned film has grain.  My Scala work and Neopan 
work
> > > 
> > > has 
> > > 
> > >>grain.  Film highlights have dots - its grain. Grain works well
> > > 
> > > with 
> > > 
> > >>BO printing - Eureka.  I have several prints from Neo400 / 1600
> > > 
> > > that 
> > > 
> > >>look significantly better with BO than with hex.
> > >>
> > >>Now on the digital side, I have used a Fuji S2 for about a year 
and 
> > >>the pretty much noisless/grainless output compared to my 35mm 
film 
> > >>work means that the BO dots are much more visible as the black
> > > 
> > > tries 
> > > 
> > >>to make up the clear highlight end of the spectrum.
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 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/ 
> > > 
> > >

I have also tried gaussian noise, but in anything above a 2-3 pixel 
level it is clearly patterned on larger images.  In other words, the 
processing is done in tiles rather than as a whole image in one 
shot.  This tiling does lead to some patination, gaussian or not....
It does work OK to kill posterization or other artifacts though, as 
you said, hide noise with controlled noise.
BUT all said an done, I am happier with no noise - thats one of the 
reasons I went digital in the first place!

Kind regards

Steve


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hahn" 
<markhahn2000@y...> wrote:
> Playing with the Gaussian noise will yeild a decent grain effect.  
I 
> have played around with it trying to "hide" digital noise in 
> the "grain."  To get a Tmax3200 kind of effect I may try printing 
one 
> BO on a 2200... just might work out better that way.
> 
> mark
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chatzebussi" 
> <chatzebussi@y...> wrote:
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Conrad 
Weiser
> > <radimus@p...> wrote:
> > 
> > Rad
> > 
> > I think this not what I am after. At least I feel that noise and 
> grain
> > are (visually) not the same. But then I am not an expert. Thanks
> > anyway for the hint.
> > 
> > Chatzebussi 
> > 
> > > Maybe raise the digicam's ISO so you increase the noise level 
in 
> the 
> > > picture?
> > > 
> > > Rad
> > > 
> > > chatzebussi wrote:
> > > > Steve
> > > > 
> > > > I couldn't agree more! 
> > > > 
> > > > Any suggestions on how to bring back real, good looking
> > > > (old-fashioned) "grain" in(to) the world of digital B&W 
> capture? So
> > > > far I haven't come across a software solution that can 
emulate 
> the
> > > > special aesthetical quality of high-speed-film grain. 
> > > > 
> > > > Regards
> > > > 
> > > > Chatzebussi 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >>A few months ago I narrowed down what seems to be a glaringly
> > > > 
> > > > obvious 
> > > > 
> > > >>point.  My scanned film has grain.  My Scala work and Neopan 
> work
> > > > 
> > > > has 
> > > > 
> > > >>grain.  Film highlights have dots - its grain. Grain works 
well
> > > > 
> > > > with 
> > > > 
> > > >>BO printing - Eureka.  I have several prints from Neo400 / 
1600
> > > > 
> > > > that 
> > > > 
> > > >>look significantly better with BO than with hex.
> > > >>
> > > >>Now on the digital side, I have used a Fuji S2 for about a 
year 
> and 
> > > >>the pretty much noisless/grainless output compared to my 
35mm 
> film 
> > > >>work means that the BO dots are much more visible as the 
black
> > > > 
> > > > tries 
> > > > 
> > > >>to make up the clear highlight end of the spectrum.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 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/ 
> > > > 
> > > >

Mark

Sorry, but I am really not quite with you. Could you please enlighten
us on what you mean
by "playing around with the Gaussian noise" etc. How exactly do you
yield a TM 3200 effect - something I am actually after as an addict
available light street photographer. Thanks for sharing your workflow
knowledge.

