Digital BW, The Print

Try a slight gausian blur followed by adding a small amount of noise.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "atmcintyre2001" <amcintyre@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 1:52 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Excessive grain in scanned images


> I have some 6cm x 6cm b&w negatives exposed back in the early '60s on
> Tri X Pan Professional. They blew up to 20" x 16" quite successfully
> using a DeVere cold-cathode enlarger.
>
> Recently I had some of these negatives scanned by a bureau through an
> Imacon Flextight machine, but grain has become so pronounced that the
> scans are virtually unusable.
>
> I understand the problem. Light in a scanner is highly collimated -
> the light beams are nearly perfectly parallel. So the grains don't
> just block the light - they scatter it creating greater apparent
> density. The so-called "Callier Effect." And it will have been made
> worse because I neglected to tell the bureau *not* to sharpen the
> image!
>
> However I wondered what 'work-round' others in this group have tried
> to reduce grain on silver negatives.
>
> I have tried blurring  the image lightly in Photoshop, followed by
> unsharp masking but am not very happy with the results.
>
> I have also read somewhere that some old-timers digitise their images
> via a conventional photographic print and a flat-bed scanner. By
> printing with a diffuse light source and a relatively soft grade of
> paper they suppress grain while capturing a tonal range that can be
> enhanced in Photoshop. Doubtless this works, but it does seem 'the
> long way round' and since it introduces an extra step in the process,
> image quality is bound to suffer.
>
> Of course I'm now running trials with the newer chromogenic films but
> that doesn't solve my problems with the archival images I still have.
>
> Any ideas on this theme would be most welcome!
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

At 12:52 PM 1/26/2002 -0000, you wrote:
>I have some 6cm x 6cm b&w negatives exposed back in the early '60s on 
>Tri X Pan Professional. They blew up to 20" x 16" quite successfully 
>using a DeVere cold-cathode enlarger. 
>
>Recently I had some of these negatives scanned by a bureau through an 
>Imacon Flextight machine, but grain has become so pronounced that the 
>scans are virtually unusable.
>
>I understand the problem. Light in a scanner is highly collimated - 
>the light beams are nearly perfectly parallel. So the grains don't 
>just block the light - they scatter it creating greater apparent 
>density. The so-called "Callier Effect." And it will have been made 
>worse because I neglected to tell the bureau *not* to sharpen the 
>image!
>
>However I wondered what 'work-round' others in this group have tried 
>to reduce grain on silver negatives. 
>

Thanks for the reminder about light scatter around grain. That explains the
harsh grain effect I am getting from a tungsten lamp neg scanner. Sharpening
definitely makes it worse.
I am finding from the tests I'm doing on the Epson 2450 with a cool light
that the prints remind me of TX developed in a solvent developer. They are
softer yet retain sharpness. I have one example where the sharpness of the
Epson clearly beats the grainier Umax at 1200 DPI. I may test the PS
softening technique on grain with the cool light effect of the scanner to
see if one is better. 

AZ

Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
         or
keyword.com lookaround

I do not think you have your facts right.  I always thought that the 'grain
enhancement' problem was more of a problem on drum scanners using PMT (?)
technology rather than CCD capture devices that scanners like the Imacon use,
and more of a prolem with color 35 mm film than B&W.

I suspect that the biggest problem is the sharpening...It will *really* enhance
the appearance of grain.  Although it could be 'grain aliasing' as well.

You should never have a service bureau sharpen an image.  Sharpening should be
the *last* thing you do to a file before sending it to the printer.  It is
actually difficult to get a scanner not to do any sharpening, many are
'hardwired' to sharpen, but you should request as little sharpening in the scan
as possible.

And while on the subject of sharpening:  There are about 10 different ways to
sharpen an image, Photoshop's 'unsharp mask' being only one of them, and perhaps
not the best, especially if you are worrying about grain enhancement.  I cannot
recommend any because of lack of knowledge on my part, but many on this list can
(and no doubt will).  :-)

It has been my observation that many people really over sharpen their files and
cause them to be far more grainy and granular in appearance than necessary.
This was evidenced at the Photo Expo in NYC last Fall at the Epson booth.
Almost all the large prints displayed at the exhibit showed these
problems....This was not grain, it was over sharpening.

Finally, as to your specific scanning problems:  There are 2 listservs that
might be able to more precisely advise you:  ScanHi-End@yahoogroups.com  which
is (obviously a Yahoo group), and there is also, apparently a very active
'Imacon' group, although I have no info on it, but Mark Tucker recently
mentioned it in one of his posts.  A Google search should help.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC


atmcintyre2001 wrote:

