Digital BW, The Print

I just finished reading Alan Zinn's posts on graininess.   It 
sounds very similar to my issue.  I have the Minolta Pro and just 
tested it beside the Nikon 8000.  

Scans of 645mm color negative film illustrate that the Nikon is 
fuzzy in large blow-ups compared to the ultra sharp Minolta.  I 
have to add gaussian blur to my Minolta scans to get them to 
look like the Nikon scans.  

BUT!  The Nikon 8000 seems much better in other important 
respects.  The Nikon has a much more natural color cast.  The 
Minolta scans are bright and unsubtle.  In black and white this 
creates more contrast and blown out highlights with the Minolta.

My big issue is with the excess grain of the Minolta scans.  Side 
by side the Nikon 8000 is smooth and almost grainless.  The 
Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro makes 120 film look like poorly 
processed 35mm Tri X.  I've had clients return prints from 35mm 
negs saying that they are too grainy.  This is unacceptable.  

I've talked to Minolta about it and they say they have no problem 
with grain.  I am about to send my scanner in to get it looked at.  
Is anybody out there having these problems?  Transparency film 
is less of a problem.  In fact, I am scanning all my film (b&w and 
color neg) as slide film.  That setting seems to show the least 
grain.

PS:  Check out Alan Zinn's LookAround camera if you get a 
chance.  It is a wonderful machine.

Frank

http://www.culturalvisions.com

Frank,

Since the Multi Pro is the only scanner I have ever worked with, 
you can take this post for what it is worth. 

I too have found the same grain problem. In queries to Minolta 
and a myriad of other experts who should know, I have received 
no real explanation of why this is, and more importantly, no 
workable solution. I just attribute it to, as you say `it is
sharper than the Nikon' so maybe this is why the grain is more 
apparent. If you are able to find the answer, please let me know.

As far as the scanner USM-ing on its own as someone 
suggested, as you know this doesn't happen unless you've set 
it. That being said, I find I have to be extra careful with these 
scans in PhotoShop as normal sharpening will exacerbate the 
problem. As to the vivid colours, I don't put much seasoning into 
my image correction recipe. I find if I turn out a fairly bland scan,
it opens with realistic colours.

But what do I know. The point of this reply is to let you know you 
are not alone.

David 




§--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "culturalvisions" 
<frank@c...> wrote:
> I just finished reading Alan Zinn's posts on graininess.   It 
> sounds very similar to my issue.  I have the Minolta Pro and 
just 
> tested it beside the Nikon 8000.  
> 
> Scans of 645mm color negative film illustrate that the Nikon is 
> fuzzy in large blow-ups compared to the ultra sharp Minolta.  I 
> have to add gaussian blur to my Minolta scans to get them to 
> look like the Nikon scans.  
> 
> BUT!  The Nikon 8000 seems much better in other important 
> respects.  The Nikon has a much more natural color cast.  The 
> Minolta scans are bright and unsubtle.  In black and white this 
> creates more contrast and blown out highlights with the 
Minolta.
> 
> My big issue is with the excess grain of the Minolta scans.  
Side 
> by side the Nikon 8000 is smooth and almost grainless.  The 
> Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro makes 120 film look like poorly 
> processed 35mm Tri X.  I've had clients return prints from 
35mm 
> negs saying that they are too grainy.  This is unacceptable.  
> 
> I've talked to Minolta about it and they say they have no problem 
> with grain.  I am about to send my scanner in to get it looked at.  
> Is anybody out there having these problems?  Transparency 
film 
> is less of a problem.  In fact, I am scanning all my film (b&w 
and 

> color neg) as slide film.  That setting seems to show the least 
> grain.
> 
> PS:  Check out Alan Zinn's LookAround camera if you get a 
> chance.  It is a wonderful machine.
> 
> Frank
> 
> http://www.culturalvisions.com

Frank,

Since the Multi Pro is the only scanner I have ever worked with, 
you can take this post for what it is worth. 

I too have found the same grain problem. In queries to Minolta 
and a myriad of other experts who should know, I have received 
no real explanation of why this is, and more importantly, no 
workable solution. I just attribute it to, as you say `it is
sharper than the Nikon' so maybe this is why the grain is more 
apparent. If you are able to find the answer, please let me know.

As far as the scanner USM-ing on its own as someone 
suggested, as you know this doesn't happen unless you've set 
it. That being said, I find I have to be extra careful with these 
scans in PhotoShop as normal sharpening will exacerbate the 
problem. As to the vivid colours, I don't put much seasoning into 
my image correction recipe. I find if I turn out a fairly bland scan,
it opens with realistic colours.

But what do I know. The point of this reply is to let you know you 
are not alone.

David 




§--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "culturalvisions" 
<frank@c...> wrote:
> I just finished reading Alan Zinn's posts on graininess.   It 
> sounds very similar to my issue.  I have the Minolta Pro and 
just 
> tested it beside the Nikon 8000.  
> 
> Scans of 645mm color negative film illustrate that the Nikon is 
> fuzzy in large blow-ups compared to the ultra sharp Minolta.  I 
> have to add gaussian blur to my Minolta scans to get them to 
> look like the Nikon scans.  
> 
> BUT!  The Nikon 8000 seems much better in other important 
> respects.  The Nikon has a much more natural color cast.  The 
> Minolta scans are bright and unsubtle.  In black and white this 
> creates more contrast and blown out highlights with the 
Minolta.
> 
> My big issue is with the excess grain of the Minolta scans.  
Side 
> by side the Nikon 8000 is smooth and almost grainless.  The 
> Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro makes 120 film look like poorly 
> processed 35mm Tri X.  I've had clients return prints from 
35mm 
> negs saying that they are too grainy.  This is unacceptable.  
> 
> I've talked to Minolta about it and they say they have no problem 
> with grain.  I am about to send my scanner in to get it looked at.  
> Is anybody out there having these problems?  Transparency 
film 
> is less of a problem.  In fact, I am scanning all my film (b&w 
and 

> color neg) as slide film.  That setting seems to show the least 
> grain.
> 
> PS:  Check out Alan Zinn's LookAround camera if you get a 
> chance.  It is a wonderful machine.
> 
> Frank
> 
> http://www.culturalvisions.com

Frank,

I am using the new Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro.  I primarily scan 
Tri-X 6by7 negative and some 35mm.  Having just upgraded from a 
2400ppi scanner, I was seeing some grain I had not seen before.  