Chatzebussi  



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hahn"
<markhahn2000@y...> wrote:
> Playing with the Gaussian noise will yeild a decent grain effect. 
I 
> have played around with it trying to "hide" digital noise in 
> the "grain."  To get a Tmax3200 kind of effect I may try printing
one 
> BO on a 2200... just might work out better that way.
> 
> mark
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chatzebussi" 
> <chatzebussi@y...> wrote:
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Conrad Weiser
> > <radimus@p...> wrote:
> > 
> > Rad
> > 
> > I think this not what I am after. At least I feel that noise and 
> grain
> > are (visually) not the same. But then I am not an expert. Thanks
> > anyway for the hint.
> > 
> > Chatzebussi 
> > 
> > > Maybe raise the digicam's ISO so you increase the noise level
in 
> the 
> > > picture?
> > > 
> > > Rad
> > > 
> > > chatzebussi wrote:
> > > > Steve
> > > > 
> > > > I couldn't agree more! 
> > > > 
> > > > Any suggestions on how to bring back real, good looking
> > > > (old-fashioned) "grain" in(to) the world of digital B&W 
> capture? So
> > > > far I haven't come across a software solution that can
emulate 
> the
> > > > special aesthetical quality of high-speed-film grain. 
> > > > 
> > > > Regards
> > > > 
> > > > Chatzebussi 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >>A few months ago I narrowed down what seems to be a glaringly
> > > > 
> > > > obvious 
> > > > 
> > > >>point.  My scanned film has grain.  My Scala work and Neopan 
> work
> > > > 
> > > > has 
> > > > 
> > > >>grain.  Film highlights have dots - its grain. Grain works
well
> > > > 
> > > > with 
> > > > 
> > > >>BO printing - Eureka.  I have several prints from Neo400 /
1600
> > > > 
> > > > that 
> > > > 
> > > >>look significantly better with BO than with hex.
> > > >>
> > > >>Now on the digital side, I have used a Fuji S2 for about a
year 
> and 
> > > >>the pretty much noisless/grainless output compared to my 35mm 
> film 
> > > >>work means that the BO dots are much more visible as the black
> > > > 
> > > > tries 
> > > > 
> > > >>to make up the clear highlight end of the spectrum.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 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/ 
> > > > 
> > > >

I didn't see this tiling effect.  Are you sure it wasn't just a 
display thing?  I do agree that I prefer no noise and I would 
probably attack the images with NeatImage first at this point, but it 
worked a couple times in the past and I managed to save images... 
isn't Tri-X though:)

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scrber" 
<stephen.bate@m...> wrote:
> I have also tried gaussian noise, but in anything above a 2-3 pixel 
> level it is clearly patterned on larger images.  In other words, 
the 
> processing is done in tiles rather than as a whole image in one 
> shot.  This tiling does lead to some patination, gaussian or not....
> It does work OK to kill posterization or other artifacts though, as 
> you said, hide noise with controlled noise.
> BUT all said an done, I am happier with no noise - thats one of the 
> reasons I went digital in the first place!
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hahn" 
> <markhahn2000@y...> wrote:
> > Playing with the Gaussian noise will yeild a decent grain 
effect.  
> I 
> > have played around with it trying to "hide" digital noise in 
> > the "grain."  To get a Tmax3200 kind of effect I may try printing 
> one 
> > BO on a 2200... just might work out better that way.
> > 
> > mark
> > 
> > --- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chatzebussi" 
> > <chatzebussi@y...> wrote:
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Conrad 
> Weiser
> > > <radimus@p...> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Rad
> > > 
> > > I think this not what I am after. At least I feel that noise 
and 
> > grain
> > > are (visually) not the same. But then I am not an expert. Thanks
> > > anyway for the hint.
> > > 
> > > Chatzebussi 
> > > 
> > > > Maybe raise the digicam's ISO so you increase the noise level 
> in 
> > the 
> > > > picture?
> > > > 
> > > > Rad
> > > > 
> > > > chatzebussi wrote:
> > > > > Steve
> > > > > 
> > > > > I couldn't agree more! 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Any suggestions on how to bring back real, good looking
> > > > > (old-fashioned) "grain" in(to) the world of digital B&W 
> > capture? So
> > > > > far I haven't come across a software solution that can 
> emulate 
> > the
> > > > > special aesthetical quality of high-speed-film grain. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > 
> > > > > Chatzebussi 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >>A few months ago I narrowed down what seems to be a 
glaringly
> > > > > 
> > > > > obvious 
> > > > > 
> > > > >>point.  My scanned film has grain.  My Scala work and 
Neopan 
> > work
> > > > > 
> > > > > has 
> > > > > 
> > > > >>grain.  Film highlights have dots - its grain. Grain works 
> well
> > > > > 
> > > > > with 
> > > > > 
> > > > >>BO printing - Eureka.  I have several prints from Neo400 / 
> 1600
> > > > > 
> > > > > that 
> > > > > 
> > > > >>look significantly better with BO than with hex.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Now on the digital side, I have used a Fuji S2 for about a 
> year 
> > and 
> > > > >>the pretty much noisless/grainless output compared to my 
> 35mm 
> > film 
> > > > >>work means that the BO dots are much more visible as the 
> black
> > > > > 
> > > > > tries 
> > > > > 
> > > > >>to make up the clear highlight end of the spectrum.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >  
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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/ 
> > > > > 
> > > > >

