Digital BW, The Print

Any suggestions on taming some really grainy tri x scans that were 
shot about 25 years ago. It looks like they were over developed as 
well, so they are very contrasty with large reticulated grain. Would 
like to make some prints from these, have tried USM on a layer, then 
adjusting the layer transparency to allow some sharpness thru, and 
using alpha mask tricks. Seems to work farily well, but it needs
more. 
I also ran them through noise ninja, and that is somewhat successful 
at removing the grain. Any other suggestions for making these grainy 
scans into a creamier print?

Hello,

On another forum, just yesterday, this problem was discussed and the 
solution is to use Gaussian blur, small amounts before sharpening.  
Some suggested smart blur.  I tried it, it works.

Paul

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "oboylephoto" 
<oboylephoto@y...> wrote:

> 
> 
> Any suggestions on taming some really grainy tri x scans that were 
> shot about 25 years ago. It looks like they were over developed as 
> well, so they are very contrasty with large reticulated grain. Would 
> like to make some prints from these, have tried USM on a layer, then 
> adjusting the layer transparency to allow some sharpness thru, and 
> using alpha mask tricks. Seems to work farily well, but it needs
> more. 
> I also ran them through noise ninja, and that is somewhat successful 
> at removing the grain. Any other suggestions for making these grainy 
> scans into a creamier print?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "oboylephoto" 
<oboylephoto@y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Any suggestions on taming some really grainy tri x scans that were 
> shot about 25 years ago. It looks like they were over developed as 
> well, so they are very contrasty with large reticulated grain. 
Would 
> like to make some prints from these, have tried USM on a layer, 
then 
> adjusting the layer transparency to allow some sharpness thru, and 
> using alpha mask tricks. Seems to work farily well, but it needs
> more. 
> I also ran them through noise ninja, and that is somewhat 
successful 
> at removing the grain. Any other suggestions for making these 
grainy 
> scans into a creamier print?

You might consider a non-digital first step-run them through some 
farmer's reducer & physically decrease the grain size to start with. 
Scanning them on something incapable of delineating grain well like 
a flatbed scanner might also help.

Steve Karafyllakis

It's always good to encourage a traditional wet technique like
Farmer's Reducer...I used it once in 25 years of intense souping...
http://www.silverprint.co.uk/chem26.html

But I suspect the problem isn't the film's grain so much as
exaggeration by the scanner.  Recent flatbeds have the same problem,
though its true that they don't exaggerate as much as sharper
dedicated film scanners.

Gaussian blur and sharpening aren't as much sensual fun as mixing
chems and making messes, that's for sure.

> 
> You might consider a non-digital first step-run them through some 
> farmer's reducer & physically decrease the grain size to start with. 
> Scanning them on something incapable of delineating grain well like 
> a flatbed scanner might also help.
> 
> Steve Karafyllakis

Do you have any sharpening in the scanner software off?

On Mar 29, 2005, at 3:46 PM, Djon wrote:

>
>  It's always good to encourage a traditional wet technique like
>  Farmer's Reducer...I used it once in 25 years of intense souping...
> http://www.silverprint.co.uk/chem26.html
>
>  But I suspect the problem isn't the film's grain so much as
>  exaggeration by the scanner.� Recent flatbeds have the same problem,
>  though its true that they don't exaggerate as much as sharper
>  dedicated film scanners.
>
>  Gaussian blur and sharpening aren't as much sensual fun as mixing
>  chems and making messes, that's for sure.
>
>
>
>  >
>  > You might consider a non-digital first step-run them through some
>  > farmer's reducer & physically decrease the grain size to start with.
>  > Scanning them on something incapable of delineating grain well like
>  > a flatbed scanner might also help.
>  >
>  > Steve Karafyllakis
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> <22305_0205_016_b_300250_a.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@yahoogroups.com
> �
> 	� 	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
> Service.
>
>  

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

You could treat the quality as a feature instead of a problem.
Mike J.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: oboylephoto [mailto:oboylephoto@...m]
  Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 9:51 AM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: [Digital BW] Really Grainy Tri X scans




  Any suggestions on taming some really grainy tri x scans that were
  shot about 25 years ago. It looks like they were over developed as
  well, so they are very contrasty with large reticulated grain. Would
  like to make some prints from these, have tried USM on a layer, then
  adjusting the layer transparency to allow some sharpness thru, and
  using alpha mask tricks. Seems to work farily well, but it needs
  more.
  I also ran them through noise ninja, and that is somewhat successful
  at removing the grain. Any other suggestions for making these grainy
  scans into a creamier print?








