Digital BW, The Print

Hi Peter,

I don't know if this will make you feel any better, but your findings are
depressingly familiar to mine with medium speed B&W film. You hit the nail on
the head when you say that a darkroom print doesn't show the same problem --
there is something happening in the interaction between the scanner and the
film. Out of interest, if you compare 10x8 prints, both wet process and
digital, is the digital print appreciably sharper? If so, you could soften the
digital print slightly to average out the speckle and still end up with a
print about as sharp as the traditionally made one. Not ideal, I know.

Anyway, here's my 2p theory about what causes the problem we're both seeing.
Consider the grain structure in the developed film, on a microscopic level. It
consists of clouds of stringy-looking metalic silver arranged very randomly.
Kodak have a shortish article about all this, including some nice
photomicrograph illustrations:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/students/handbook/sensitometric6.jhtml

From that article:

"At magnifications where the eye cannot distinguish individual particles, it
resolves random groupings of these particles into denser and less dense areas.
As magnification decreases, the observer progressively associates larger
groups of spots as new units of graininess. The size of these compounded
groups gets larger as the magnification decreases, but the amplitude (the
difference in density between the darker and the lighter areas) decreases. At
still lower magnifications, the graininess disappears altogether because no
granular structure can be seen"

Clearly each sensor site in your scanner's CCD is looking at a fairly small
area. It can't resolve individual grains but it can certainly see small enough
clumps that the amplitude will vary quite widely. (Referring to the article,
each pixel of the sensor is behaving very much like the small aperture used to
scan films when testing for RMS granularity.)

I believe we are seeing this effect right across our images, but we are less
concerned about it in the high and mid tone areas because in traditional
processes we always see a bit of grain there. However, when we see it in the
shadows, our immediate reaction is to assume it's scanner noise. In fact, when
scanning negs, the signal to noise ratio should be at its best in the shadow
region of the image.

There are a couple of things that can help reduce the problem. We can soften
the image post-scan as I suggested above, but none of us want to lose any hard
won sharpness. Using a scanner with a more diffuse lightsource can make a big
difference. Scanners such as Epson flatbeds do tend to give slightly softer
images than dedicated film scanners, but more importantly their flat
lightsources don't throw the grain structure into such sharp relief, meaning
that the local variations in density are less dramatic.

Sorry if this doesn't help you get better results out of the equipment you
already have. I mention these issues in the hope that discussion of them will
eventually lead to better solutions being found. I have seen major exhibitions
of digital prints by "big name" artists where shadow speckle has been visible,
so it's not just us!

Best regards,

-= mike =-

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter A. Klein [mailto:pklein@...]
Sent: 15 August 2004 10:35
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Shadow noise in scans


Folks:  I frequently encounter shadow noise in my scans. I can 
usually work around it, but I'm wondering if there is something I can 
do--perhaps while scanning--to minimize it.

Have a look at this:
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/temp/noise.jpg

This picture was taken with an M6TTL and CV 50/1.5 Nokton, on Kodak 
T400CN rated 400.  It was taken in a dim reception hall, but the 
subjects were illuminated by a shaft of light from some nearby large 
windows, and I exposed for them, not the background.  The scanner is 
a Canon FS-4000, run at 4000 dpi and driven by VueScan.  I scan to 16 
bit TIFF, and use Picture Window Pro in 16 bit mode for my editing.  
The various versions of the picture are shown at 1/3 actual pixels.

The leftmost image is of the scan pretty much out of the scanner (I'd 
spotted and cropped, but that's all).  You can see the noise in the 
darkest areas.  This is the kind of noise I am often plagued with.  
It tends to happen more often in available light pictures than well-
lit outdoor shots.  It doesn't show much on a 5x7 quadtone print, but 
is quite prominent on an 8x10.  And if I get the same picture printed 
in a wet darkroom, the noise isn't there. 

The center image is what I ended up with after curves, contrast, and 
sharpening (the latter using a mask so only the people were 
sharpened, not the surrounding area.  I've dropped the background to 
nearly jet-black, but there are still lots of noise speckles.  And 
I've lost some gradation in the girl's hair.

The righthand image has been noise-filtered with NeatImage before 
curves, etc.  I used it sparingly so it wouldn't soften 
or "plasticize" the image too much.  It's helped, but the noise still 
shows up--more in a print that on the screen.  I've found that most 
of the time, when I use NeatImage or Picture Window's Despeckle 
feature, I can only get rid of some of the noise before the image 
gets messed up.

What might I try to get rid of this noise?  Is there anything can I 
do to minimize it during the scan?  I've tried the multiple exposure 
feature in VueScan, and it doesn't really help with this type of 
noise.  