simple:

filter -> Noise -> Add Noise -> Gaussian, Monochromatic -> Play with 
percent till you like it.

sorry that it is so basic, but after playing around with 
grain "textures" etc. I decided that this gave me the best simulated 
grain.

mark

PS  ...and just tried it again and cannot make it tile the grain 
pattern no matter what I do.

PSS ...since almost everything in this world is approximately 
Gaussian you would expect film grain to be somewhat Gaussian as well.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chatzebussi" 
<chatzebussi@y...> wrote:
> Mark
> 
> Sorry, but I am really not quite with you. Could you please 
enlighten
> us on what you mean
> by "playing around with the Gaussian noise" etc. How exactly do you
> yield a TM 3200 effect - something I am actually after as an addict
> available light street photographer. Thanks for sharing your 
workflow
> knowledge.
> 
> Chatzebussi  
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hahn"
> <markhahn2000@y...> wrote:
> > Playing with the Gaussian noise will yeild a decent grain effect. 
> I 
> > have played around with it trying to "hide" digital noise in 
> > the "grain."  To get a Tmax3200 kind of effect I may try printing
> one 
> > BO on a 2200... just might work out better that way.
> > 
> > mark
> > 
> > --- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chatzebussi" 
> > <chatzebussi@y...> wrote:
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Conrad 
Weiser
> > > <radimus@p...> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Rad
> > > 
> > > I think this not what I am after. At least I feel that noise 
and 
> > grain
> > > are (visually) not the same. But then I am not an expert. Thanks
> > > anyway for the hint.
> > > 
> > > Chatzebussi 
> > > 
> > > > Maybe raise the digicam's ISO so you increase the noise level
> in 
> > the 
> > > > picture?
> > > > 
> > > > Rad
> > > > 
> > > > chatzebussi wrote:
> > > > > Steve
> > > > > 
> > > > > I couldn't agree more! 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Any suggestions on how to bring back real, good looking
> > > > > (old-fashioned) "grain" in(to) the world of digital B&W 
> > capture? So
> > > > > far I haven't come across a software solution that can
> emulate 
> > the
> > > > > special aesthetical quality of high-speed-film grain. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > 
> > > > > Chatzebussi 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >>A few months ago I narrowed down what seems to be a 
glaringly
> > > > > 
> > > > > obvious 
> > > > > 
> > > > >>point.  My scanned film has grain.  My Scala work and 
Neopan 
> > work
> > > > > 
> > > > > has 
> > > > > 
> > > > >>grain.  Film highlights have dots - its grain. Grain works
> well
> > > > > 
> > > > > with 
> > > > > 
> > > > >>BO printing - Eureka.  I have several prints from Neo400 /
> 1600
> > > > > 
> > > > > that 
> > > > > 
> > > > >>look significantly better with BO than with hex.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Now on the digital side, I have used a Fuji S2 for about a
> year 
> > and 
> > > > >>the pretty much noisless/grainless output compared to my 
35mm 
> > film 
> > > > >>work means that the BO dots are much more visible as the 
black
> > > > > 
> > > > > tries 
> > > > > 
> > > > >>to make up the clear highlight end of the spectrum.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >  
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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/ 
> > > > > 
> > > > >

scrber wrote:

> I am happier with no noise - thats one of the 
>reasons I went digital in the first place!
>
>  
>
"Less" noise you mean....

