Digital BW, The Print

I am getting my workflow up and running and I have alot of silver 
based black and white negatives processed at a commercial lab.  My 
scans with the nikon V scanner is showing the negatives with 
scratches.  Does the Nikon V cause these minor scratches?  I am sure 
it is from the lab that processed the film.  It takes about 30 
minutes to clean a picture before printing.

I plan to develop myself soon so hopefully it will be fixed.  Anyone 
else have this problem.

thanks

I doubt it's the scanner. Damn near impossible. I have those problems
with everyone who develops my XP2 except for a very good pro lab which
is priced accordingly. I eliminate the problem by shooting traditional
b&w film and developing it myself.
Bob Michaels

 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "spersky123"
<spersky@s...> wrote:

> I am getting my workflow up and running and I have alot of silver 
> based black and white negatives processed at a commercial lab.  My 
> scans with the nikon V scanner is showing the negatives with 
> scratches.  Does the Nikon V cause these minor scratches?  I am sure 
> it is from the lab that processed the film.  It takes about 30 
> minutes to clean a picture before printing.
> 
> I plan to develop myself soon so hopefully it will be fixed.  Anyone 
> else have this problem.
> 
> thanks

I doubt it is the scanner as well.

Although I develop my own B&W negs, I still get some
minor scratches here and there.  It happens even
though I am as careful as possible.  My guess is that
it happens while putting the film on the reels.

Cleaning B&W negatives in PS prior to printing is,
without a doubt, the most time consuming and
monotonous part of my digital workflow.

Too bad ICE doesn't work with B&W!!


--- Bob Michaels <bob@...> wrote:
> I doubt it's the scanner. Damn near impossible. I
> have those problems
> with everyone who develops my XP2 except for a very
> good pro lab which
> is priced accordingly. I eliminate the problem by
> shooting traditional
> b&w film and developing it myself.
> Bob Michaels
> 
>  --- In
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> "spersky123"
> <spersky@s...> wrote:
> > I am getting my workflow up and running and I have
> alot of silver 
> > based black and white negatives processed at a
> commercial lab.  My 
> > scans with the nikon V scanner is showing the
> negatives with 
> > scratches.  Does the Nikon V cause these minor
> scratches?  I am sure 
> > it is from the lab that processed the film.  It
> takes about 30 
> > minutes to clean a picture before printing.
> > 
> > I plan to develop myself soon so hopefully it will
> be fixed.  Anyone 
> > else have this problem.
> > 
> > thanks
> 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

after I went to scanning I was horrified at all the dust and 
scratches that I had to deal with so out of curiosity I took out a 
bunch of old traditionally printed photos that I thought I was happy 
with and looked at them under a loupe... guess what?  They had all 
the same dust and scratches that I saw in my scans... but with those 
scans I had only worried about what showed up on the print.  The 
problem with PSing is that it is an instant loupe and you start 
wanting everything perfect at that level instead of on the print.

mark

Yep.

I've done an experiment to see just how much cleanup to do. Print a
section from an image as big as you ever think you'll make a print. For
me, that was about a 12inch square from what would have been a 40x50
inch print (from a 4x5 original). Then do your best to clean it up in
Photoshop and print the section again. Put the prints side by side under
the same lights and see how much difference it makes to you. 

This may help you decide how much work to do. In my case, it made me
think I should just suck it up and clean up as best I could. You don't
have to live with the little imperfections anymore - especially in clear
tones like open sky. Barely visible, is still visible.

The reason to do the test is, YMMV.


On Sat, 2004-03-27 at 12:43, Mark Hahn wrote:

> after I went to scanning I was horrified at all the dust and 
> scratches that I had to deal with so out of curiosity I took out a 
> bunch of old traditionally printed photos that I thought I was happy 
> with and looked at them under a loupe... guess what?  They had all 
> the same dust and scratches that I saw in my scans... but with those 
> scans I had only worried about what showed up on the print.  The 
> problem with PSing is that it is an instant loupe and you start 
> wanting everything perfect at that level instead of on the print.
> 
> mark







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

Yeah, well... even without doing the test I just do the cleanup as 
good as possible :)

In other fields I have heard the phrase, "computers haven't made 
things easier, they've just raised the bar for what is expected."  A 
friend of mine has 3 Ansel Adams prints and they are all spotted 
quite poorly...

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth 
<hogarth@s...> wrote:
> Yep.
> 
> I've done an experiment to see just how much cleanup to do. Print a
> section from an image as big as you ever think you'll make a print. 
For
> me, that was about a 12inch square from what would have been a 40x50
> inch print (from a 4x5 original). Then do your best to clean it up 
in
> Photoshop and print the section again. Put the prints side by side 
under
> the same lights and see how much difference it makes to you. 
> 
> This may help you decide how much work to do. In my case, it made me
> think I should just suck it up and clean up as best I could. You 
don't
> have to live with the little imperfections anymore - especially in 
clear
> tones like open sky. Barely visible, is still visible.
> 
> The reason to do the test is, YMMV.
> 
> 
> On Sat, 2004-03-27 at 12:43, Mark Hahn wrote:
> 
> > after I went to scanning I was horrified at all the dust and 
> > scratches that I had to deal with so out of curiosity I took out 
a 
> > bunch of old traditionally printed photos that I thought I was 
happy 
> > with and looked at them under a loupe... guess what?  They had 
all 
> > the same dust and scratches that I saw in my scans... but with 
those 

> > scans I had only worried about what showed up on the print.  The 
> > problem with PSing is that it is an instant loupe and you start 
> > wanting everything perfect at that level instead of on the print.
> > 
> > mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]