BTW, here's the whole picture.  This one is a reduction of the Costco 
CD Jpeg I got when the film was developed.  They went way dark, so 
you see no shadow noise (or detail).  
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/JonAntionWedding/Show/JonAntionWedding
/slide_13.jpg

Thanks,
--Peter Klein
Seattle, WA


==============================================================================
This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received
this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was
misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB
retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network.
Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they
are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure.
==============================================================================

Mike:  Thanks. I was afraid it was something like that.  The film is 
T400CN, which is supposed to scan better than traditional silver 
films. But its weakness is that the darker things get, the grainier 
it gets.

Since I posted the problem, I even tried scanning as a color slide, 
then inverting the image and desaturating through various color 
filters.  I got a slightly better initial image that was easier to 
tweak into the right tonal range.  But the problem remained--the 
images were virtually identical once I matched the first scan's 
curves.

Multiple-pass scanning did not help, either, so I guess it's just 
interaction between whatever's on the film and the scanner.

--Peter

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Nunan, Mike" 
<mike.nunan@c...> wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> I don't know if this will make you feel any better, but your 
findings are
> depressingly familiar to mine with medium speed B&W film. You hit 
the nail on
> the head when you say that a darkroom print doesn't show the same 
problem --
> there is something happening in the interaction between the scanner 
and the
> film. Out of interest, if you compare 10x8 prints, both wet process 
and
> digital, is the digital print appreciably sharper? If so, you could 
soften the
> digital print slightly to average out the speckle and still end up 
with a
> print about as sharp as the traditionally made one. Not ideal, I 
know.
> 
> Anyway, here's my 2p theory about what causes the problem we're 
both seeing.
> Consider the grain structure in the developed film, on a 
microscopic level. It
> consists of clouds of stringy-looking metalic silver arranged very 
randomly.
> Kodak have a shortish article about all this, including some nice
> photomicrograph illustrations:
> 
> 
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/students/handbook/sensitometric6.jht
ml
> 
> From that article:
> 
> "At magnifications where the eye cannot distinguish individual 
particles, it
> resolves random groupings of these particles into denser and less 
dense areas.
> As magnification decreases, the observer progressively associates 
larger
> groups of spots as new units of graininess. The size of these 
compounded
> groups gets larger as the magnification decreases, but the 
amplitude (the
> difference in density between the darker and the lighter areas) 
decreases. At
> still lower magnifications, the graininess disappears altogether 
because no
> granular structure can be seen"
> 
> Clearly each sensor site in your scanner's CCD is looking at a 
fairly small
> area. It can't resolve individual grains but it can certainly see 
small enough
> clumps that the amplitude will vary quite widely. (Referring to the 
article,
> each pixel of the sensor is behaving very much like the small 
aperture used to
> scan films when testing for RMS granularity.)
> 
> I believe we are seeing this effect right across our images, but we 
are less
> concerned about it in the high and mid tone areas because in 
traditional
> processes we always see a bit of grain there. However, when we see 
it in the
> shadows, our immediate reaction is to assume it's scanner noise. In 
fact, when
> scanning negs, the signal to noise ratio should be at its best in 
the shadow
> region of the image.
> 
> There are a couple of things that can help reduce the problem. We 
can soften
> the image post-scan as I suggested above, but none of us want to 
lose any hard
> won sharpness. Using a scanner with a more diffuse lightsource can 
make a big
> difference. Scanners such as Epson flatbeds do tend to give 
slightly softer
> images than dedicated film scanners, but more importantly their flat
> lightsources don't throw the grain structure into such sharp 
relief, meaning
> that the local variations in density are less dramatic.
> 
> Sorry if this doesn't help you get better results out of the 
equipment you
> already have. I mention these issues in the hope that discussion of 
them will
> eventually lead to better solutions being found. I have seen major 
exhibitions
> of digital prints by "big name" artists where shadow speckle has 
been visible,
> so it's not just us!
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> -= mike =-
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter A. Klein [mailto:pklein@2...]
> Sent: 15 August 2004 10:35
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Shadow noise in scans
> 
> 
> Folks:  I frequently encounter shadow noise in my scans. I can 
> usually work around it, but I'm wondering if there is something I 
can 
> do--perhaps while scanning--to minimize it.
> 
> Have a look at this:
> http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/temp/noise.jpg
> 
> This picture was taken with an M6TTL and CV 50/1.5 Nokton, on Kodak 
> T400CN rated 400.  It was taken in a dim reception hall, but the 
> subjects were illuminated by a shaft of light from some nearby 
large 
> windows, and I exposed for them, not the background.  The scanner 
is 
> a Canon FS-4000, run at 4000 dpi and driven by VueScan.  I scan to 
16 
> bit TIFF, and use Picture Window Pro in 16 bit mode for my 
editing.  
> The various versions of the picture are shown at 1/3 actual pixels.
> 
> The leftmost image is of the scan pretty much out of the scanner 
(I'd 
> spotted and cropped, but that's all).  You can see the noise in the 
> darkest areas.  This is the kind of noise I am often plagued with.  
> It tends to happen more often in available light pictures than well-
> lit outdoor shots.  It doesn't show much on a 5x7 quadtone print, 
but 
> is quite prominent on an 8x10.  And if I get the same picture 
printed 
> in a wet darkroom, the noise isn't there. 
> 
> The center image is what I ended up with after curves, contrast, 
and 
> sharpening (the latter using a mask so only the people were 
> sharpened, not the surrounding area.  I've dropped the background 
to 
> nearly jet-black, but there are still lots of noise speckles.  And 
> I've lost some gradation in the girl's hair.
> 
> The righthand image has been noise-filtered with NeatImage before 
> curves, etc.  I used it sparingly so it wouldn't soften 
> or "plasticize" the image too much.  It's helped, but the noise 
still 
> shows up--more in a print that on the screen.  I've found that most 
> of the time, when I use NeatImage or Picture Window's Despeckle 
> feature, I can only get rid of some of the noise before the image 
> gets messed up.
> 
> What might I try to get rid of this noise?  Is there anything can I 
> do to minimize it during the scan?  I've tried the multiple 
exposure 
> feature in VueScan, and it doesn't really help with this type of 
> noise.  
> 
> BTW, here's the whole picture.  This one is a reduction of the 
Costco 
> CD Jpeg I got when the film was developed.  They went way dark, so 
> you see no shadow noise (or detail).  
> 
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/JonAntionWedding/Show/JonAntionWedding
> /slide_13.jpg
> 
> Thanks,
> --Peter Klein
> Seattle, WA
> 
> 
> 
======================================================================
========
> This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you 
received
> this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this 
message was
> misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. 
CSFB
> retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its 
network.
> Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB 
until they
> are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be 
secure.
> 
======================================================================
========