Research lead me to a phenomenon know as grain aliasing.  As you 
probably know, although I have not noticed it mentioned in this 
thread thus far, Grain aliasing isn't real grain but an interference 
pattern between film grain (dye clusters in color film) and the CCD 
pixel size.

Check out the SilverFast grain reduction tutorial at 
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/sf5-negafix/grain_reduction.htm and 
the rather technical but illuminating explanation at 
http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm.

I finally took to undertaking a detailed empirical analysis of my 
own, using a 200x microscope and comparing the negative, to the 
pixels in Photoshop, to the Piezography print (again under the 
microscope), not because I am technician rather than an artist, but 
because I wanted to be aware if the technologies within my workflow 
were interjecting something into my final product.

The answer, and this is my own subjective analysis using some pretty 
in depth research and hard facts, that I am actually awed by how well 
this scanner interprets the grain to render a digital facsimile. 

My only adjustment in my process was to switch from D76 to Microdol 
and to lighten up on my agitation a little.  I liken this to when 
(excuse the metaphor if it does not make sense) I traded in my BMW 
for a Ducati... all the nuances of my riding style that did not even 
show up on the older, slightly sloppier motorcycle, appeared as 
explicit instructions to my new motorcycle.  We are in the 4000-
5000ppi threshold where the CCD pixel size is in the same space as 
the grain (dye cloud), and as such, this phenomenon may raise it's 
ugly head and create some pretty strange results.

There are all sorts of solutions proposed:

1) slightly tweak the manual focus so that it does not react in such 
an extreme manner to each grain.  This also will impact the overall 
sharpness of the image, as landscape photographer, this did not work 
for me at all.

2) GEM seems to introduce other artifacts, plus it only works on 
color scans, so my 255mb 16bit grayscale scan will triple in size.  
This takes a lot of processing cycles as well.  Not the solution for 
me.

3) Get past the zone where the sampling and the grain are at 
the 'same frequency'.  This would mean spending more than the $3,500 
I just spent on my scanner or sending it out for drum scanning.  I 
shoot, develop and print in the same day.... so forget this.

4) Use other software plug-ins or post processing tools to manage 
grain.  This seemed to be a cure for the symptom and did not really 
do what I want, which is to faithfully recreate my image throughout 
the entire workflow all the way to the paper.

5) Shift your grain size and scanning PPI so that they are farther 
apart.  I have done this some.  I am scanning at 3200PPI and like I 
mentioned, my development is tuned for finer grain, without forgoing 
acutance (sharpness).  

The last option, and there are many more I am sure, seemed to work 
best for my and what my criteria is.

A simple search in yahoo, looksmart, alta vista et al on 'grain 
aliasing' will return a lot of information.

Hope I am offering useful information and not being redundant nor 
pedantic.

Regards,

James
www.blueskytech.info

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "david_nancy_bogart" 
<david.g.harris@r...> wrote:
> Frank,
> 
> Since the Multi Pro is the only scanner I have ever worked with, 
> you can take this post for what it is worth. 
> 
> I too have found the same grain problem. In queries to Minolta 
> and a myriad of other experts who should know, I have received 
> no real explanation of why this is, and more importantly, no 
> workable solution. I just attribute it to, as you say `it is
> sharper than the Nikon' so maybe this is why the grain is more 
> apparent. If you are able to find the answer, please let me know.
> 
> As far as the scanner USM-ing on its own as someone 
> suggested, as you know this doesn't happen unless you've set 
> it. That being said, I find I have to be extra careful with these 
> scans in PhotoShop as normal sharpening will exacerbate the 
> problem. As to the vivid colours, I don't put much seasoning into 
> my image correction recipe. I find if I turn out a fairly bland 
scan,

> it opens with realistic colours.
> 
> But what do I know. The point of this reply is to let you know you 
> are not alone.
> 
> David

I think it is an important point that the problem is "grain aliasing" 
and not grain itself.  The grain on a silver print is much less than 
the grain on a scanned print of the same negative.  In fact, a 
scanned print from a flatbed scanner often looks better than a 
print from a scanned negative from the Minolta.

James,  Thanks for your tips.  I have lowered my scan 
resolutions to 3200, but have not found that it has helped.  My 
most successful workaround involves selecting and blurring the 
specific areas where grain is too obvious on the print.  This is a 
slow process.

Microdol developer might be a solution for you, but I am 
scanning 30 years worth of negatives.  I will try the microdol for 
future work.