Digital has noise..

 
Keith Krebs

"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/EPSON_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

chatzebussi wrote:

>Steve
>
>I couldn't agree more! 
>
>Any suggestions on how to bring back real, good looking
>(old-fashioned) "grain" in(to) the world of digital B&W capture?
>
Yup, start with a low ISO capture...

If you captured at a High ISO I recommend cleaning the image up with 
Neat Image, Quantum Mechanic, Grain Surgery,  or something similar 
before doing anything else., or else you have noise in shadows already, 
over which you will overlay grain.. ugh..

Step two:

Convert to B&W in whatever manner preferred..

Personally I like Convert to B&W Pro or the Silver Oxide Filters..

With these plug-ins I can choose the film toe and spectral response to 
mimic any one of  a number of film types AND  they both allow  me to use 
"colored filters" prior to the  conversion, as one would when shooting 
B&W..  I started doing this stuff with Convert to B&W Pro, but currently 
I strongly prefer the Silver Oxide offerings, pricier as they may be.

Convert to B&W Pro is at:

http://www.theimagingfactory.com/

The Silver Oxide filters (including 16 bit native versions and 
Carbonized versions!) are at:
http://www.silveroxide.com/

Ok, so now I've got something that looks like a grainless version of a 
film-based B&W image should...

Now I use Grain Surgery v2..

Not only does it allow me to add grain from its own library of built-in 
film-type presets, BUT I can also sample grain from images I have, store 
the sample and use that patterning as a template for future images I 
want to add grain in..  It's relatively intelligent, in that it treats 
grain at different grey levels differently...

Find it at:

http://www.visinf.com/

IF done correctly, the final image is very film-like, often 
undistinguishable from a film original when printed..


 
Keith Krebs

"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/EPSON_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

On 27/11/03 12:27 am, "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com"
<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Any suggestions on how to bring back real, good looking
> (old-fashioned) "grain" in(to) the world of digital B&W capture? So
> far I haven't come across a software solution that can emulate the
> special aesthetical quality of high-speed-film grain.

You could take a look at Pixelgenius PhotoKit which has a grain feature
imitating film speed.

--
Regards
David Prakel

Centre of Britain PhotoWorkshops Partnership
www.photopartners.co.uk

On 27/11/03 12:27 am, "Conrad Weiser"
<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Maybe raise the digicam's ISO so you increase the noise level in the
> picture?

Tends to create chromanoise rather than grain of the dye cloud/grain related
look of colour film. Quite appealing but definitely not film grain.

--
Regards
David Prakel

Centre of Britain PhotoWorkshops Partnership
www.photopartners.co.uk

> 
> PS  ...and just tried it again and cannot make it tile the grain 
> pattern no matter what I do.

Odd....
I was just looking at a 10x15 Scala scan that I added a fair amount 
of grain to (about 6 I seem to remember) in order to really push the 
look.  I can see patination.
I agree with smaller amounts it is totally indestinguishable.  I am 
interested in your results though.  I almost gave up on this ages ago.
Can you see anything on print (or screen) with high levels?


> 
> PSS ...since almost everything in this world is approximately 
> Gaussian you would expect film grain to be somewhat Gaussian as 
well.
>

Yeh, OK, less noise!  ;-)

(that said, a 100ISO S2 shot, run through Neat Image comes out as 
smooth and, dare I say it, 'noise free' as I could imagine - Even 
PANF50 or TMax100 doesn't compare to my eyes)

Kind regards
Steve


> scrber wrote:
> 
> > I am happier with no noise - thats one of the 
> >reasons I went digital in the first place!
> >
> >  
> >
> "Less" noise you mean....
> 
> Digital has noise..
> 
>  
> Keith Krebs
> 
> "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/EPSON_Printers/
>  
> "For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks 
together 
> guys"

I just spent the evening reviewing quadtone prints
made with filmscans (Coolscan IV) verses eos 10d
capture.  the 10d images were captured in RAW mode,
and converted to 16 bit greyscale tiffs.

