Digital BW, The Print

My question is about the scanning negatives, but since the end goal is to get the best B&W 
print, I thought I'd raise the question here.  I hope this is not considered too far OT.

I'm shooting a couple of test rolls of XP2 Super with the idea of getting away from film 
processing and taking advantage of Digital ICE.

Rather than scan as grayscale, I scanned (Nikon 4000ED) in RGB, then converted to Lab 
and discarded the color channels.  I did this to get rid of any effects of the background 
mask.  This resulted in an image that required gentler tonal corrections than if I had 
scanned in grayscale.

I can do some extensive testing, but I thought I'd tap into the combined wisdom of this 
group first.

So, have I stumbled onto a well-known procedure, or does it make little or no difference 
which route one takes in the scanning step.

Also, any comments on the relative merits of Ilford vs. Kodak chromogenic film would be 
welcome.  TIA

Harry Lockwood

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "hlockwood"
<hlockwood@...> wrote:
...
> I'm shooting a couple of test rolls of XP2 Super...

I use that film regularly for medium format and have for many years,
it scans well. With large prints, people are amazed to learn it's not 4x5.

> 
> Rather than scan as grayscale, I scanned (Nikon 4000ED) in RGB, then
converted to Lab 
> and discarded the color channels.  I did this to get rid of any
effects of the background 
> mask.

I'm not sure this procedure is giving you any advantage when it comes
to the mask. It contains a limited amount of color, so really you're
just going to have to remove it's density with an end point adjustment
at some point along the way, whether in the scanner software, or
Photoshop, intentionally or due some some unseen "auto" function.

Scanners are native RGB, so even with a grayscale scan it's just
converting on the fly for you. It's been a long time since I used a
Nikon, is there a preference setting allowing you to select one of the
channels for gray, R, G, or B? If so, do an identical test scan of the
same neg using each color, with no auto adjustments. In PS look at the
histograms and see which one has filled it out the most, icluding that
low ened for the base density. Then look at 100%, check noise and
sharpness.
If one channel outperforms the others, go with that.

>  This resulted in an image that required gentler tonal corrections
than if I had 
> scanned in grayscale.

That may very well be. And if no other method shows any improvement,
you might as well stay with it.

...
> So, have I stumbled onto a well-known procedure, or does it make
little or no difference 
> which route one takes in the scanning step.

It's known, and some recommend it. Anything can make a difference, and
 these things are well worth exploring. We called it craft in the
olden days of yore and lore.
I just try to stay away from a lot of mode conversions, for B&W you'll
be doing a lot of tonal editing in PS anyway, so combined the loss can
add up. However you do it, I highly recomend scanning and staying in
high bit for those steps, and as long as possible down the line when
working on single channel files.
> 
> Also, any comments on the relative merits of Ilford vs. Kodak
chromogenic film would be 
> welcome.  TIA

I'd be very interested in anyone's comments about that as well, I've
yet to test the Kodak.

Tyler

Thanks, Tyler, for the quick response.

I can only choose RGB or grayscale, not individual channels.  And yes, I
stay with 16 bit throughout, until I print.  I¹ll continue to fool with it.


Harry



On 4/21/07 3:15 PM, "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...> wrote:
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , "hlockwood"
> <hlockwood@...> wrote:
> ...
>> > I'm shooting a couple of test rolls of XP2 Super...
> 
> I use that film regularly for medium format and have for many years,
> it scans well. With large prints, people are amazed to learn it's not 4x5.
> 
>> > 
>> > Rather than scan as grayscale, I scanned (Nikon 4000ED) in RGB, then
> converted to Lab 
>> > and discarded the color channels.  I did this to get rid of any
> effects of the background
>> > mask.
> 
> I'm not sure this procedure is giving you any advantage when it comes
> to the mask. It contains a limited amount of color, so really you're
> just going to have to remove it's density with an end point adjustment
> at some point along the way, whether in the scanner software, or
> Photoshop, intentionally or due some some unseen "auto" function.
> 
> Scanners are native RGB, so even with a grayscale scan it's just
> converting on the fly for you. It's been a long time since I used a
> Nikon, is there a preference setting allowing you to select one of the
> channels for gray, R, G, or B? If so, do an identical test scan of the
> same neg using each color, with no auto adjustments. In PS look at the
> histograms and see which one has filled it out the most, icluding that
> low ened for the base density. Then look at 100%, check noise and
> sharpness.
> If one channel outperforms the others, go with that.
> 
>> >  This resulted in an image that required gentler tonal corrections
> than if I had 
>> > scanned in grayscale.
> 
> That may very well be. And if no other method shows any improvement,
> you might as well stay with it.
> 
> ...
>> > So, have I stumbled onto a well-known procedure, or does it make
> little or no difference
>> > which route one takes in the scanning step.
> 
> It's known, and some recommend it. Anything can make a difference, and
>  these things are well worth exploring. We called it craft in the
> olden days of yore and lore.
> I just try to stay away from a lot of mode conversions, for B&W you'll
> be doing a lot of tonal editing in PS anyway, so combined the loss can
> add up. However you do it, I highly recomend scanning and staying in
> high bit for those steps, and as long as possible down the line when
> working on single channel files.
>> > 
>> > Also, any comments on the relative merits of Ilford vs. Kodak
> chromogenic film would be
>> > welcome.  TIA
> 
> I'd be very interested in anyone's comments about that as well, I've
> yet to test the Kodak.
> 
> Tyler
> 