Thanks, Frank

http://www.culturalvisions.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "jamesmsims" 
<james@n...> wrote:
> Frank,
> 
> I am using the new Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro.  I primarily 
scan 
> Tri-X 6by7 negative and some 35mm.  Having just upgraded 
from a 
> 2400ppi scanner, I was seeing some grain I had not seen 
before.  
> 
> Research lead me to a phenomenon know as grain aliasing.  
As you 
> probably know, although I have not noticed it mentioned in this 
> thread thus far, Grain aliasing isn't real grain but an 
interference 
> pattern between film grain (dye clusters in color film) and the 
CCD 
> pixel size.
> 
> Check out the SilverFast grain reduction tutorial at 
> 
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/sf5-negafix/grain_reduction.
htm and 
> the rather technical but illuminating explanation at 
> http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm.
> 
> I finally took to undertaking a detailed empirical analysis of my 
> own, using a 200x microscope and comparing the negative, to 
the 
> pixels in Photoshop, to the Piezography print (again under the 
> microscope), not because I am technician rather than an artist, 
but 
> because I wanted to be aware if the technologies within my 
workflow 
> were interjecting something into my final product.
> 
> The answer, and this is my own subjective analysis using 
some pretty 
> in depth research and hard facts, that I am actually awed by 
how well 
> this scanner interprets the grain to render a digital facsimile. 
> 
> My only adjustment in my process was to switch from D76 to 
Microdol 
> and to lighten up on my agitation a little.  I liken this to when 
> (excuse the metaphor if it does not make sense) I traded in my 
BMW 
> for a Ducati... all the nuances of my riding style that did not 
even 
> show up on the older, slightly sloppier motorcycle, appeared 
as 
> explicit instructions to my new motorcycle.  We are in the 4000-
> 5000ppi threshold where the CCD pixel size is in the same 
space as 
> the grain (dye cloud), and as such, this phenomenon may 
raise it's 
> ugly head and create some pretty strange results.
> 
> There are all sorts of solutions proposed:
> 
> 1) slightly tweak the manual focus so that it does not react in 
such 
> an extreme manner to each grain.  This also will impact the 
overall 
> sharpness of the image, as landscape photographer, this did 
not work 
> for me at all.
> 
> 2) GEM seems to introduce other artifacts, plus it only works on 
> color scans, so my 255mb 16bit grayscale scan will triple in 
size.  
> This takes a lot of processing cycles as well.  Not the solution 
for 
> me.
> 
> 3) Get past the zone where the sampling and the grain are at 
> the 'same frequency'.  This would mean spending more than 
the $3,500 
> I just spent on my scanner or sending it out for drum scanning.  
I 
> shoot, develop and print in the same day.... so forget this.
> 
> 4) Use other software plug-ins or post processing tools to 
manage 
> grain.  This seemed to be a cure for the symptom and did not 
really 
> do what I want, which is to faithfully recreate my image 
throughout 
> the entire workflow all the way to the paper.
> 
> 5) Shift your grain size and scanning PPI so that they are 
farther 
> apart.  I have done this some.  I am scanning at 3200PPI and 
like I 
> mentioned, my development is tuned for finer grain, without 
forgoing 
> acutance (sharpness).  
> 
> The last option, and there are many more I am sure, seemed 
to work 
> best for my and what my criteria is.
> 
> A simple search in yahoo, looksmart, alta vista et al on 'grain 
> aliasing' will return a lot of information.
> 
> Hope I am offering useful information and not being redundant 
nor 
> pedantic.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> James
> www.blueskytech.info
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "david_nancy_bogart" 
> <david.g.harris@r...> wrote:
> > Frank,
> > 
> > Since the Multi Pro is the only scanner I have ever worked 
with, 
> > you can take this post for what it is worth. 
> > 
> > I too have found the same grain problem. In queries to 
Minolta 
> > and a myriad of other experts who should know, I have 
received 
> > no real explanation of why this is, and more importantly, no 
> > workable solution. I just attribute it to, as you say `it is
> > sharper than the Nikon' so maybe this is why the grain is 
more 
> > apparent. If you are able to find the answer, please let me 
know.
> > 
> > As far as the scanner USM-ing on its own as someone 
> > suggested, as you know this doesn't happen unless you've 
set 
> > it. That being said, I find I have to be extra careful with these 
> > scans in PhotoShop as normal sharpening will exacerbate 
the 
> > problem. As to the vivid colours, I don't put much seasoning 
into 
> > my image correction recipe. I find if I turn out a fairly bland 
> scan,
> > it opens with realistic colours.
> > 
> > But what do I know. The point of this reply is to let you know 
you 

> > are not alone.
> > 
> > David

To the list --

I'm planning to purchase either the Minolta Scan Multi Pro or the Polaroid 
120 to scan many years of 2¼×2¼ Tri-X negatives (developed in D-76). I hope 
someone with experience can answer several questions:

1. Is either the Polaroid or the Minolta preferable for producing a sharp 
image without exaggerating the grain at 2000/3200/4000/4800 ppi?

2. Is the grain in a monochrome scan better or worse than that of an RGB 
scan reduced to monochrome in Photoshop using the CHANNEL MIXER?

3. I don't like the softened, glowy look of prints from even 
slightly-diffused negatives like those I've seen produced by grain 
reduction software such as the NEAT demo <http://absoft.hotbox.ru/> or the 
QUANTUM MECHANIC PRO demo <http://www.camerabits.com/>. Can anyone 
recommend an anti-grain solution superior to either of these?

4. (For James) -- concerning your experience (quoted below) -- did you have 
the Minolta's Digital-ICE³ turned on or off?   I understand that ICE³ isn't 
intended for use with black-and-white negatives, but what effect do you see 
when it is off compared to turning it on in a B&W scan?

Thanks for whatever information anyone can provide.

-- Victor Landweber


At 03:01 AM 1/27/2002 +0000, James wrote:

>Frank,
>
>I am using the new Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro.  I primarily scan
>Tri-X 6by7 negative and some 35mm.  Having just upgraded from a
>2400ppi scanner, I was seeing some grain I had not seen before.
>
>Research lead me to a phenomenon know as grain aliasing.  As you
>probably know, although I have not noticed it mentioned in this
>thread thus far, Grain aliasing isn't real grain but an interference
>pattern between film grain (dye clusters in color film) and the CCD
>pixel size.
>
>Check out the SilverFast grain reduction tutorial at
>http://www.computer-darkroom.com/sf5-negafix/grain_reduction.htm and
>the rather technical but illuminating explanation at
>http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm.
>
>I finally took to undertaking a detailed empirical analysis of my
>own, using a 200x microscope and comparing the negative, to the
>pixels in Photoshop, to the Piezography print (again under the
>microscope), not because I am technician rather than an artist, but
>because I wanted to be aware if the technologies within my workflow
>were interjecting something into my final product.
>
>The answer, and this is my own subjective analysis using some pretty
>in depth research and hard facts, that I am actually awed by how well
>this scanner interprets the grain to render a digital facsimile.
>
>My only adjustment in my process was to switch from D76 to Microdol
>and to lighten up on my agitation a little.  I liken this to when
>(excuse the metaphor if it does not make sense) I traded in my BMW
>for a Ducati... all the nuances of my riding style that did not even
>show up on the older, slightly sloppier motorcycle, appeared as
>explicit instructions to my new motorcycle.  We are in the 4000-
>5000ppi threshold where the CCD pixel size is in the same space as
>the grain (dye cloud), and as such, this phenomenon may raise it's
>ugly head and create some pretty strange results.
>
>There are all sorts of solutions proposed:
>
>1) slightly tweak the manual focus so that it does not react in such
>an extreme manner to each grain.  This also will impact the overall
>sharpness of the image, as landscape photographer, this did not work
>for me at all.
>
>2) GEM seems to introduce other artifacts, plus it only works on
>color scans, so my 255mb 16bit grayscale scan will triple in size.
>This takes a lot of processing cycles as well.  Not the solution for
>me.
>
>3) Get past the zone where the sampling and the grain are at
>the 'same frequency'.  This would mean spending more than the $3,500
>I just spent on my scanner or sending it out for drum scanning.  I
>shoot, develop and print in the same day.... so forget this.
>
>4) Use other software plug-ins or post processing tools to manage
>grain.  This seemed to be a cure for the symptom and did not really
>do what I want, which is to faithfully recreate my image throughout
>the entire workflow all the way to the paper.
>
>5) Shift your grain size and scanning PPI so that they are farther
>apart.  I have done this some.  I am scanning at 3200PPI and like I
>mentioned, my development is tuned for finer grain, without forgoing
>acutance (sharpness).
>
>The last option, and there are many more I am sure, seemed to work
>best for my and what my criteria is.
>
>A simple search in yahoo, looksmart, alta vista et al on 'grain
>aliasing' will return a lot of information.
>
>Hope I am offering useful information and not being redundant nor
>pedantic.
>
>Regards,
>
>James
>www.blueskytech.info

