Digital BW, The Print

I am working with 30 some-odd 5400 dpi scans of Ilford Pan F film.

I'd expect the resulting images to be virtually grainless.This is evident onscreen and in a print.

But in some images shadow areas are particularly grainy. I dunno maybe it's that nasty grain aliasing affect that I read about some scanning doing. The grain manifests itself in a pattern of speckly white dots.

I really don't want to rescan the image but I can if necessary return to the original scanned image file. What I hope to learn via this post is if there are any PS techniques that can be used to hide this in selected areas.

I have tried selective noise reduction using the Photoshop filter and Noise Ninja without limited success.

Dave.

I suspect you are using a ccd scanner like a Nikon or something like
that. Oh man, not the scanner for that film. Don't give up on the
Photoshop Noise Reduc filter though. I've saved many a Nikon scan with
that capability. It just takes some time. Make sure you are judging at
100%.

john


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, David Keenan
<ausdlk@...> wrote:
>
> I am working with 30 some-odd 5400 dpi scans of Ilford Pan F film.
> 
> I'd expect the resulting images to be virtually grainless.This is
evident onscreen and in a print.
> 
> But in some images shadow areas are particularly grainy. I dunno
maybe it's that nasty grain aliasing affect that I read about some
scanning doing. The grain manifests itself in a pattern of speckly
white dots.
> 
> I really don't want to rescan the image but I can if necessary
return to the original scanned image file. What I hope to learn via
this post is if there are any PS techniques that can be used to hide
this in selected areas.
> 
> I have tried selective noise reduction using the Photoshop filter
and Noise Ninja without limited success.

> 
> Dave.
>

It is noise, try scanning at a lower res or adjust your scanner  
settings (try scanning flatter). What is the scanner, is it a true  
5400 ppi optical?
Mark

On Oct 16, 2006, at 6:58 PM, David Keenan wrote:

> I am working with 30 some-odd 5400 dpi scans of Ilford Pan F film.
>
> I'd expect the resulting images to be virtually grainless.This is  
> evident onscreen and in a print.
>
> But in some images shadow areas are particularly grainy. I dunno  
> maybe it's that nasty grain aliasing affect that I read about some  
> scanning doing. The grain manifests itself in a pattern of speckly  
> white dots.
>
> I really don't want to rescan the image but I can if necessary  
> return to the original scanned image file. What I hope to learn via  
> this post is if there are any PS techniques that can be used to  
> hide this in selected areas.
>
> I have tried selective noise reduction using the Photoshop filter  
> and Noise Ninja without limited success.
>
> Dave.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>

and make sure auto-sharpening is OFF, every scan double check it.
Tyler

Yes, it's probably noise, probably from a CCD scanner- but I had
another thought when I re-read David's original post.  David, you said
that the scans were "virtually grainless."  At 5400 dpi, even with
Ilford Pan F film, I'd expect to see grain at 5400 dpi. If you are
not, I'd question whether you have perfect focus in your scans.
Perhaps someone else who has recently scanned Ilford Pan F film at 5k+
DPI can comment?

Grain you'd expect to see most prominently in smooth 3/4 tones; noise
will be most prominent in darker tones.

-- 
Regards,

Bill Morse
Wm. Morse Editions

(617) 429-3298

On 10/16/06, Mark Savoia <mark@...> wrote:
> It is noise, try scanning at a lower res or adjust your scanner
> settings (try scanning flatter). What is the scanner, is it a true
> 5400 ppi optical?
> Mark
>
> On Oct 16, 2006, at 6:58 PM, David Keenan wrote:
>
> > I am working with 30 some-odd 5400 dpi scans of Ilford Pan F film.
> >
> > I'd expect the resulting images to be virtually grainless.This is
> > evident onscreen and in a print.
> >
> > But in some images shadow areas are particularly grainy. I dunno
> > maybe it's that nasty grain aliasing affect that I read about some
> > scanning doing. The grain manifests itself in a pattern of speckly
> > white dots.
> >
> > I really don't want to rescan the image but I can if necessary
> > return to the original scanned image file. What I hope to learn via
> > this post is if there are any PS techniques that can be used to
> > hide this in selected areas.
> >
> > I have tried selective noise reduction using the Photoshop filter
> > and Noise Ninja without limited success.
> >
> > Dave.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

Mark is right. If that is 35mm then try it at 4000.

I have scanned lots of medium format Ilford Pan F+ on my Nikon Coolscan
9000 scanner. About 80% of portfolio images on my website are from Pan
F+, including Night photographs of Dublin
<http://www.philpankov.com/-/philpankov/gallery.asp?cat=4992>   series.
Despite people saying that Pan F is very contrasty film and not suitable
for night photography, etc, I found that you can regulate it's
contrast a lot with your development. Pan F+ developed in Pyro is the
most wonderful black and white combo currently available, in my opinion.
Pyro masks the little grain that Pan F has and I have 30x40 inch Lambda
prints (from 6x9 negs scanned with Nikon) where you cannot see any
grain, while all details are beautifully resolved. Don't give up on
Pan F! :-)



About your problem with noisy shadows – can you specify multipass
scanning with your Minolta scanner? Multipass scanning on Nikon helps
somewhat with noise, but in my tests difference between 1 x pass and 16
x pass is not that great – so, I scan at 8 x pass. Not sure about
Minolta.