Peter, you might want to get a "second opinion" by taking the film to 
someone you know with a different film scanner and attempting a scan 
there for comparison.  I had a bit of a time with one or two earlier 
scanners when working with T400CN (among other film types) a while 
back; I'm curretnly working with a Minolta 5400 which seems to work 
well with almost any film type I throw at it (including T400CN, 
although I've mostly been using Ilford XP2 Super regularly for the 
past few years).  All film scanners aren't alike, even at the upper 
end.

- Barrett

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter A. Klein" 
<pklein@2...> wrote:
> Mike:  Thanks. I was afraid it was something like that.  The film 
is 

> T400CN, which is supposed to scan better than traditional silver 
> films. But its weakness is that the darker things get, the grainier 
> it gets.
> 
> Since I posted the problem, I even tried scanning as a color slide, 
> then inverting the image and desaturating through various color 
> filters.  I got a slightly better initial image that was easier to 
> tweak into the right tonal range.  But the problem remained--the 
> images were virtually identical once I matched the first scan's 
> curves.
> 
> Multiple-pass scanning did not help, either, so I guess it's just 
> interaction between whatever's on the film and the scanner.
> 
> --Peter

Hi Peter,

I tried T400CN and XP2 with my Minolta 5400 but didn't find either of them to
be sufficiently smooth. They are a little better because the dye clouds are
somewhat softer-edged than the metalic silver in a traditional film, but the
random structure is similar and that's what causes the problem IMO.

Barrett, re your comments I don't mean to say that the 5400 doesn't produce
good results in its own way, but doing a comparison with a wet print it's
obvious how much more "gritty" the look is. It's contrastier than the older
Nikons (not to mention the flatbeds), which isn't always desirable.

-= mike =-

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter A. Klein [mailto:pklein@...]
Sent: 16 August 2004 18:51
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Shadow noise in scans


Mike:  Thanks. I was afraid it was something like that.  The film is 
T400CN, which is supposed to scan better than traditional silver 
films. But its weakness is that the darker things get, the grainier 
it gets.

Since I posted the problem, I even tried scanning as a color slide, 
then inverting the image and desaturating through various color 
filters.  I got a slightly better initial image that was easier to 
tweak into the right tonal range.  But the problem remained--the 
images were virtually identical once I matched the first scan's 
curves.

Multiple-pass scanning did not help, either, so I guess it's just 
interaction between whatever's on the film and the scanner.

--Peter

<snip>

==============================================================================
This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received
this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was
misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB
retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network.
Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they
are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure.
==============================================================================