> I think it is an important point that the problem is "grain aliasing"
> and not grain itself.  The grain on a silver print is much less than
> the grain on a scanned print of the same negative.

Keep in mind grain aliasing can also occur between the film grain pattern
and the printer dither/resolution/droplet size. Expect a finer film grain
representation from a 1280 than a 3000. I don't know how the Piezo driver
may enter the mix, but it's there too.

Todd

Victor,

To be clear, I did my research and experimentation because I was 
seeing grain, or something like it in my prints (PiezoBW on an Epson 
1280 8X10 and 12X15). 

The outcome of my analysis is that the Minolta does a fabulous job -  
something I really needed to honest with myself about so I could take 
advantage of a 30-day return policy.

I swithched to Microdol from D76, not because of grain aliasing, but 
because some of my landscape consist of delicate tonality and 
textures, such as sand dunes or reflections on dark boggy pools.  I 
like grain at time, but not in these situations.

I propose that the Minolta will absolutely satisfy you with regard to 
dynamic range and resolution (without amplifying grain).  I love 
medium format, but I also do a fair amount of 35mm (something about 
the size and speed sets me free to experiment, shooting fast and 
handheld... this seem to actually does something to enhance my medium 
format shooting).  I bring this up because I love the 4800ppi 
scanning for these smaller negative.

Regards,

James

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Victor Landweber 
<victor@l...> wrote:
> To the list --
> 
> I'm planning to purchase either the Minolta Scan Multi Pro or the 
Polaroid 
> 120 to scan many years of 2¼×2¼ Tri-X negatives (developed in D-
76). I hope 
> someone with experience can answer several questions:
> 
> 1. Is either the Polaroid or the Minolta preferable for producing a 
sharp 
> image without exaggerating the grain at 2000/3200/4000/4800 ppi?
> 
> 2. Is the grain in a monochrome scan better or worse than that of 
an RGB 
> scan reduced to monochrome in Photoshop using the CHANNEL MIXER?
> 
> 3. I don't like the softened, glowy look of prints from even 
> slightly-diffused negatives like those I've seen produced by grain 
> reduction software such as the NEAT demo <http://absoft.hotbox.ru/> 
or the 
> QUANTUM MECHANIC PRO demo <http://www.camerabits.com/>. Can anyone 
> recommend an anti-grain solution superior to either of these?
> 
> 4. (For James) -- concerning your experience (quoted below) -- did 
you have 
> the Minolta's Digital-ICE³ turned on or off?   I understand that 
ICE³ isn't 
> intended for use with black-and-white negatives, but what effect do 
you see 
> when it is off compared to turning it on in a B&W scan?
> 
> Thanks for whatever information anyone can provide.
> 
> -- Victor Landweber
> 
> 
> At 03:01 AM 1/27/2002 +0000, James wrote:
> 
> >Frank,
> >
> >I am using the new Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro.  I primarily scan
> >Tri-X 6by7 negative and some 35mm.  Having just upgraded from a
> >2400ppi scanner, I was seeing some grain I had not seen before.
> >
> >Research lead me to a phenomenon know as grain aliasing.  As you
> >probably know, although I have not noticed it mentioned in this
> >thread thus far, Grain aliasing isn't real grain but an 
interference
> >pattern between film grain (dye clusters in color film) and the CCD
> >pixel size.
> >
> >Check out the SilverFast grain reduction tutorial at
> >http://www.computer-darkroom.com/sf5-negafix/grain_reduction.htm 
and
> >the rather technical but illuminating explanation at
> >http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm.
> >
> >I finally took to undertaking a detailed empirical analysis of my
> >own, using a 200x microscope and comparing the negative, to the
> >pixels in Photoshop, to the Piezography print (again under the
> >microscope), not because I am technician rather than an artist, but
> >because I wanted to be aware if the technologies within my workflow
> >were interjecting something into my final product.
> >
> >The answer, and this is my own subjective analysis using some 
pretty
> >in depth research and hard facts, that I am actually awed by how 
well
> >this scanner interprets the grain to render a digital facsimile.
> >
> >My only adjustment in my process was to switch from D76 to Microdol
> >and to lighten up on my agitation a little.  I liken this to when
> >(excuse the metaphor if it does not make sense) I traded in my BMW
> >for a Ducati... all the nuances of my riding style that did not 
even
> >show up on the older, slightly sloppier motorcycle, appeared as
> >explicit instructions to my new motorcycle.  We are in the 4000-
> >5000ppi threshold where the CCD pixel size is in the same space as
> >the grain (dye cloud), and as such, this phenomenon may raise it's
> >ugly head and create some pretty strange results.
> >
> >There are all sorts of solutions proposed:
> >
> >1) slightly tweak the manual focus so that it does not react in 
such
> >an extreme manner to each grain.  This also will impact the overall
> >sharpness of the image, as landscape photographer, this did not 
work
> >for me at all.
> >
> >2) GEM seems to introduce other artifacts, plus it only works on
> >color scans, so my 255mb 16bit grayscale scan will triple in size.
> >This takes a lot of processing cycles as well.  Not the solution 
for
> >me.
> >
> >3) Get past the zone where the sampling and the grain are at
> >the 'same frequency'.  This would mean spending more than the 
$3,500
> >I just spent on my scanner or sending it out for drum scanning.  I
> >shoot, develop and print in the same day.... so forget this.
> >
> >4) Use other software plug-ins or post processing tools to manage
> >grain.  This seemed to be a cure for the symptom and did not really
> >do what I want, which is to faithfully recreate my image throughout
> >the entire workflow all the way to the paper.
> >
> >5) Shift your grain size and scanning PPI so that they are farther
> >apart.  I have done this some.  I am scanning at 3200PPI and like I
> >mentioned, my development is tuned for finer grain, without 
forgoing

