Digital BW, The Print

I'm new to digital B&W output, but I've already fallen in love with
it.  I have found one little annoyance though. (OK.  One that I want
help with)  I've found that when I go from scanned B&W originals, I
get substantially more grain than I'm used to in wet printing.  Does
anyone have any suggestions on how to minimize this effect, other than
going to digital capture (lets avoid that debate) or getting a better
scanner (Already use an Imacon 848)?

Thanks,
Doug

> From: djbibo1 [mailto:djbibo1@...]
> 
> I'm new to digital B&W output, but I've already fallen in love with
> it.  I have found one little annoyance though. (OK.  One that I want
> help with)  I've found that when I go from scanned B&W originals, I
> get substantially more grain than I'm used to in wet printing.  Does
> anyone have any suggestions on how to minimize this effect, other than
> going to digital capture (lets avoid that debate) or getting a better
> scanner (Already use an Imacon 848)?

Are you seeing grain from your originals, or the actual ink dots?

--

Ciao,                   Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                    mailto:pderocco@...

Drop the resolution of your scan, you are scanning the grain. Try it 
lower and lower until you see a difference. Of course you can not get 
too low or you will not have enough resolution to make a print. But 
remember, there IS grain in film.
Mark

On Jul 20, 2004, at 2:55 AM, Paul D. DeRocco wrote:

> > From: djbibo1 [mailto:djbibo1@...]
>  >
>  > I'm new to digital B&W output, but I've already fallen in love with
>  > it.� I have found one little annoyance though. (OK.� One that I want
>  > help with)� I've found that when I go from scanned B&W originals, I
>  > get substantially more grain than I'm used to in wet printing.� Does
>  > anyone have any suggestions on how to minimize this effect, other 
> than
>  > going to digital capture (lets avoid that debate) or getting a 
> better
>  > scanner (Already use an Imacon 848)?
>
>  Are you seeing grain from your originals, or the actual ink dots?
>
>  --
>
>  Ciao,������������������ Paul D. DeRocco
>  Paul������������������� mailto:pderocco@...
>
>
>
>  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
>  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
>  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
>  - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
>  - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>  BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� 
> AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE� �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <lrec_companion_043004.gif>
> <l.gif>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> 	� 	To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> �
> 	� 	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@...m
> �
> 	� 	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
> Service.
>
>  

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

I don't know if this applies to the Imacon but on my Nikon 8000 I often scan
BW negs as color transparencies to minimize the appearance of grain and
banding in highlights.

Wendel

> I'm new to digital B&W output, but I've already fallen in love with it.  I
> have found one little annoyance though. (OK.  One that I want help with) 
> I've found that when I go from scanned B&W originals, I get substantially
> more grain than I'm used to in wet printing.  Does anyone have any
> suggestions on how to minimize this effect, other than going to digital
> capture (lets avoid that debate) or getting a better scanner (Already use an
> Imacon 848)?

Check out grain-minimizing software such as Neat Image (www.neatimage.com) 
or Grain Surgery (www.grainsurgery.com). I've tried both and prefer Neat 
Image. The Pro version works as a Photoshop plugin and is full of options 
and controls. You scan even-toned portions of your image, and it builds a 
grain-reduction profile that you apply to your image to a greater or lesser 
degree. The improvement in smoothness and grain reduction is astonishing. I 
then follow up my reduced-grain images with Ultra Sharpen 
(www.ultrasharpen.com) which sharpens edges without re-sharpening what's 
left of the grain. The resulting images are sharp and as grainless as I wish.

>  From: djbibo1 [mailto:djbibo1@...]
>
>I'm new to digital B&W output, but I've already fallen in love with it.  I 
>have found one little annoyance though. (OK.  One that I want help 
>with)  I've found that when I go from scanned B&W originals, I get 
>substantially more grain than I'm used to in wet printing.  Does anyone 
>have any suggestions on how to minimize this effect, other than going to 
>digital capture (lets avoid that debate) or getting a better scanner 
>(Already use an Imacon 848)?


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

Doug,

>...I've found that when I go from scanned B&W originals, I
>get substantially more grain than I'm used to in wet printing.  ...

That was one of my early impressions also.  Coming from the darkroom, I'd
settled on Tmax 100 developed to maximize sharpness (at the cost of more
grain).  However, with digital, I've had to go the opposite direction.  The
"Unsharp mask" tool makes sharpness (relative local contrast) easy, but
getting rid of the grain seems much harder.  So, I switched from Tmax and my
sharpening development routine to Tech Pan to get the best grain, even if
the sharpness is not as good as my old Tmax.

Many say it is the scanners that do this.  So, I took an enlarged test chart
and matched the local contrast with a scanned test chart.  The relative
grain was the same.  The main difference I saw was that the enlarged test
chart was simply soft compared to what I was able to do with Photoshop. 

My conclusion is that, while there are differences in spectral v. diffusion
light sources in the various enlargers and scanners, the main differences
are that the lenses are very effective at softening grain, and unsharp
masking is magic that allows us to make much sharper images than was easily
possible in the enlarger days.  This sharpness, however, includes the grain.

