Digital BW, The Print

I'm scanning with an Epson V700 and Epson Scan in Photoshop. The way I
see it I have 3 choices in how to scan.
1. B&W neg film, 16bit greyscale
2. B&W neg film 48 bit color scan
3. color neg film 48 bit color scan
In loosly testing these I hav'nt seen a big difference between them, I
am open to suggestions. 

I have been a photographer for going on 40 years, digital LF format
printer (had a business for a while) for 6 years, but most of that was
color. I moved, got a paying job (eye photography) but don't have a
B&W darkroom anymore so I bought a Canon iPF5000. So I'm starting to
scan my old B&W negs.

Tom

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tmonego"
<thomas.c.monego@...> wrote:
>
> I'm scanning with an Epson V700 and Epson Scan in Photoshop. The way I
> see it I have 3 choices in how to scan.
> 1. B&W neg film, 16bit greyscale
> 2. B&W neg film 48 bit color scan
> 3. color neg film 48 bit color scan
> In loosly testing these I hav'nt seen a big difference between them, I
> am open to suggestions. 

I'd suggest scanning as B&W neg film, 16-bit greyscale.
You can find several good web tutorials on the topic, but
basically, you probably want to scan to capture as much of
the range of the negative as possible, resulting in what may
be a somewhat flat scan and then adjust it afterwards (saving
the original) for printing.

Cheers,
Dana

Tom,  You will do fine scanning in B&W but you should play around with
various amounts of USM during scanning of the RGB channels. The big
disadvantage of RGB scans is that they are much bigger. The most important
factor to me, is what do you do to the scan with noise filters and USM. The
days of using your grain focuser are over and it's time to get some handle
on which noise reduction path you feel fits you best  and when and where to
apply your USM to generate prints that have the sharpness you want. 

 

Have fun and run some test. You might even use some of your B&W negs that
have good clean non colored Base + Fog areas as well as some that might have
a slight bluish or pinkish color.   

 

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 Dana H.
Myers
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 10:42 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Black & White Scanning

 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tmonego"
<thomas.c.monego@...> wrote:
>
> I'm scanning with an Epson V700 and Epson Scan in Photoshop. The way I
> see it I have 3 choices in how to scan.
> 1. B&W neg film, 16bit greyscale
> 2. B&W neg film 48 bit color scan
> 3. color neg film 48 bit color scan
> In loosly testing these I hav'nt seen a big difference between them, I
> am open to suggestions. 

I'd suggest scanning as B&W neg film, 16-bit greyscale.
You can find several good web tutorials on the topic, but
basically, you probably want to scan to capture as much of
the range of the negative as possible, resulting in what may
be a somewhat flat scan and then adjust it afterwards (saving
the original) for printing.

Cheers,
Dana

 



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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tmonego"
<thomas.c.monego@...> wrote:
>
> I'm scanning with an Epson V700 and Epson Scan in Photoshop. The way I
> see it I have 3 choices in how to scan.
> 1. B&W neg film, 16bit greyscale
> 2. B&W neg film 48 bit color scan
> 3. color neg film 48 bit color scan
> In loosly testing these I hav'nt seen a big difference between them, I
> am open to suggestions. 
> 
>
Tom,

You'll probably get identical results with the above methods. However,
with a 48 bits color scan, in Photoshop use Levels and adjust the end
points for each individual colors and see how your b&w image comes out.

HTH
Andre

I scan b&w negatives as if they were color positives:  16 bit per  
channel (48 bit) and convert from neg to positive in photoshop.  I   
have much more data to then manipulate the image.

Mike
Mike Tiktinsky, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Senior Consultant
415.601.3574 (cell)
Since 1984, helping trial teams prepare to win!
San Francisco Office
505 Sansome Street, Suite 1701
San Francisco, CA 94111-3128
415.781.5879 (office); 415.362.8775 (fax)

Los Angeles Office
11611 San Vincente Blvd., Suite 615
Los Angeles, CA 90049
310.826.2005 (office); 310.826.2097 (fax)

mtiktinsky@...
www.trialbehavior.com






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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mike Tiktinsky
<mtiktinsky@...> wrote:
>
> I scan b&w negatives as if they were color positives:  16 bit per  
> channel (48 bit) and convert from neg to positive in photoshop.  I   
> have much more data to then manipulate the image.
> 
...

Whilst the file is 3 times larger, what is the point? Just because
there is more data, that by itself gives you no advanatge. You coulld
always scan in 16 bit grayscale, and then change to RGB in PS.

The advantage that it might give you is that one of the channels on
the scanner might be a little noiser than the others. By not using
this channel, you might get a better image. That's the theory anyway.
But, if you use Vuescan, then you can then control which channel to
use, bit still get the smaller file sizes associated with grayscale
images instead of RGB file.

Steve (only a BSc!)