> >acutance (sharpness).
> >
> >The last option, and there are many more I am sure, seemed to work
> >best for my and what my criteria is.
> >
> >A simple search in yahoo, looksmart, alta vista et al on 'grain
> >aliasing' will return a lot of information.
> >
> >Hope I am offering useful information and not being redundant nor
> >pedantic.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >James
> >www.blueskytech.info

This may seem off the topic, but please read on.

We have had similar grain problems with other scanners and printers 
and have discovered if you treat the image as color transparency all 
the way thru from the scan to the final print you get much better 
results as far as grain goes.  I speculate that it has to do with the 
way the scanner and printer do B&W.  Perhaps they only use the black 
print head and one third of the array for scanning?

Has any one had similar experience? We do not use special inks for 
B&W so I cannot speak for the color qualilies I am reading of here.  
Perhaps with the special tanks with more than one black ink loaded it 
can be controled to your liking

AZ --

Which scanning software did you find supported optimal grain which didn't? 
I believe that I will be using either the proprietary Minolta software or 
VueScan with the Scan Multi Pro, and SilverFast or VueScan with the 
Polaroid 120 (I don't like Polacolor Insight's limited functionality at all!).

My output will be 12"×12" prints made with an Epson 1160 using MIS FS inks 
on Epson Archival Mat.

I'll appreciate hearing your opinion about all this.

Thanks.

-- Victor Landweber


At 01:08 PM 1/28/2002 -0800, AZ wrote:

>The scanning software is the important factor. The question should be what
>scanning software for these scanners gives the best grain reduction given
>your criteria. I was using a scanning software that exaggerated the grain
>terribly and thought it was typical until I tried another. There are
>trade-offs between sharpness and grain. Also you should have in mind your
>output method when you make the scan. You want to balance your scanning
>technique with your output device.
>
>My Prior Message
>
> >To the list --
> >
> >I'm planning to purchase either the Minolta Scan Multi Pro or the Polaroid
> >120 to scan many years of 2¼×2¼ Tri-X negatives (developed in D-76). I hope
> >someone with experience can answer several questions:
> >
> >1. Is either the Polaroid or the Minolta preferable for producing a sharp
> >image without exaggerating the grain at 2000/3200/4000/4800 ppi?
> >
> >2. Is the grain in a monochrome scan better or worse than that of an RGB
> >scan reduced to monochrome in Photoshop using the CHANNEL MIXER?

At 03:03 PM 1/27/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>To the list --
>
>I'm planning to purchase either the Minolta Scan Multi Pro or the Polaroid 
>120 to scan many years of 2¼×2¼ Tri-X negatives (developed in D-76). I hope 
>someone with experience can answer several questions:
>
>1. Is either the Polaroid or the Minolta preferable for producing a sharp 
>image without exaggerating the grain at 2000/3200/4000/4800 ppi?
>
>2. Is the grain in a monochrome scan better or worse than that of an RGB 
>scan reduced to monochrome in Photoshop using the CHANNEL MIXER?

Victor,

The scanning software is the important factor. The question should be what
scanning software for these scanners gives the best grain reduction given
your criteria. I was using a scanning software that exaggerated the grain
terribly and thought it was typical until I tried another. There are
trade-offs between sharpness and grain. Also you should have in mind your
output method when you make the scan. You want to balance your scanning
technique with your output device. 

AZ
AZ 
Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

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

Earlier in this post I said that I scanned the same color negs on 
a Nikon and on a Minolta Pro.  I will now scan those same negs 
on a Polaroid 120.  I'll get them to my friend this week so I can 
add a more informed opinion to our options.

 After working with my Minolta for 3 months, trying Silverfast HDR 
(much too much grain) as well as the Minolta software, I am 
dissatisfied and cannot recommend the product for any negative 
scanning.  The problem is squarely placed on the grain aliasing.  
There are other problems such as the highlights blow out very 
quickly, but I would be happy to simply get an answer for the 
graininess.

I have scanned b&w and color negs as slides, negs (both b/w 
and color) and as 16 bit linear files.  I have oversampled 16 
times, added Gem, Ice and Roc, added gaussian blur and used 
the smudge tool.  I have tried the workarounds that have been 
offered on this list.  I have not tried Neatscan (or whatever) 
because I have a Mac.  I have also not tried VueScan.

I will say that the negative carriers and the software is a pleasure 
to work with.  Ergonomically, this machine is great.  The problem 
is in the results from negatives.  Slides look great.

I am considering selling the Minolta Pro.  If anyone out there 
wants it, I will send it to Minolta warranty service, first , so they 
can completely go through it , and then send it off to you.  I will do 
this for $300 less than what any Minolta Pro is selling for on the 
web.