The negatives scanned by the coolscan were Fuji Neopan
400 developed in PMK Pyro.  Very grainy and quite
lush. This film/developer combination gives a look
similar to development in Rodinal 1:25 - very sharp
and well defined grain but much better highlights.

In addition, I scanned neopan negatives that were
developed in d76 1:1.  This developer produces much
less acutance than PMK, but very smooth transitions
and masks the grain of Neopan.

The neopan negatives developed in d76 were for all
purposes identical to images shot with the 10d.  I do
not intensly sharpen my images, but use the "local
contrast technique" for shapening.  Settings in
Photoshop using Unsharp Mask: Amount=500, Radius=.2
(or .3), Threshold=0.  

Due to the construction of the sensor or some other
technical reason I really don't care about, this
practice of sharpening produces images that have an
exceptional film quality.  I print via quadtone and R9
driver, and I must stress that these images are more
similar to the d76 1:1 negatives and are quite smooth
in tonality with an inherent film grain look.

I would rather have the look of my grainy negatives
via 10d - but have not found a solution that does not
look photoshopped.  After scanning and spending hours
repairing the image with clone stamp and fixing a
scratch - I'll gladly give that up for a total digital
workflow.  Besides, printing via BO gives a similar
texture, and it is quick and easy.

Don

--- PhotoWorkshops Partnership
<info@...> wrote:

> 
> > Any suggestions on how to bring back real, good
> looking
> > (old-fashioned) "grain" in(to) the world of
> digital B&W capture? So
> > far I haven't come across a software solution that
> can emulate the
> > special aesthetical quality of high-speed-film
> grain.
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

At 09:58 PM 11/26/03 +0000, you wrote:
>Mark
>
>Sorry, but I am really not quite with you. Could you please enlighten
>us on what you mean
>by "playing around with the Gaussian noise" etc. How exactly do you
>yield a TM 3200 effect - something I am actually after as an addict
>available light street photographer. Thanks for sharing your workflow
>knowledge.
>
>Chatzebussi
>
>
>
> > > Rad
> > >
> > > I think this not what I am after. At least I feel that noise and
> > grain
> > > are (visually) not the same. But then I am not an expert. Thanks
> > > anyway for the hint.
> > >
> > > Chatzebussi

Chatzebussi,

No - you are an expert!  You know what you like and why you like it.  It 
seems outrageous to me that someone would even think that they should try 
and mimic the effect of one type of photography for another and expect 
anything but crap.  OK I'll give some ground to illustrators who are 
looking to emulate a "look" for a certain effect i.e. Polaroid borders and 
antique processes - but that's a PS illustration art.  Seems to me finding 
the highest level of craft and special qualities in the 
"straight"  (if  that concept can even apply now) digital mode would 
produce far more worthwhile images.

just a rant

AZ


Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us

I can't get this, even going to 400% and all enlargerments.  Don't 
know... 

I don't generally do this, only there were a few personal 
snapshot/portraits which were blurry and noisy and the effect let me 
turn out a few mantle photos...

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scrber" 
<stephen.bate@m...> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > PS  ...and just tried it again and cannot make it tile the grain 
> > pattern no matter what I do.
> 
> Odd....
> I was just looking at a 10x15 Scala scan that I added a fair amount 
> of grain to (about 6 I seem to remember) in order to really push 
the 
> look.  I can see patination.
> I agree with smaller amounts it is totally indestinguishable.  I am 
> interested in your results though.  I almost gave up on this ages 
ago.

> Can you see anything on print (or screen) with high levels?
> 
> 
> > 
> > PSS ...since almost everything in this world is approximately 
> > Gaussian you would expect film grain to be somewhat Gaussian as 
> well.
> >

Ummm, aren't you saying that you already have the solution using BO 
printing?

...when I first started with digital I gave this some thought and did 
a few tests... the size of the visible grain clumps in *my* Tri-X D76 
negatives is smaller than a single pixel in your 10d... as a first 
step you will probably have to interpolate you image up so your pixel 
size is at bare minimum 1/3 the size of your simulated grain clump.  
The answer is probably in Fourier analysis and filtering... but then 
you have to deal with your dithering... don't think you can "really" 
get there...