I agree that the process described by the OP is unnecessarily complicated.
For (silver) B&W film, I scan (NikonScan) 16-bit grayscale, negative.
However, I¹m now using chromogenic B&W film (XP2 and Kodak 400CN) and scan
(16 bit) in negative RGB mode.  In PS, I convert to Lab mode, discard the
color channels and convert to grayscale.  This result in a ~44MB file.

But I have not proven to myself that this is better than a direct scan into
grayscale.

Harry

PS  For this group, which is preferred, top or bottom posting?


On 5/21/07 10:53 AM, "skefford_1" <keff.antispam@...> wrote:

>  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , Mike Tiktinsky
> <mtiktinsky@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > I scan b&w negatives as if they were color positives:  16 bit per
>> > channel (48 bit) and convert from neg to positive in photoshop.  I
>> > have much more data to then manipulate the image.
>> > 
> ...
> 
> Whilst the file is 3 times larger, what is the point? Just because
> there is more data, that by itself gives you no advanatge. You coulld
> always scan in 16 bit grayscale, and then change to RGB in PS.
> 
> The advantage that it might give you is that one of the channels on
> the scanner might be a little noiser than the others. By not using
> this channel, you might get a better image. That's the theory anyway.
> But, if you use Vuescan, then you can then control which channel to
> use, bit still get the smaller file sizes associated with grayscale
> images instead of RGB file.
> 
> Steve (only a BSc!)
> 
 

-- 

Harry F. Lockwood




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

On May 21, 2007, at 8:32 AM, Harry Lockwood wrote:

> [snip]
>
> PS  For this group, which is preferred, top or bottom posting?

As far as I know, Harry, it's up to us. You'll see some of each, and  
both.

When, as here, both what's not snipped away and my response to it  
might fit on even a relatively small screen w/o scrolling, I often  
add my response below what's not snipped.

Otherwise, I usually add my response above what is not snipped away,  
but even then try to be conscientious about snipping as much as  
possible w/o making my response difficult to understand for lack of  
context.

Editing the subject line as necessary or desirable is, I think, also  
important. Both that and snipping make dealing with the posts a lot  
easier for subscribers who get the posts in batches.

Please excuse the unasked-for advice, which I expect you don't need  
but I couldn't resist.
--
Sam

On the contrary, Sam, it was exactly the kind of advice I sought.

Harry


On 5/21/07 12:18 PM, "Sam McCandless" <samcc@...> wrote:

>  
>  
>  
> 
> On May 21, 2007, at 8:32 AM, Harry Lockwood wrote:
> 
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> > PS  For this group, which is preferred, top or bottom posting?
> 
> As far as I know, Harry, it's up to us. You'll see some of each, and
> both.
> 
> When, as here, both what's not snipped away and my response to it
> might fit on even a relatively small screen w/o scrolling, I often
> add my response below what's not snipped.
> 
> Otherwise, I usually add my response above what is not snipped away,
> but even then try to be conscientious about snipping as much as
> possible w/o making my response difficult to understand for lack of
> context.
> 
> Editing the subject line as necessary or desirable is, I think, also
> important. Both that and snipping make dealing with the posts a lot
> easier for subscribers who get the posts in batches.
> 
> Please excuse the unasked-for advice, which I expect you don't need
> but I couldn't resist.
> --
> Sam
> 


-- 

Harry F. Lockwood




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

Hi Tom-

You problably don't want to hear this, but your choice of scanner will have
a much larger impact than any of the options for scanning that you are
considering (that said, Andre is right- scan in color, 48 bits, levels to
set endpoints, then channel mixer to find the best combination of
sharpnesss/noise/contrast available from the different channels).

You are shooting large format, which obviously requires a great deal of
effort/reward. In addition to trying out the different scan methods on your
epson, why not see what a drum scan would get you?

Bill

On 5/19/07, Andre Moreau <bwscans@...> wrote:
>
>   --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "tmonego"
> <thomas.c.monego@...> wrote:
> >
> > I'm scanning with an Epson V700 and Epson Scan in Photoshop. The way I
> > see it I have 3 choices in how to scan.
> > 1. B&W neg film, 16bit greyscale
> > 2. B&W neg film 48 bit color scan
> > 3. color neg film 48 bit color scan
> > In loosly testing these I hav'nt seen a big difference between them, I
> > am open to suggestions.
> >
> >
> Tom,
>
> You'll probably get identical results with the above methods. However,
> with a 48 bits color scan, in Photoshop use Levels and adjust the end
> points for each individual colors and see how your b&w image comes out.
>
> HTH
> Andre
>
>  
>



-- 
Regards,

Bill Morse
Wm. Morse Editions

(617) 429-3298


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

Hi Tom,

I scan B&W 4x5 Tmax 100 with a Imacon Precision III in gray scale,16 bit. Somewhat big files 
(343 MB) to work with. I have tried several ways and this is the best with this equiptment. The 
Imacon is VERY sharp. My only complant is the Flextight holders slightly crop the image. 

F. Fischer