Frank

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Victor Landweber 
<victor@l...> wrote:
> AZ --
> 
> Which scanning software did you find supported optimal grain 
which didn't? 
> I believe that I will be using either the proprietary Minolta 
software or 
> VueScan with the Scan Multi Pro, and SilverFast or VueScan 
with the 
> Polaroid 120 (I don't like Polacolor Insight's limited functionality 
at all!).
> 
> My output will be 12"*12" prints made with an Epson 1160 
using MIS FS inks 
> on Epson Archival Mat.
> 
> I'll appreciate hearing your opinion about all this.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- Victor Landweber
> 
> 
> At 01:08 PM 1/28/2002 -0800, AZ wrote:
> >The scanning software is the important factor. The question 
should be what
> >scanning software for these scanners gives the best grain 
reduction given
> >your criteria. I was using a scanning software that 
exaggerated the grain
> >terribly and thought it was typical until I tried another. There 
are
> >trade-offs between sharpness and grain. Also you should 
have in mind your
> >output method when you make the scan. You want to balance 
your scanning
> >technique with your output device.
> >
> >My Prior Message
> >
> > >To the list --
> > >
> > >I'm planning to purchase either the Minolta Scan Multi Pro or 
the Polaroid
> > >120 to scan many years of 2¼*2¼ Tri-X negatives 
(developed in D-76). I hope
> > >someone with experience can answer several questions:
> > >
> > >1. Is either the Polaroid or the Minolta preferable for 
producing a sharp
> > >image without exaggerating the grain at 
2000/3200/4000/4800 ppi?
> > >
> > >2. Is the grain in a monochrome scan better or worse than 
that of an RGB
> > >scan reduced to monochrome in Photoshop using the 
CHANNEL MIXER?

Frank,

I am so sorry to hear that you are unhappy with your scanner.  I am 
using the Dimage Scan Multi Pro (just to be sure we are talking about 
the same scanner).  There is one thing that is a little elusive, and 
it gets me sometimes... 

There are many avenues/options for tweaking your scan, the irony is 
that these settings seem to stay in effect unless you reset them.  
Sometimes I will boot-up and begin scanning and will be totally 
mystified why I am getting such strange results, then I will find 
some setting I made 2 nights ago while dealing with a difficult 
negative.  I am so happy with this scanner, and it delivering an 
extremely accurate interpretation of the black and white negative 
(with no ICE, ROC, GEM or other tricks). 

I wish you the best of luck and I hope you do not have to sell it to 
get the results you want.

Regards,

James

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "culturalvisions" 
<frank@c...> wrote:
> Earlier in this post I said that I scanned the same color negs on 
> a Nikon and on a Minolta Pro.  I will now scan those same negs 
> on a Polaroid 120.  I'll get them to my friend this week so I can 
> add a more informed opinion to our options.
> 
>  After working with my Minolta for 3 months, trying Silverfast HDR 
> (much too much grain) as well as the Minolta software, I am 
> dissatisfied and cannot recommend the product for any negative 
> scanning.  The problem is squarely placed on the grain aliasing.  
> There are other problems such as the highlights blow out very 
> quickly, but I would be happy to simply get an answer for the 
> graininess.
> 
> I have scanned b&w and color negs as slides, negs (both b/w 
> and color) and as 16 bit linear files.  I have oversampled 16 
> times, added Gem, Ice and Roc, added gaussian blur and used 
> the smudge tool.  I have tried the workarounds that have been 
> offered on this list.  I have not tried Neatscan (or whatever) 
> because I have a Mac.  I have also not tried VueScan.
> 
> I will say that the negative carriers and the software is a 
pleasure 
> to work with.  Ergonomically, this machine is great.  The problem 
> is in the results from negatives.  Slides look great.
> 
> I am considering selling the Minolta Pro.  If anyone out there 
> wants it, I will send it to Minolta warranty service, first , so 
they 
> can completely go through it , and then send it off to you.  I will 
do 
> this for $300 less than what any Minolta Pro is selling for on the 
> web.
> 
> Frank
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Victor Landweber 
> <victor@l...> wrote:
> > AZ --
> > 
> > Which scanning software did you find supported optimal grain 
> which didn't? 
> > I believe that I will be using either the proprietary Minolta 
> software or 
> > VueScan with the Scan Multi Pro, and SilverFast or VueScan 
> with the 
> > Polaroid 120 (I don't like Polacolor Insight's limited 
functionality 

> at all!).
> > 
> > My output will be 12"*12" prints made with an Epson 1160 
> using MIS FS inks 
> > on Epson Archival Mat.
> > 
> > I'll appreciate hearing your opinion about all this.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > -- Victor Landweber
> > 
> > 
> > At 01:08 PM 1/28/2002 -0800, AZ wrote:
> > >The scanning software is the important factor. The question 
> should be what
> > >scanning software for these scanners gives the best grain 
> reduction given
> > >your criteria. I was using a scanning software that 
> exaggerated the grain
> > >terribly and thought it was typical until I tried another. There 
> are
> > >trade-offs between sharpness and grain. Also you should 
> have in mind your
> > >output method when you make the scan. You want to balance 
> your scanning
> > >technique with your output device.
> > >
> > >My Prior Message
> > >
> > > >To the list --
> > > >
> > > >I'm planning to purchase either the Minolta Scan Multi Pro or 
> the Polaroid
> > > >120 to scan many years of 2¼*2¼ Tri-X negatives 
> (developed in D-76). I hope
> > > >someone with experience can answer several questions:
> > > >
> > > >1. Is either the Polaroid or the Minolta preferable for 
> producing a sharp
> > > >image without exaggerating the grain at 
> 2000/3200/4000/4800 ppi?
> > > >
> > > >2. Is the grain in a monochrome scan better or worse than 
> that of an RGB
> > > >scan reduced to monochrome in Photoshop using the 
> CHANNEL MIXER?

Frank --

I will be very interested in hearing about your Polaroid 120 experience. 
Will your prior disappointment with the Minolta and Silverfast keep you 
from trying Silverfast with the Polaroid? I have a low opinion of 
Polaroid's alternative software -- Polacolor Insight.

Thank you for persevering with your thorough medium-format scanner search.

-- Victor Landweber


At 09:28 PM 1/28/2002 +0000, you wrote:

>Earlier in this post I said that I scanned the same color negs on
>a Nikon and on a Minolta Pro.  I will now scan those same negs
>on a Polaroid 120.  I'll get them to my friend this week so I can
>add a more informed opinion to our options.
>
>  After working with my Minolta for 3 months, trying Silverfast HDR
>(much too much grain) as well as the Minolta software, I am
>dissatisfied and cannot recommend the product for any negative
>scanning.  The problem is squarely placed on the grain aliasing.
>There are other problems such as the highlights blow out very
>quickly, but I would be happy to simply get an answer for the
>graininess.
>
>I have scanned b&w and color negs as slides, negs (both b/w
>and color) and as 16 bit linear files.  I have oversampled 16
>times, added Gem, Ice and Roc, added gaussian blur and used
>the smudge tool.  I have tried the workarounds that have been
>offered on this list.  I have not tried Neatscan (or whatever)
>because I have a Mac.  I have also not tried VueScan.
>
>I will say that the negative carriers and the software is a pleasure
>to work with.  Ergonomically, this machine is great.  The problem
>is in the results from negatives.  Slides look great.
>
>I am considering selling the Minolta Pro.  If anyone out there
>wants it, I will send it to Minolta warranty service, first , so they
>can completely go through it , and then send it off to you.  I will do
>this for $300 less than what any Minolta Pro is selling for on the
>web.

I thought I would throw in my pennys worth on the subject of the minolta
Pro. I print with Piezo inks. I scan all B&W  6x7 negs in colour slide mode
with 4 times oversampling. I do no adjustments in with the minolta sofware
and leave all that to photoshop. I then invert and have to convert to
greyscale in order to export to the Piezo software. I have been getting
truely lovely tonality and incredible depth of detail. No doubt Frank has a
more informed and professional eye than mine but I am very happy with the
results and they are an improvement on my Wet processed prints.

Adam

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Victor Landweber [mailto:victor@...]
  Sent: 28 January 2002 23:43
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Minolta Pro Vs Nikon 8000: Grain vs Softness


  Frank --

  I will be very interested in hearing about your Polaroid 120 experience.
  Will your prior disappointment with the Minolta and Silverfast keep you
  from trying Silverfast with the Polaroid? I have a low opinion of
  Polaroid's alternative software -- Polacolor Insight.

  Thank you for persevering with your thorough medium-format scanner search.

  -- Victor Landweber


  At 09:28 PM 1/28/2002 +0000, you wrote:

  >Earlier in this post I said that I scanned the same color negs on
  >a Nikon and on a Minolta Pro.  I will now scan those same negs
  >on a Polaroid 120.  I'll get them to my friend this week so I can
  >add a more informed opinion to our options.
  >
  >  After working with my Minolta for 3 months, trying Silverfast HDR
  >(much too much grain) as well as the Minolta software, I am
  >dissatisfied and cannot recommend the product for any negative
  >scanning.  The problem is squarely placed on the grain aliasing.
  >There are other problems such as the highlights blow out very
  >quickly, but I would be happy to simply get an answer for the
  >graininess.
  >
  >I have scanned b&w and color negs as slides, negs (both b/w
  >and color) and as 16 bit linear files.  I have oversampled 16
  >times, added Gem, Ice and Roc, added gaussian blur and used
  >the smudge tool.  I have tried the workarounds that have been
  >offered on this list.  I have not tried Neatscan (or whatever)
  >because I have a Mac.  I have also not tried VueScan.
  >
  >I will say that the negative carriers and the software is a pleasure
  >to work with.  Ergonomically, this machine is great.  The problem
  >is in the results from negatives.  Slides look great.
  >
  >I am considering selling the Minolta Pro.  If anyone out there
  >wants it, I will send it to Minolta warranty service, first , so they
  >can completely go through it , and then send it off to you.  I will do
  >this for $300 less than what any Minolta Pro is selling for on the
  >web.



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT




  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.314 / Virus Database: 175 - Release Date: 11/01/02


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

I am in agreement with Mahesi.  I am probably being too harsh 
on my Minolta Pro.  The best scans are in the slide mode no 
matter what the film.  It seems like the Minolta color adjustment 
settings are best avoided even though they seem so simple and 
comprehensive.  My b/w prints look good.  The prints from color 
negatives suffer the most.  Slides look great.

I should get the Polaroid test scans back soon.  They will be 
done with Silverfast.  So far, Minolta is the sharpest film scanner 
for under $3000, but Nikon makes the best looking scans overall 
from color negatives.  Nikon has better color rendition, less 
grain, less blown out highlights, but can look soft beyond about  
a 20X24 inch blow up.

I also want to support Alan Zinn's comment on the "grain" 
postings that comparing scanners is a great way to learn about 
scanners and scanning.

Frank

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Mahesi Caplan-Faust" 
<caplan@n...> wrote:
> I thought I would throw in my pennys worth on the subject of the 
minolta
> Pro. I print with Piezo inks. I scan all B&W  6x7 negs in colour 
slide mode
> with 4 times oversampling. I do no adjustments in with the 
minolta sofware
> and leave all that to photoshop. I then invert and have to convert 
to
> greyscale in order to export to the Piezo software. I have been 
getting
> truely lovely tonality and incredible depth of detail. No doubt 
Frank has a
> more informed and professional eye than mine but I am very 
happy with the
> results and they are an improvement on my Wet processed 
prints.
> 
> Adam
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: Victor Landweber [mailto:victor@l...]
>   Sent: 28 January 2002 23:43
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
>   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Minolta Pro Vs Nikon 8000: Grain 
vs Softness
> 
> 
>   Frank --
> 
>   I will be very interested in hearing about your Polaroid 120 
experience.
>   Will your prior disappointment with the Minolta and Silverfast 
keep you
>   from trying Silverfast with the Polaroid? I have a low opinion of
>   Polaroid's alternative software -- Polacolor Insight.
> 
>   Thank you for persevering with your thorough medium-format 
scanner search.
> 
>   -- Victor Landweber
> 
> 
>   At 09:28 PM 1/28/2002 +0000, you wrote:
> 
>   >Earlier in this post I said that I scanned the same color negs 
on
>   >a Nikon and on a Minolta Pro.  I will now scan those same 
negs
>   >on a Polaroid 120.  I'll get them to my friend this week so I 
can
>   >add a more informed opinion to our options.
>   >
>   >  After working with my Minolta for 3 months, trying Silverfast 
HDR
>   >(much too much grain) as well as the Minolta software, I am
>   >dissatisfied and cannot recommend the product for any 
negative
>   >scanning.  The problem is squarely placed on the grain 
aliasing.
>   >There are other problems such as the highlights blow out 
very
>   >quickly, but I would be happy to simply get an answer for the
>   >graininess.
>   >
>   >I have scanned b&w and color negs as slides, negs (both 
b/w
>   >and color) and as 16 bit linear files.  I have oversampled 16
>   >times, added Gem, Ice and Roc, added gaussian blur and 
used
>   >the smudge tool.  I have tried the workarounds that have 
been
>   >offered on this list.  I have not tried Neatscan (or whatever)
>   >because I have a Mac.  I have also not tried VueScan.
>   >
>   >I will say that the negative carriers and the software is a 
pleasure
>   >to work with.  Ergonomically, this machine is great.  The 
problem
>   >is in the results from negatives.  Slides look great.
>   >
>   >I am considering selling the Minolta Pro.  If anyone out there
>   >wants it, I will send it to Minolta warranty service, first , so 
they
>   >can completely go through it , and then send it off to you.  I 
will do
>   >this for $300 less than what any Minolta Pro is selling for on 
the
>   >web.
> 
> 
> 
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>               ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   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 the Yahoo! Terms of 
Service.
> 
> 
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.314 / Virus Database: 175 - Release Date: 
11/01/02

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

I believe that this opinion about the Minolta being the sharpest film 
scanner is because sharpening cannot be completely turned off in Minolta 
scanners. No matter how you instruct the software, the scanner persists in 
applying some sharpening to the image. This was reason enough for me to 
reject the Minolta when I was medium-format scanner shopping and settle 
instead on a Polaroid Sprintscan 120 which was still in production when I 
made my purchase. The Sprintscan works great though slowly. Silverfast is 
superb though eccentric. I prefer to sharpen in Photoshop using a 
specialized plug-in that lets me sharpen edges without sharpening grain. 
The Nikon 8000 was also rejected because its shallow depth of field 
requires negatives to be supported with a glass film holder to preserve 
sharp corners and its collimated light source heightens the appearance of 
dust and scratches in black-and-white silver negatives. I expect that a 
sharpened Sprintscan image would be a close match to either of the others.

At 08:42 AM 1/29/2002, culturalvisions wrote:

>I am in agreement with Mahesi.  I am probably being too harsh
>on my Minolta Pro.  The best scans are in the slide mode no
>matter what the film.  It seems like the Minolta color adjustment
>settings are best avoided even though they seem so simple and
>comprehensive.  My b/w prints look good.  The prints from color
>negatives suffer the most.  Slides look great.
>
>I should get the Polaroid test scans back soon.  They will be
>done with Silverfast.  So far, Minolta is the sharpest film scanner
>for under $3000, but Nikon makes the best looking scans overall
>from color negatives.  Nikon has better color rendition, less
>grain, less blown out highlights, but can look soft beyond about
>a 20X24 inch blow up.
>
>I also want to support Alan Zinn's comment on the "grain"
>postings that comparing scanners is a great way to learn about
>scanners and scanning.
>
>Frank
>
>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Mahesi Caplan-Faust"
><caplan@n...> wrote:
> > I thought I would throw in my pennys worth on the subject of the
>minolta
> > Pro. I print with Piezo inks. I scan all B&W  6x7 negs in colour
>slide mode
> > with 4 times oversampling. I do no adjustments in with the
>minolta sofware
> > and leave all that to photoshop. I then invert and have to convert
>to
> > greyscale in order to export to the Piezo software. I have been
>getting
> > truely lovely tonality and incredible depth of detail. No doubt
>Frank has a
> > more informed and professional eye than mine but I am very
>happy with the
> > results and they are an improvement on my Wet processed
>prints.
> >
> > Adam
> >   -----Original Message-----
> >   From: Victor Landweber [mailto:victor@l...]
> >   Sent: 28 January 2002 23:43
> >   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
> >   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Minolta Pro Vs Nikon 8000: Grain
>vs Softness
> >
> >
> >   Frank --
> >
> >   I will be very interested in hearing about your Polaroid 120
>experience.
> >   Will your prior disappointment with the Minolta and Silverfast
>keep you
> >   from trying Silverfast with the Polaroid? I have a low opinion of
> >   Polaroid's alternative software -- Polacolor Insight.
> >
> >   Thank you for persevering with your thorough medium-format
>scanner search.
> >
> >   -- Victor Landweber
> >
> >
> >   At 09:28 PM 1/28/2002 +0000, you wrote:
> >
> >   >Earlier in this post I said that I scanned the same color negs
>on
> >   >a Nikon and on a Minolta Pro.  I will now scan those same
>negs
> >   >on a Polaroid 120.  I'll get them to my friend this week so I
>can
> >   >add a more informed opinion to our options.
> >   >
> >   >  After working with my Minolta for 3 months, trying Silverfast
>HDR
> >   >(much too much grain) as well as the Minolta software, I am
> >   >dissatisfied and cannot recommend the product for any
>negative
> >   >scanning.  The problem is squarely placed on the grain
>aliasing.
> >   >There are other problems such as the highlights blow out
>very
> >   >quickly, but I would be happy to simply get an answer for the
> >   >graininess.
> >   >
> >   >I have scanned b&w and color negs as slides, negs (both
>b/w
> >   >and color) and as 16 bit linear files.  I have oversampled 16
> >   >times, added Gem, Ice and Roc, added gaussian blur and
>used
> >   >the smudge tool.  I have tried the workarounds that have
>been
> >   >offered on this list.  I have not tried Neatscan (or whatever)
> >   >because I have a Mac.  I have also not tried VueScan.
> >   >
> >   >I will say that the negative carriers and the software is a
>pleasure
> >   >to work with.  Ergonomically, this machine is great.  The
>problem
> >   >is in the results from negatives.  Slides look great.
> >   >
> >   >I am considering selling the Minolta Pro.  If anyone out there
> >   >wants it, I will send it to Minolta warranty service, first , so
>they
> >   >can completely go through it , and then send it off to you.  I
>will do
> >   >this for $300 less than what any Minolta Pro is selling for on
>the
> >   >web.
> >
> >
> >
> >         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >               ADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   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 the Yahoo! Terms of
>Service.
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.314 / Virus Database: 175 - Release Date:
>11/01/02
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>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/
>
>
>
>
>-=-=-
>SBG-Priority: 5 (Lowest) http://www.internz.com/SpamBeGone/


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