  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





----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/

    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

I have a number of 35mm TriX negs like that.  I just settled on leaving them
as is and reducing the print size to, say, 5x7 or 6x9, instead of heroic
efforts to reduce the grain. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: oboylephoto [mailto:oboylephoto@...] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 10:51 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Really Grainy Tri X scans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any suggestions on taming some really grainy tri x scans that 
> were shot about 25 years ago. It looks like they were over 
> developed as well, so they are very contrasty with large 
> reticulated grain. Would like to make some prints from these, 
> have tried USM on a layer, then adjusting the layer 
> transparency to allow some sharpness thru, and using alpha 
> mask tricks. Seems to work farily well, but it needs more. 
> I also ran them through noise ninja, and that is somewhat 
> successful at removing the grain. Any other suggestions for 
> making these grainy scans into a creamier print?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> --------------------~--> What would our lives be like without 
> music, dance, and theater?
> Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/pkgkPB/SOnJAA/Zx0JAA/ucIolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------~-> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "oboylephoto" 
<oboylephoto@y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Any suggestions on taming some really grainy tri x scans that were 
> shot about 25 years ago. It looks like they were over developed as 
> well, so they are very contrasty with large reticulated grain. Would 
> like to make some prints from these, have tried USM on a layer, then 
> adjusting the layer transparency to allow some sharpness thru, and 
> using alpha mask tricks. Seems to work farily well, but it needs
> more. 
> I also ran them through noise ninja, and that is somewhat successful 
> at removing the grain. Any other suggestions for making these grainy 
> scans into a creamier print?

In my experience, there is nothing one can do about grain (except learn to love it). 
Scanners can't read each film grain individually so it interprets them as groups of pixels 
which in turn, creates the appearance of even heavier grain. There is no trick to change 
that without modifying the image to the point of loosing other qualities of it and in my 
opinion, it's not worth it.
I personally prefer grainy images which still preserve details and sharpness to the noise 
made by digital cameras. I've seen recently a comparison between an image taken with a 
'good' digital camera and the same image taken on film and scanned. The scanned image, 
magnified, was definitely sharper though with some grain, the other one had no grain but 
no sharpness either. Both pictures were taken with the same lens.

This is obviously a personal call...I think that if a person can't get
the full impact of a photo *at or beyond* arm's length, like on a
wall, he fools himself, exaggerates its merit by being forcing himself
and others to attend closely to mini prints. 

I've shot a lot of 6X9...narcissist shooting that format sometimes
contact print to force viewers to peer closely, creating an illusion 
of value that way (same photogs who used gold toner :-)  

My favorite developers are Rodinal and Neofin. I prefer fast film
because I like to hand hold in low light. But scanners can't produce
that grain as prettily as enlargers did without absurd workarounds.
I'm beginning to enjoy gaussian blur's control...I don't like digital
grain, just like I didn't like the grain softening and diffusion done
by photogs who didn't really like their 35mm format...personal taste.

IMO we should give scanning and digital printing respect in the
process, just like we do to negatives.

To respect negative grain with traditional photo enlargement you HAD
to use the best lenses and you HAD to use a condenser enlarger. I
don't think digital respect allows yearning for the grain seen in
optical prints. 

Everything is a version of something else. Is the photo an image or is
it only one particular technical reflection of the negative? 

To each his own.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Carney"
<kcarney1@c...> wrote:
> I have a number of 35mm TriX negs like that.  I just settled on
leaving them

> as is and reducing the print size to, say, 5x7 or 6x9, instead of heroic
> efforts to reduce the grain. 
> 
>

Whatever you do, don¹t assume that the various ³softening² techniques aren¹t
reducing fine detail.  Ultimately this is an aesthetic decision, balancing
smoothness against detail.

I find that if the scans are resolving the grain, (and of course if the negs
are sharp! ;^) that I don¹t need much, if any sharpening.  Use sharpening,
if at all, only with the history brush or another analogous technique, and
only in the areas of critical fine detail. Use blur the same way, but
removing the blur in the fine detail areas.

Start with as sharp a scan as you can, and use the above to get where you
want to go.

Regards,

Bill Morse
Digital Eye Editions
450 Harrison Ave. Studio 227
Boston, MA 02118
(617) 429-3298

http://digitaleyeeditions.com
on 3/29/05 12:40 PM, bwinkjet wrote:

> 
> Hello,
> 
> On another forum, just yesterday, this problem was discussed and the
> solution is to use Gaussian blur, small amounts before sharpening.
> Some suggested smart blur.  I tried it, it works.
> 
> Paul
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "oboylephoto"
> <oboylephoto@y...> wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Any suggestions on taming some really grainy tri x scans that were
>> > shot about 25 years ago. It looks like they were over developed as
>> > well, so they are very contrasty with large reticulated grain. Would
>> > like to make some prints from these, have tried USM on a layer, then
>> > adjusting the layer transparency to allow some sharpness thru, and
>> > using alpha mask tricks. Seems to work farily well, but it needs
>> > more. 
>> > I also ran them through noise ninja, and that is somewhat successful
>> > at removing the grain. Any other suggestions for making these grainy
>> > scans into a creamier print?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
>  
> <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129lg3t5j/M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=grou
> ps/S=1705019182:HM/EXP=1112204465/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http://www.netf
> lix.com/Default?mqso=60190075>
> 
> 
> 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@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsub
> scribe> 
> *  
> * 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]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Bill Morse
<whm.lists@v...> wrote:
> Whatever you do, don¹t assume that the various ³softening²
techniques aren¹t
> reducing fine detail.  