P.S. This is my first post on this group – I have been reading for a
while. I still print about 90% of my prints in the darkroom myself (rest
10% in the lab), but plan to invest in the printer… Great group
guys!



P.P.S. By the way, does anyone want to exchange the links between black
and white photography websites? Email me at info@...
<mailto:info@philpankov.com>



Regards,



Philip Pankov

Black & White Photography of Ireland <http://www.philpankov.com/>




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, David Keenan
<ausdlk@...> wrote:
>
> I am working with 30 some-odd 5400 dpi scans of Ilford Pan F film.
>
> I'd expect the resulting images to be virtually grainless.This is
evident onscreen and in a print.
>
> But in some images shadow areas are particularly grainy. I dunno maybe
it's that nasty grain aliasing affect that I read about some scanning
doing. The grain manifests itself in a pattern of speckly white dots.
>
> I really don't want to rescan the image but I can if necessary return
to the original scanned image file. What I hope to learn via this post
is if there are any PS techniques that can be used to hide this in
selected areas.
>
> I have tried selective noise reduction using the Photoshop filter and
Noise Ninja without limited success.
>
> Dave.
>




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

It's not Nikon...Nikon doesn't advertise 5400ppi (it's not "dpi", btw,
it's ppi). 

Minolta used to advertise 5400, and that setting did make a slightly
bigger file than their 4000ppi, but that didn't add anything to detail
resolution in published tests. Maybe using Minolta 4000ppi, which
makes the same size file as Nikon's 4000ppi, would be less noisy. 

Minolta's 5400II lacks and won't accept the older model's famous grain
reducing diffuser. I have a Scanhancer diffuser for my Nikon V but it
doesn't serve as well as does a good workflow with Nikonscan or, more
directly, simply using Vuescan software. (Minolta dropped the diffuser
with their last machine, presumably to reduce scans from 12 minutes to
1.5 minutes, like Nikon). 

Scanning silver film with Nikonscan one simply scans negs as positive
and inverts in Photoshop, tweaking grain in post processing if one
wishes. 

Nikonscan, like Minolta's app, does exaggerate grain a little, but
that's just a matter of proper setting with Vuescan... one can do as
well with Nikonscan if one is willing to do a little more work. 

Vuescan's main advantage, IMO, is the "light grain reduction" setting
which doesn't soften grain (defines it about like a good condenser
enlarger with good optics) and in my careful tests definitely doesn't
affect fine detail resolution. That particular grain setting causes my
12X18 Epson 2200/MIS/QTR prints to closely emulate condenser enlarger
prints grainwise...if I wanted to vanish grain altogether, that's
available in Vuescan, still retaining sharpness (I've not tested
detail resolution with the heaviest grain reduction setting, which
seems to emulate the plastic look of DSLR).  




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Morse"
<Bill.Morse@...> wrote:

>
> Yes, it's probably noise, probably from a CCD scanner- but I had
> another thought when I re-read David's original post.  David, you said
> that the scans were "virtually grainless."  At 5400 dpi, even with
> Ilford Pan F film, I'd expect to see grain at 5400 dpi. If you are
> not, I'd question whether you have perfect focus in your scans.
> Perhaps someone else who has recently scanned Ilford Pan F film at 5k+
> DPI can comment?

Dave,

A few issues here:

-"5400 dpi" tells me you're using one of two iterations of Minolta's
Dimage Scan 5400 (I own and use the first version).  I find the 5400 a
fantastic scanner for all the film types I use, but getting good scans
is easier with some films than others.

- How well were these Pan F negs developed, and when?  Do the negs
appear relatively normal in density, or are they noticeably heavy or thin?

- Scanning at maximum dpi is nice, but that doesn't do much without
other work if the neg is a particularly difficult one.  The Minolta
5400 offers a single-pass multisampling mode that (sometimes) can help
with especially dense negs, and tame grain to a certain extent.

- Are you using the stand-alone scanning app or PS plug-in that came
with the scanner?  These days I mostly use VueScan for my work with
the 5400, and the added flexibility it offers can also assist in a
situation such as this.

- You might know this already, but just in case: make sure you have
Digital ICE turned off when scanning conventional b/w negatives (or
Kodachrome, for that matter).  ICE is fantastic for C41- and E6-based
films, but wreaks havoc with anything else.

In the end, it's really about the film, and how it was developed.
At least one of the above suggestions should help out to some extent,
but it ultimately comes down to exactly how those little halides were
handled in developing.  A good scanner, handled well, is a
transcription device. You only get out what you put in.


- Barrett

>I suspect you are using a ccd scanner like a Nikon...

>What is the scanner, is it a true 5400 ppi optical?

The scans were done with the first version Minolta 5400 dedicated film scanner. So, yes, it is true 5400 dpi optical.

>...you said that the scans were "virtually grainless." 

I didn't write what I meant to... I meant to write that I "expected the images to be virtually grainless" since I was scanning Ilford Pan F film.

I played some with the PS CS2 "despeckle" filter that was helpful. I selected the shadow area and performed this filter 6 to 10 times. The sharpness in the area was reduced, of course, but since this was in a shadow area that didn't matter much.

But I am still interested other people's experiences in noise reduction.

(Again, I do not want to rescan.)

Dave.

Try Noise Ninja
http://www.picturecode.com/
Mark

On Oct 17, 2006, at 11:38 AM, David Keenan wrote:


>
> But I am still interested other people's experiences in noise  
> reduction.
>
> (Again, I do not want to rescan.)
>
> Dave.

<deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
> I suspect you are using a ccd scanner like a Nikon or 
> something like that. Oh man, not the scanner for that film....

John, could you expand on this comment? I use Pan F
almost exclusively when I am working in medium format,
and I love it. Like the original poster, I also sometimes 
see an odd speckling or lumpy grain when scanned
on my Epson 2540 flatbed--for me, this usually shows up
in sky or clouds.

So, why is a ccd scanner especially bad for Pan F? 

Thanks,
David

David, I'll admit to not have done a boat load of scans of B&W with my Nikon
9000, but I have seen some good ones and some not so good scans from it. The
scans that I made with the Imacon several years back may be better for B&W.
Noise reduction techniques that I use are copy to new layer, then run Neat
Image, or perhaps Gassiun Blur with grain  added sometimes. I haven't had to
deal with that much scan noise as poor digital capture noise in customer
provided files. 

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David
Keenan
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:39 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: speckly, grainy shadows, eliminating

 

>I suspect you are using a ccd scanner like a Nikon...

>What is the scanner, is it a true 5400 ppi optical?

The scans were done with the first version Minolta 5400 dedicated film
scanner. So, yes, it is true 5400 dpi optical.

>...you said that the scans were "virtually grainless." 

I didn't write what I meant to... I meant to write that I "expected the
images to be virtually grainless" since I was scanning Ilford Pan F film.

I played some with the PS CS2 "despeckle" filter that was helpful. I
selected the shadow area and performed this filter 6 to 10 times. The
sharpness in the area was reduced, of course, but since this was in a shadow
area that didn't matter much.

But I am still interested other people's experiences in noise reduction.

(Again, I do not want to rescan.)

Dave.

 



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

I was only suggesting that the capability of this film can't be
captured with that kind of scanner. It's beauty is far more subtle
than any ccd that I've ever worked with can capture. 



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "David
Wroblewski" <dawroblewski@...> wrote:

>
> <deanwork2003@> wrote:
> >
> > I suspect you are using a ccd scanner like a Nikon or 
> > something like that. Oh man, not the scanner for that film....
> 
> John, could you expand on this comment? I use Pan F
> almost exclusively when I am working in medium format,
> and I love it. Like the original poster, I also sometimes 
> see an odd speckling or lumpy grain when scanned
> on my Epson 2540 flatbed--for me, this usually shows up
> in sky or clouds.
> 
> So, why is a ccd scanner especially bad for Pan F? 
> 
> Thanks,
> David
>

Agreed on both points--it is a lovely film, and I've
never yet got a scan that I thought did it justice.
That's also true of the few Pan F drum scans I've had 
done, btw, which has puzzled me. I'd thought the drum
scans would be head and shoulders above the results
from my 2450, but I could barely tell the difference.

Thanks for clarifying. 

-David

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:

>
> I was only suggesting that the capability of this film can't be
> captured with that kind of scanner. It's beauty is far more subtle
> than any ccd that I've ever worked with can capture. 
>

Hi David-

As has been pointed out many times on this and other forums, a drum scanner
is just a tool- making a great scan takes a lot of skill and dedication, and
is not guaranteed!

Bill

On 10/18/06, David Wroblewski <dawroblewski@...> wrote:
>
>    I'd thought the drum
> scans would be head and shoulders above the results
> from my 2450, but I could barely tell the difference.
>
> Thanks for clarifying.
>
> -David
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "john dean"
> <deanwork2003@...> wrote:
> >
> > I was only suggesting that the capability of this film can't be
> > captured with that kind of scanner. It's beauty is far more subtle
> > than any ccd that I've ever worked with can capture.
> >
>
>  
>



-- 
Regards,

Bill Morse
Wm. Morse Editions

(617) 429-3298


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