I use the GEM system and have Neat as well to control the grain.  Both are
quite effective.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Hey Paul,

What's the GEM system?  I'm familiar with NeatImage.  How do they 
compare?
Thanks,
Randy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Doug,
> 
> >...I've found that when I go from scanned B&W originals, I
> >get substantially more grain than I'm used to in wet printing.  ...
> 
> That was one of my early impressions also.  Coming from the 
darkroom, I'd
> settled on Tmax 100 developed to maximize sharpness (at the cost of 
more
> grain).  However, with digital, I've had to go the opposite 
direction.  The
> "Unsharp mask" tool makes sharpness (relative local contrast) easy, 
but
> getting rid of the grain seems much harder.  So, I switched from 
Tmax and my
> sharpening development routine to Tech Pan to get the best grain, 
even if
> the sharpness is not as good as my old Tmax.
> 
> Many say it is the scanners that do this.  So, I took an enlarged 
test chart
> and matched the local contrast with a scanned test chart.  The 
relative
> grain was the same.  The main difference I saw was that the 
enlarged test
> chart was simply soft compared to what I was able to do with 
Photoshop. 
> 
> My conclusion is that, while there are differences in spectral v. 
diffusion
> light sources in the various enlargers and scanners, the main 
differences
> are that the lenses are very effective at softening grain, and 
unsharp
> masking is magic that allows us to make much sharper images than 
was easily
> possible in the enlarger days.  This sharpness, however, includes 
the grain.
> 
> I use the GEM system and have Neat as well to control the grain.  
Both are

> quite effective.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

GEM is the Applied Science Fiction (now Kodak) grain reduction software that
is built into my Nikon 8000.  It works well.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Rancier [mailto:rrancier@...] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:48 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Grain

Hey Paul,

What's the GEM system?  I'm familiar with NeatImage.  How do they 
compare?
Thanks,
Randy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Doug,
> 
> >...I've found that when I go from scanned B&W originals, I
> >get substantially more grain than I'm used to in wet printing.  ...
> 
> That was one of my early impressions also.  Coming from the 
darkroom, I'd
> settled on Tmax 100 developed to maximize sharpness (at the cost of 
more
> grain).  However, with digital, I've had to go the opposite 
direction.  The
> "Unsharp mask" tool makes sharpness (relative local contrast) easy, 
but
> getting rid of the grain seems much harder.  So, I switched from 
Tmax and my
> sharpening development routine to Tech Pan to get the best grain, 
even if
> the sharpness is not as good as my old Tmax.
> 
> Many say it is the scanners that do this.  So, I took an enlarged 
test chart
> and matched the local contrast with a scanned test chart.  The 
relative
> grain was the same.  The main difference I saw was that the 
enlarged test
> chart was simply soft compared to what I was able to do with 
Photoshop. 
> 
> My conclusion is that, while there are differences in spectral v. 
diffusion
> light sources in the various enlargers and scanners, the main 
differences
> are that the lenses are very effective at softening grain, and 
unsharp
> masking is magic that allows us to make much sharper images than 
was easily
> possible in the enlarger days.  This sharpness, however, includes 
the grain.
> 
> I use the GEM system and have Neat as well to control the grain.  
Both are
> quite effective.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Back in the 80's I used to love Tech pan.  Then technidol became
scarce and pricy, so I stopped.  What dev do you use?  

I was doing a comparrison to see which film I liked best.  645 capture
up to 14X20 output. I shot about every B&W film from Kodak(except TP),
Ilford, Agfa, & Fuji, plus some color neg, and trans, and dig to see
which I liked best.  (My motto is "Testing proves that testing works")
 I expected to see a bit of grain from the TX etc. but not from the
Acros and the Pan F.   The color neg that I converted seemed to do a
bit better.  The trans did wonderful on grain -- suckie on sharpness
and local contrast. Didn't try scala. Actually, the best of the film
capture was the XP-2. As a film guy I shouldn't bring up what the
digital capture (10D) looked like.

I have not tried GEM or NEATIMAGE, but have tried NoiseNinja, and its
affectiveness on film capture was iffy.  I'll try again.

Thanks,
db




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Doug,
> 
> >...I've found that when I go from scanned B&W originals, I
> >get substantially more grain than I'm used to in wet printing.  ...
> 
> That was one of my early impressions also.  Coming from the
darkroom, I'd
> settled on Tmax 100 developed to maximize sharpness (at the cost of more
> grain).  However, with digital, I've had to go the opposite
direction.  The
> "Unsharp mask" tool makes sharpness (relative local contrast) easy, but
> getting rid of the grain seems much harder.  So, I switched from
Tmax and my
> sharpening development routine to Tech Pan to get the best grain,
even if
> the sharpness is not as good as my old Tmax.
> 
> Many say it is the scanners that do this.  So, I took an enlarged
test chart
> and matched the local contrast with a scanned test chart.  The relative
> grain was the same.  The main difference I saw was that the enlarged
test
> chart was simply soft compared to what I was able to do with Photoshop. 
> 
> My conclusion is that, while there are differences in spectral v.
diffusion
> light sources in the various enlargers and scanners, the main
differences
> are that the lenses are very effective at softening grain, and unsharp
> masking is magic that allows us to make much sharper images than was
easily
> possible in the enlarger days.  This sharpness, however, includes
the grain.
> 
> I use the GEM system and have Neat as well to control the grain. 
Both are

> quite effective.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com