-- 

Harry F. Lockwood




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

If you still want to check out the scanner's channel performance and
possible effects of base color scan RGB and carefully look at each
channel. You can always throw 2 away if one stands out, or even use
the mixer to use 2 if one is a dog.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Harry Lockwood
<hflockwood@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Tyler, for the quick response.
> 
> I can only choose RGB or grayscale, not individual channels.  And yes, I
> stay with 16 bit throughout, until I print.  I¹ll continue to fool
with it.
> 
> 
> Harry
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/21/07 3:15 PM, "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , "hlockwood"
> > <hlockwood@> wrote:
> > ...
> >> > I'm shooting a couple of test rolls of XP2 Super...
> > 
> > I use that film regularly for medium format and have for many years,
> > it scans well. With large prints, people are amazed to learn it's
not 4x5.
> > 
> >> > 
> >> > Rather than scan as grayscale, I scanned (Nikon 4000ED) in RGB,
then

> > converted to Lab 
> >> > and discarded the color channels.  I did this to get rid of any
> > effects of the background
> >> > mask.
> > 
> > I'm not sure this procedure is giving you any advantage when it comes
> > to the mask. It contains a limited amount of color, so really you're
> > just going to have to remove it's density with an end point adjustment
> > at some point along the way, whether in the scanner software, or
> > Photoshop, intentionally or due some some unseen "auto" function.
> > 
> > Scanners are native RGB, so even with a grayscale scan it's just
> > converting on the fly for you. It's been a long time since I used a
> > Nikon, is there a preference setting allowing you to select one of the
> > channels for gray, R, G, or B? If so, do an identical test scan of the
> > same neg using each color, with no auto adjustments. In PS look at the
> > histograms and see which one has filled it out the most, icluding that
> > low ened for the base density. Then look at 100%, check noise and
> > sharpness.
> > If one channel outperforms the others, go with that.
> > 
> >> >  This resulted in an image that required gentler tonal corrections
> > than if I had 
> >> > scanned in grayscale.
> > 
> > That may very well be. And if no other method shows any improvement,
> > you might as well stay with it.
> > 
> > ...
> >> > So, have I stumbled onto a well-known procedure, or does it make
> > little or no difference
> >> > which route one takes in the scanning step.
> > 
> > It's known, and some recommend it. Anything can make a difference, and
> >  these things are well worth exploring. We called it craft in the
> > olden days of yore and lore.
> > I just try to stay away from a lot of mode conversions, for B&W you'll
> > be doing a lot of tonal editing in PS anyway, so combined the loss can
> > add up. However you do it, I highly recomend scanning and staying in
> > high bit for those steps, and as long as possible down the line when
> > working on single channel files.
> >> > 
> >> > Also, any comments on the relative merits of Ilford vs. Kodak
> > chromogenic film would be
> >> > welcome.  TIA
> > 
> > I'd be very interested in anyone's comments about that as well, I've
> > yet to test the Kodak.
> > 
> > Tyler
> > 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Harry F. Lockwood
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I’ll do that.  Thanks.

Harry


On 4/21/07 5:03 PM, "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...> wrote:

>  
>  
>  
> 
> If you still want to check out the scanner's channel performance and
> possible effects of base color scan RGB and carefully look at each
> channel. You can always throw 2 away if one stands out, or even use
> the mixer to use 2 if one is a dog.
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , Harry Lockwood
> <hflockwood@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Thanks, Tyler, for the quick response.
>> > 
>> > I can only choose RGB or grayscale, not individual channels.  And yes, I
>> > stay with 16 bit throughout, until I print.  I¹ll continue to fool
> with it.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Harry
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 4/21/07 3:15 PM, "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...> wrote:
>> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , "hlockwood"
>>> > > <hlockwood@> wrote:
>>> > > ...
>>>>> > >> > I'm shooting a couple of test rolls of XP2 Super...
>>> > > 
>>> > > I use that film regularly for medium format and have for many years,
>>> > > it scans well. With large prints, people are amazed to learn it's
> not 4x5.
>>> > > 
>>>>> > >> > 
>>>>> > >> > Rather than scan as grayscale, I scanned (Nikon 4000ED) in RGB,
> then
>>> > > converted to Lab
>>>>> > >> > and discarded the color channels.  I did this to get rid of any
>>> > > effects of the background
>>>>> > >> > mask.
>>> > > 
>>> > > I'm not sure this procedure is giving you any advantage when it comes
>>> > > to the mask. It contains a limited amount of color, so really you're
>>> > > just going to have to remove it's density with an end point adjustment
>>> > > at some point along the way, whether in the scanner software, or
>>> > > Photoshop, intentionally or due some some unseen "auto" function.
>>> > > 
>>> > > Scanners are native RGB, so even with a grayscale scan it's just
>>> > > converting on the fly for you. It's been a long time since I used a
>>> > > Nikon, is there a preference setting allowing you to select one of the
>>> > > channels for gray, R, G, or B? If so, do an identical test scan of the
>>> > > same neg using each color, with no auto adjustments. In PS look at the
>>> > > histograms and see which one has filled it out the most, icluding that
>>> > > low ened for the base density. Then look at 100%, check noise and
>>> > > sharpness.
>>> > > If one channel outperforms the others, go with that.
>>> > > 
>>>>> > >> >  This resulted in an image that required gentler tonal corrections
>>> > > than if I had
>>>>> > >> > scanned in grayscale.
>>> > > 
>>> > > That may very well be. And if no other method shows any improvement,
>>> > > you might as well stay with it.
>>> > > 
>>> > > ...
>>>>> > >> > So, have I stumbled onto a well-known procedure, or does it make
>>> > > little or no difference
>>>>> > >> > which route one takes in the scanning step.
>>> > > 
>>> > > It's known, and some recommend it. Anything can make a difference, and
>>> > >  these things are well worth exploring. We called it craft in the
>>> > > olden days of yore and lore.
>>> > > I just try to stay away from a lot of mode conversions, for B&W you'll
>>> > > be doing a lot of tonal editing in PS anyway, so combined the loss can
>>> > > add up. However you do it, I highly recomend scanning and staying in
>>> > > high bit for those steps, and as long as possible down the line when
>>> > > working on single channel files.
>>>>> > >> > 
>>>>> > >> > Also, any comments on the relative merits of Ilford vs. Kodak
>>> > > chromogenic film would be
>>>>> > >> > welcome.  TIA
>>> > > 
>>> > > I'd be very interested in anyone's comments about that as well, I've
>>> > > yet to test the Kodak.
>>> > > 
>>> > > Tyler
>>> > > 
>> > 
>> > -- 
>> > 
>> > Harry F. Lockwood
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> >
> 
>  
>     


-- 

Harry F. Lockwood




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

Hi Harry,

Depending on what's going on - on the film, I scan grayscale or RGB.
Sometimes CYMK, if I get a different look.

I shoot FP4+ and APX100 because the processors around here suck. I haven't
played with XP2.


gar

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
hlockwood
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 10:22 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] From scan to print


My question is about the scanning negatives, but since the end goal is to
get the best B&W
print, I thought I'd raise the question here.  I hope this is not considered
too far OT.

I'm shooting a couple of test rolls of XP2 Super with the idea of getting
away from film
processing and taking advantage of Digital ICE.

Rather than scan as grayscale, I scanned (Nikon 4000ED) in RGB, then
converted to Lab
and discarded the color channels.  I did this to get rid of any effects of
the background
mask.  This resulted in an image that required gentler tonal corrections
than if I had
scanned in grayscale.

I can do some extensive testing, but I thought I'd tap into the combined
wisdom of this
group first.

So, have I stumbled onto a well-known procedure, or does it make little or
no difference
which route one takes in the scanning step.

Also, any comments on the relative merits of Ilford vs. Kodak chromogenic
film would be
welcome.  TIA

Harry Lockwood



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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND
\ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND
\ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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

My experience with XP2 and T400CN go back a few years. At the time, the
T400CN gave me a much smoother scan than the XP2. The scans were done with
an Imacon Precision II. The XP2 while MUCH sharper was a lot grainer. While
several years have passed, I am thank goodness no longer dealing with silver
printing of T400CN, I have yet to go back and test these films side by side.
I do have some XP2 that will be getting the chance to be included in the
slow and arduous process of pulling the film archive into the digital age,
if for nothing else for the web. The best advances to film scanning have
been the tremendous availablility of good noise filters.  

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214-827-8301

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

 

Skype : ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Gary W.
Weaver
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 8:20 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] From scan to print

 

Hi Harry,

Depending on what's going on - on the film, I scan grayscale or RGB.
Sometimes CYMK, if I get a different look.

I shoot FP4+ and APX100 because the processors around here suck. I haven't
played with XP2.

gar





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