...I decided that mimicing another medium wasn't my aim and forgot 
about it.

mark

...
> I would rather have the look of my grainy negatives
> via 10d - but have not found a solution that does not
> look photoshopped.  After scanning and spending hours
> repairing the image with clone stamp and fixing a
> scratch - I'll gladly give that up for a total digital
> workflow.  Besides, printing via BO gives a similar
> texture, and it is quick and easy.
...

Black only but with for example two heads. Has that been tried ?
If the total inklimit is set to be not higher than 100% for both
heads you get at least the weaving of two heads. That must give
less banding etc.

When the Epson 10000 was introduced the BO printing was not good
enough. Epson later on added 8 pass BO printing and the quality
became much better. But the 10000 has 180 nozzles per colour.
That can only be simulated with more heads on other printers.

A RIP like QTR is needed then.

Ernst

Hi Don, do I understand it that you found the same things I did back 
at the start of this thread, that printing BO with grainy B&W film 
has a similar / sometimes better finish and look to the same image 
printed in Hextone.  AND then visa versa for the digitial image?

I certainly found that BO was lovely with my Neopan400 work, but I 
couldn't really put up with it for digital capture.  The BO 
produced 'grain' in it's laydown of the black ink, but as grain was 
an inherant quality in the print/film itself it was not unnatural.  
For the digital image, you are essentially printing 'clean' and the 
dots are an addition, sometimes an unwelcome one, to the end print.

Kind regards

Steve


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "D. Hill" 
<hill14701@y...> wrote:

> I just spent the evening reviewing quadtone prints
> made with filmscans (Coolscan IV) verses eos 10d
> capture.  the 10d images were captured in RAW mode,
> and converted to 16 bit greyscale tiffs.
> 
> The negatives scanned by the coolscan were Fuji Neopan
> 400 developed in PMK Pyro.  Very grainy and quite
> lush. This film/developer combination gives a look
> similar to development in Rodinal 1:25 - very sharp
> and well defined grain but much better highlights.
> 
> In addition, I scanned neopan negatives that were
> developed in d76 1:1.  This developer produces much
> less acutance than PMK, but very smooth transitions
> and masks the grain of Neopan.
> 
> The neopan negatives developed in d76 were for all
> purposes identical to images shot with the 10d.  I do
> not intensly sharpen my images, but use the "local
> contrast technique" for shapening.  Settings in
> Photoshop using Unsharp Mask: Amount=500, Radius=.2
> (or .3), Threshold=0.  
> 
> Due to the construction of the sensor or some other
> technical reason I really don't care about, this
> practice of sharpening produces images that have an
> exceptional film quality.  I print via quadtone and R9
> driver, and I must stress that these images are more
> similar to the d76 1:1 negatives and are quite smooth
> in tonality with an inherent film grain look.
> 
> I would rather have the look of my grainy negatives
> via 10d - but have not found a solution that does not
> look photoshopped.  After scanning and spending hours
> repairing the image with clone stamp and fixing a
> scratch - I'll gladly give that up for a total digital
> workflow.  Besides, printing via BO gives a similar
> texture, and it is quick and easy.
> 
> Don
> 
> --- PhotoWorkshops Partnership
> <info@p...> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > Any suggestions on how to bring back real, good
> > looking
> > > (old-fashioned) "grain" in(to) the world of
> > digital B&W capture? So
> > > far I haven't come across a software solution that
> > can emulate the
> > > special aesthetical quality of high-speed-film
> > grain.
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

Steve,

I use BO sparingly - and that is dependant on the
image.  Most of my work is printed quadtone via piezo
driver.  That work (printed 8x12) is what is pretty
much identical to the neopan 400 in d76 1:1 when shot
with the 10d.

--- scrber <stephen.bate@...> wrote:

> 
> I certainly found that BO was lovely with my
> Neopan400 work, but I 
> couldn't really put up with it for digital capture. 
> The BO 
> produced 'grain' in it's laydown of the black ink,
> but as grain was 
> an inherant quality in the print/film itself it was
> not unnatural.  
> For the digital image, you are essentially printing
> 'clean' and the 
> dots are an addition, sometimes an unwelcome one, to
> the end print.
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Steve


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree