Digital BW, The Print

The camera I bought the 90 TS lens for:

http://www.photokina-show.com/0584/canon/digitalslrcamera/eos-5d-mark-2/

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

pr_roark wrote:
> The camera I bought the 90 TS lens for:
> 
> http://www.photokina-show.com/0584/canon/digitalslrcamera/eos-5d-mark-2/

If it has the dynamic range of a Fuji S5 then there isn't 
much left to stay with film.
Although an MF folder camera fits better in a coat pocket.
The Fuji GF670 demo is on the Photokina too.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

Ernst Dinkla wrote:
> 
> 
> pr_roark wrote:
>  > The camera I bought the 90 TS lens for:
>  >
>  > 
> http://www.photokina-show.com/0584/canon/digitalslrcamera/eos-5d-mark-2/ 
> <http://www.photokina-show.com/0584/canon/digitalslrcamera/eos-5d-mark-2/>
> 
> If it has the dynamic range of a Fuji S5 then there isn't
> much left to stay with film.
> Although an MF folder camera fits better in a coat pocket.
> The Fuji GF670 demo is on the Photokina too.

There's something to be said for HDR scans of mainstream
MF negative film...

Dana

Dana H. Myers wrote:
> Ernst Dinkla wrote:
>>
>> pr_roark wrote:
>>  > The camera I bought the 90 TS lens for:
>>  >
>>  > 
>> http://www.photokina-show.com/0584/canon/digitalslrcamera/eos-5d-mark-2/ 
>> <http://www.photokina-show.com/0584/canon/digitalslrcamera/eos-5d-mark-2/>
>>
>> If it has the dynamic range of a Fuji S5 then there isn't
>> much left to stay with film.
>> Although an MF folder camera fits better in a coat pocket.
>> The Fuji GF670 demo is on the Photokina too.
> 
> There's something to be said for HDR scans of mainstream
> MF negative film...
> 
> Dana

Or for example multisampling/long exposure with a Nikon 8000 
on wet mounted color negative film like I do. Similar 
artefacts seen in digital HDR can show though. In this case 
higher noise in the highlights for color negative.

Exposure bracketing on a DSLR isn't bad either if the 
subject allows it, goes faster between shots than on an 
analogue MF camera.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

> Or for example multisampling/long exposure with a Nikon 8000 
> on wet mounted color negative film like I do. Similar 
> artefacts seen in digital HDR can show though. In this case 
> higher noise in the highlights for color negative.
> 
> Exposure bracketing on a DSLR isn't bad either if the 
> subject allows it, goes faster between shots than on an 
> analogue MF camera.

I'm surprised you see a reduction in scanner noise in *color* negative
highlights using multiexposure scans.  I usually find that if I set
the overall scanner exposure correctly the entire dynamic range of the
color negative is well within the scanner's range and nowhere near the
scanner's Dmax.  Some B&W negs and slides do benefit from this
technique.  I use Photomatix's combine exposures feature to blend
bracketed scans (and DSLR shots).  I like it better than HDR and
tonemapping.

Roger wrote:
>> Or for example multisampling/long exposure with a Nikon 8000 
>> on wet mounted color negative film like I do. Similar 
>> artefacts seen in digital HDR can show though. In this case 
>> higher noise in the highlights for color negative.
>>
>> Exposure bracketing on a DSLR isn't bad either if the 
>> subject allows it, goes faster between shots than on an 
>> analogue MF camera.
> 
> I'm surprised you see a reduction in scanner noise in *color* negative
> highlights using multiexposure scans.  I usually find that if I set
> the overall scanner exposure correctly the entire dynamic range of the
> color negative is well within the scanner's range and nowhere near the
> scanner's Dmax.  Some B&W negs and slides do benefit from this
> technique.  I use Photomatix's combine exposures feature to blend
> bracketed scans (and DSLR shots).  I like it better than HDR and
> tonemapping.
> 
> 

It isn't the dynamic range or Dmax not captured by the 
scanner but its problem with reproducing the tone values 
accurately from the compressed range of the color negative 
that can be solved with multisampling and spreading the 
result on 16 bit. The noise in the highlights is what I 
still see though so it just works not as good in dense parts 
of the color negative. The long exposure is what I use for 
B&W negative and there I see the same (not similar) 
artefacts in the shadows observed in digital HDR. Nothing 
special just Vuescan's tools. Few times I scan slides. I 
agree that it could have been written more clearly.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

Ernst Dinkla wrote:
> Roger wrote:
>   
>>> Or for example multisampling/long exposure with a Nikon 8000 
>>> on wet mounted color negative film like I do. Similar 
>>> artefacts seen in digital HDR can show though. In this case 
>>> higher noise in the highlights for color negative.
>>>
>>> Exposure bracketing on a DSLR isn't bad either if the 
>>> subject allows it, goes faster between shots than on an 
>>> analogue MF camera.
>>>       
>> I'm surprised you see a reduction in scanner noise in *color* negative highlights using multiexposure scans.  I usually find that if I set the overall scanner exposure correctly the entire dynamic range of the color negative is well within the scanner's range and nowhere near the scanner's Dmax.  Some B&W negs and slides do benefit from this technique.  I use Photomatix's combine exposures feature to blend bracketed scans (and DSLR shots).  I like it better than HDR and tonemapping.
>>     
>
> It isn't the dynamic range or Dmax not captured by the 
> scanner but its problem with reproducing the tone values 
> accurately from the compressed range of the color negative 
> that can be solved with multisampling and spreading the 
> result on 16 bit. The noise in the highlights is what I 
> still see though so it just works not as good in dense parts 
> of the color negative. The long exposure is what I use for 
> B&W negative and there I see the same (not similar) 
> artefacts in the shadows observed in digital HDR. Nothing 
> special just Vuescan's tools. Few times I scan slides. I 
> agree that it could have been written more clearly.
>   
It's not a failure of color negative materials. People routinely blame 
poor scanner performance on color negative tonal compression. Yet, I 
routinely scan color negatives on my drum scanner with excellent 
results. I never experience of these so-called compression problems. And 
if any scanner / software / operator can get excellent results from 
color negative materials, the fault is not with the film, but elsewhere.

CCD scanners, OTOH, may well be subject to this "compression" failing. I 
have too little experience to venture forth an opinion on CCD scanner / 
software performance.

All that said, the nature of film is that graininess is not a constant. 
It varies directly with density. Low density regions of the film show 
very low graininess, while high density regions can show orders of 
magnitude higher graininess. With a tranny, greatest film density is in 
the print's shadows where the graininess is hardest to see. With 
negatives, greatest film density is in the print's highlights were it's 
much easier to see. This makes negative film "seem" grainier (noisier) 
when in fact modern negative materials nearly always have lower 
graininess indices then their same ISO tranny counterparts.

Since this is a B&W group, I should add that the same thing applies to 
B&W negative films; that graininess is directly related to density. But 
there's an added twist. Callier Effect is also directly related to 
density. The effect is that higher density regions of the film cause 
more light scatter (Callier Effect) which in turn lowers the local 
contrast for that region of the film. The result in the print is 
highlight compression, and again many people blame this on film 
shouldering. Both scanners (CCD and PMT) and darkroom enlargers 
experience this, and it's one reason why optimizing B&W film processing 
for scanning means decreasing development to decrease Dmax which in turn 
decreases the amount of metallic silver in the dense regions of the 
film, which in turn reduces both graininess and Callier Effect.
--
Bruce Watson

I really like folders !! If they can hold a film flat, it's the best thing since sliced bread.

gar

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 9/19/2008 at 9:11 AM Ernst Dinkla wrote:

>pr_roark wrote:
>> The camera I bought the 90 TS lens for:
>> 
>> http://www.photokina-show.com/0584/canon/digitalslrcamera/eos-5d-mark-2/
>
>If it has the dynamic range of a Fuji S5 then there isn't 
>much left to stay with film.
>Although an MF folder camera fits better in a coat pocket.
>The Fuji GF670 demo is on the Photokina too.
>
>
>-- 
>Met vriendelijke groeten,Ernst
>
>
>|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
>|     www.pigment-print.com    |
>|             ( unvollendet )            |
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
>they are often being updated.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
>page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
>them short.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
>Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
>membership without notice.
>- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
>printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
>the membership.
>- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
>guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
>and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files
>section:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
>YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND
>“MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
>YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
>EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
>PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE 
>“OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
>ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
>OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
>UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
>STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
>YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
>PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

The long exposure is what I use for
> B&W negative and there I see the same (not similar)
> artefacts in the shadows observed in digital HDR. Nothing
> special just Vuescan's tools

Just one comment- the artifacts you are seeing may relate to flaws
with Vuescan rather than the scanner or negative material.  I strongly
caution *against* using Vuescan's long-exposure pass (it has a new
name but does not seem improved) which has alignment issues, can
introduce halos and doesn't really reduce noise.  The free version of
Photomatix will blend two images and not apply a watermark.  The pay
versions give you more options.  I highly recommend manually scanning
(crop set to maximum, focus locked) exposing for the highlights and
shadows and blending manually or with a program like Photomatix.  I've
also heard good things about Enfuse.

This is a comparison I did a while ago:
http://www.jingai.com/vuescan2/long%20exposure%20comparison.html

The Photomatix blends are a bit mushy as I have since discovered I
need to lock focus between first and second scans.

Roger wrote:

> 
> The Photomatix blends are a bit mushy as I have since discovered I
> need to lock focus between first and second scans.
> 
> 
It is not just focus shift but there can be some shift of 
the film frame too between scans. That's what makes the 
difference between multisampling and multiscan in detail loss.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla
<edinkla@...> wrote:
>
> Roger wrote:
> 
> > 
> > The Photomatix blends are a bit mushy as I have since discovered I
> > need to lock focus between first and second scans.
> > 
> It is not just focus shift but there can be some shift of 
> the film frame too between scans. That's what makes the 
> difference between multisampling and multiscan in detail loss.

Yes, that's very true and easy to see (lay one scan over the other in
Photoshop, pin register and lower opacity and it's clear they aren't
quite lined up).

My scanner does not do single pass multisampling and Vuescan's
multipass multisampling and multiple exposure both have some alignment
issues (among other problems.) Focus shift just makes things worse.

Photomatix is fairly sophisticated when it comes to alignment (it's
quite usable for "high speed HDR"- combining three bracketed handheld
shots) and I find it deals with my scan alignment issues well enough,
too.  Worth a try to compare with your current workflow.  If you're
using a Coolscan with Vuescan also google Erik Krauss' "super advanced
workflow" for a way to use analog gain to remove the C41 mask.

Roger