>  I have some 6cm x 6cm b&w negatives exposed back in the early '60s on
> Tri X Pan Professional. They blew up to 20" x 16" quite successfully
> using a DeVere cold-cathode enlarger.
>
> Recently I had some of these negatives scanned by a bureau through an
> Imacon Flextight machine, but grain has become so pronounced that the
> scans are virtually unusable.
>
> I understand the problem. Light in a scanner is highly collimated -
> the light beams are nearly perfectly parallel. So the grains don't
> just block the light - they scatter it creating greater apparent
> density. The so-called "Callier Effect." And it will have been made
> worse because I neglected to tell the bureau *not* to sharpen the
> image!
>
> However I wondered what 'work-round' others in this group have tried
> to reduce grain on silver negatives.
>
> I have tried blurring  the image lightly in Photoshop, followed by
> unsharp masking but am not very happy with the results.
>
> I have also read somewhere that some old-timers digitise their images
> via a conventional photographic print and a flat-bed scanner. By
> printing with a diffuse light source and a relatively soft grade of
> paper they suppress grain while capturing a tonal range that can be
> enhanced in Photoshop. Doubtless this works, but it does seem 'the
> long way round' and since it introduces an extra step in the process,
> image quality is bound to suffer.
>
> Of course I'm now running trials with the newer chromogenic films but
> that doesn't solve my problems with the archival images I still have.
>
> Any ideas on this theme would be most welcome!





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

the new scanners come with ICE and GEM. GEM is supposed to totally
remove grain. Anyone know for sure if this works?

Jerry



atmcintyre2001 wrote:

> 
> I have some 6cm x 6cm b&w negatives exposed back in the early '60s on
> Tri X Pan Professional. They blew up to 20" x 16" quite successfully
> using a DeVere cold-cathode enlarger.
> 
> Recently I had some of these negatives scanned by a bureau through an
> Imacon Flextight machine, but grain has become so pronounced that the
> scans are virtually unusable.
> 
> I understand the problem. Light in a scanner is highly collimated -
> the light beams are nearly perfectly parallel. So the grains don't
> just block the light - they scatter it creating greater apparent
> density. The so-called "Callier Effect." And it will have been made
> worse because I neglected to tell the bureau *not* to sharpen the
> image!
> 
> However I wondered what 'work-round' others in this group have tried
> to reduce grain on silver negatives.
> 
> I have tried blurring  the image lightly in Photoshop, followed by
> unsharp masking but am not very happy with the results.
> 
> I have also read somewhere that some old-timers digitise their images
> via a conventional photographic print and a flat-bed scanner. By
> printing with a diffuse light source and a relatively soft grade of
> paper they suppress grain while capturing a tonal range that can be
> enhanced in Photoshop. Doubtless this works, but it does seem 'the
> long way round' and since it introduces an extra step in the process,
> image quality is bound to suffer.
> 
> Of course I'm now running trials with the newer chromogenic films but
> that doesn't solve my problems with the archival images I still have.
> 
> Any ideas on this theme would be most welcome!
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> I have some 6cm x 6cm b&w negatives exposed back in the early '60s on
  > Tri X Pan Professional.  ... scanned by a bureau through an
  > Imacon Flextight machine, ... grain has become so pronounced that the
  > scans are virtually unusable.
  >

  It seems we are all fighting this.  I've found the "smart blur" tools to
be most useful.

  I'll be experimenting with different films and developers to see where to
go from here.

  The color negative technology films like T400CN and XP2 allow the GEM
grain reduction programs to work, but that program puts its own artifacts in
the image and is very slow on my Wintel with 512 MB.  I've found a
multi-scan workaround that gets rid of the GEM artifacts (which looks like
an 8 x 8 pixel grid), but it even takes more time.  Even when all the grain
and artifacts of T400CN are removed, there is still a lumpiness that is not
to my liking.

  Paul
  http://www.PaulRoark.com


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

>   > I have some 6cm x 6cm b&w negatives exposed back in the early '60s on
>   > Tri X Pan Professional.  ... scanned by a bureau through an
>   > Imacon Flextight machine, ... grain has become so pronounced that the
>   > scans are virtually unusable.
>   >
> 
>   It seems we are all fighting this.

Hi Paul,

I am not fighting this with a Leafscan 45...so not quite all...

Austin

> the new scanners come with ICE and GEM. GEM is supposed to totally
> remove grain. Anyone know for sure if this works?
>
> Jerry

Hi Jerry,

The Nikon scanners HAVE to come with ICE because they are point light source
scanners, which exaggerates scratches, dust and grain.  Other scanners don't
need it, and I don't know any other than Nikon that come with it.  I don't
know about GEM though.

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> 
> > the new scanners come with ICE and GEM. GEM is supposed to totally
> > remove grain. Anyone know for sure if this works?
> >
> > Jerry
> 
> Hi Jerry,
> 
> The Nikon scanners HAVE to come with ICE because they are point 
light source
> scanners, which exaggerates scratches, dust and grain.  Other 
scanners don't
> need it, and I don't know any other than Nikon that come with it.  
I don't
> know about GEM though.
> 
> Austin

> Jerry
>I have a nikon scanner and use GEM. It works beautifully.Makes grain 
in the lighter parts of the image smooth out real nice, but makes the 
subject too soft.

At 01:28 PM 1/26/02 -0600, you wrote:
>the new scanners come with ICE and GEM. GEM is supposed to totally
>remove grain. Anyone know for sure if this works?
>
>Jerry
>

It works great.  It is adjustable so you can remove as much or as little 
grain as you want.  It does slight soften the image but use of any of the 
edge-sharpening (Ultra-Sharpen Pro or Johnny Deadman's) actions will more 
than compensate without adding grain.

Tina


Tina Manley, ASMP
http://www.tinamanley.com
images available from http://www.pdiphotos.com



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