Gaussian blur doesn't reduce fine detail if you can't see it in the
first place.  

A 4000ppi scan's rendition of grain is not necessarily as attractive
as the rendition from an optical enlargement. 

My experience is that if you begin with too much grain you may
actually increase appearance of sharpness with a combination of
Gaussian blur and USM. A photographic print exists in order to create
an appearance. 

>Ultimately this is an aesthetic decision, balancing
> smoothness against detail.

I use blur on a separate layer. I use a high degree of blur, with a low opacity - about 12% - and it maintains the grain while softening it.

This photo was taken on 35mm APX400 - the grainiest film I know of - and shows the effect I'm talking about. (I also added a noise layer to accentuate the effect.)
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/rich_s/photos/galleries/people/pages/2003070735.html

Good luck,
Richard
--
http://smallfield.vze.com
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com

   "An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why 
   the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today."
   --Laurence J. Peter

Another teknique to keep in mind if using a drum scanner is to open up 
the aperature a step or two over the default with any selected dpi. For 
example if using 4000dpi for a scan on a Howtek drum scanner the 
aperature will default to 6 microns, however manually opening the 
aperature to 13 microns or even 19 microns will reduce grain very 
substantially without too much affect on resolution. This can of course 
be used in combination with any of the other methods discussed.

Larry

You can¹t ³reduce² what¹s not there...  ;^)

Obviously, too much blur will reduce detail.

Two different things may be happening in renditions from optical (read wet)
enlargements. I¹ve seen enough large prints where the grain is not resolved,
or is resolved differently across the print, to realize that many darkroom
prints simply were not completely in focus, or were out of alignment.
Sometimes the out-or ­focus was intentional, sometimes not. Secondly, a
diffuse light source would always minimize the grain (and gave rise to the
same sorts of discussions as this one re- sharpness vs. smoothness).

Bill

on 3/30/05 6:25 PM, Djon wrote:

> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Bill Morse
> <whm.lists@v...> wrote:
>> > Whatever you do, don¹t assume that the various ³softening²
> techniques aren¹t
>> > reducing fine detail.
> 
> Gaussian blur doesn't reduce fine detail if you can't see it in the
> first place.  
> 
> A 4000ppi scan's rendition of grain is not necessarily as attractive
> as the rendition from an optical enlargement.
> 
> My experience is that if you begin with too much grain you may
> actually increase appearance of sharpness with a combination of
> Gaussian blur and USM. A photographic print exists in order to create
> an appearance. 
> 
>> >Ultimately this is an aesthetic decision, balancing
>> > smoothness against detail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
>  
> <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1297to83q/M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=grou
> ps/S=1705019182:HM/EXP=1112311623/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http://www.netf
> lix.com/Default?mqso=60190075>
> 
> 
> 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@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsub
> scribe> 
> *  
> * 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]

Bill Morse wrote:

>You can\ufffdt \ufffdreduce\ufffd what\ufffds not there...  ;^)
>
>Obviously, too much blur will reduce detail.
>
>Two different things may be happening in renditions from optical (read wet)
>enlargements. I\ufffdve seen enough large prints where the grain is not resolved,
>or is resolved differently across the print, to realize that many darkroom
>prints simply were not completely in focus, or were out of alignment.
>Sometimes the out-or \ufffdfocus was intentional, sometimes not. Secondly, a
>diffuse light source would always minimize the grain (and gave rise to the
>same sorts of discussions as this one re- sharpness vs. smoothness).
>
>Bill
>
>  
>
Whether one can actually resolve the grain on any scanner is one thing. 
The other thing is that like in enlargers the chance that it isn't done 
equal over the total scanned area makes any further editing in PS etc 
problematic. The difference becomes much more visible in sharpening and 
to a lesser degree in blurring, on resolved grain or unresolved grain.
It is often hard to describe the advantages of wet mounting and show 
that in samples. The thing I like most about it is the uniform sharpness 
over the entire scan. Just wet mounting may not do the trick but 
tweaking the film carrier to get the right focus everywhere is quite 
easy to accomplish.
That still will not guarantee that the grain is resolved. For that you 
need a good scanner and have it run at its highest sampling resolution.

Ernst.