Digital BW, The Print

I was at the Epson Print Academy last weekend, and Greg Gorman (he
seems to like the L channel for conversion on portraits) said he
sometimes uses high ISO capture because the attendant noise somewhat
mimicks film grain for "that look".

lenzzman44 wrote:
> 
> 
> I was at the Epson Print Academy last weekend, and Greg Gorman (he
> seems to like the L channel for conversion on portraits) said he
> sometimes uses high ISO capture because the attendant noise somewhat
> mimicks film grain for "that look".

I've done exactly that with my Canon 20D several times.

However, I'm still partial to real silver-grain, which is why I'm
subscribed to pure-silver, coolscan8000-9000 and DigitalBW :-)

Dana

Hi,
this is what I do for a grainy look:
1. Add new (blank) layer
2. Add 50% Grey fill, Overlay blending Mode
2. Add Gaussian Noise at level 4 - 8
3. Add Gaussian Blur at .3px 
4. Adjust the levels of this layer to accentuate the grain - end points: 50/205
5. Adjust the opacity.

This doesn't seem to add grain to the deep shadows, so if you want that, you might want to copy the pixel-bearing layer and add the noise & blur to that and then make a luminance selection and invert it, copying the selection to a new layer (ctrl-j) to add grain to the deep shadows.

It works well in my opinion,
Richard

At 08:22 a.m. Wednesday 4/02/2009, you wrote:

>lenzzman44 wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I was at the Epson Print Academy last weekend, and Greg Gorman (he
>> seems to like the L channel for conversion on portraits) said he
>> sometimes uses high ISO capture because the attendant noise somewhat
>> mimicks film grain for "that look".
>
>I've done exactly that with my Canon 20D several times.
>
>However, I'm still partial to real silver-grain, which is why I'm
>subscribed to pure-silver, coolscan8000-9000 and DigitalBW :-)

--
www.richardsmallfield.com 

   "What is life?  It is the flash of a firefly in the night.  It is the breath
   of a buffalo in the wintertime.  It is the little shadow which runs 
   across the grass and loses itself in the sunset."
   --Crowfoot, Blackfoot warior and orator, 1890 - last words.

As an alternatice you can use this, with which you can add only how
much noise you want IF you want it...

http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/filmpack


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "lenzzman44"
<lenzzman44@...> wrote:

>
> I was at the Epson Print Academy last weekend, and Greg Gorman (he
> seems to like the L channel for conversion on portraits) said he
> sometimes uses high ISO capture because the attendant noise somewhat
> mimicks film grain for "that look".
>

I'm familiar with this product, and consider it one of the worst on the 
market when it comes to duplicating the look of favorite films.  Among 
the available plugins that perform this task, there are two or three 
that do a pretty decent job-- but this isn't one of them.  A 
considerably better choice is Alien Skin's Exposure 2 
<http://www.alienskin.com/exposure/index.aspx>, which provides the user 
with an impressive degree of control and, among the other adjustments it 
performs well, is believably effective in rendering grain. 

Best wishes,

Shoshanna
Gold Beach - South Coast of Oregon
http://www.pbase.com/shoshanna
http://mindworksunlimited.com/shoshannaspeak/



 
.
the_mark_pv wrote:
>
> As an alternatice you can use this, with which you can add only how
> much noise you want IF you want it...
>
> http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/filmpack 
> <http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/filmpack>
>



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

Greetings all, interesting thread. I share Dana's approach.

I thought about this issue a lot last week. I have a project coming up
with an architect who wants some quality b/w as well as digital color.
I began investigating how to get b/w from my digital color files,
knowing there was more to it than just clicking on "remove color" in
PhotoShop Elements. The more I looked at options like CS3 or CS4,
various plug-ins, stand-alone conversion to b/w software and so on, I
finally ended up thinking heck, why not shoot in b/w film as I shoot
the color digital. So I plan to shoot the digital color, leave the
tripod in the same place, mount my b/w film camera and take the same
shot. Develop the film, scan it, and hey, I've got the film look. Been
developing b/w film for 40 years so am quite comfortable with it.
Plus, I would then have a hard copy b/w original which is more
comforting archivally speaking than a file on a CD when CD players may
go the way of the dinosaur. 

I did some tests, scanning some Ilford FP4+ film, 35mm yet!, and got
some very fine 8x10's using the MK3 approach on an Epson R1800. A
friend of mine calls this the hybrid approach. I'm inclined to go this
way for the time being.

fwiw,

Paul

Shoshanna,

very interesting, thank you for the insight.

I have to say I have version 1 and don't really use it (I do not
especially love the noise ehm grain effect)

I normally do use dxo, mostly for noisy images, because I think it
does a good job, but after Lightroom came out I use dxo less.

I'll give a look at the competitors you mention.

Thanks, Marco.


> I'm familiar with this product, and consider it one of the worst on 
> market when it comes to duplicating the look of favorite films.

Paul,
I worked in a large engineering/architecture operation.  Just be aware  
of one thing.  Often, architects want large sized prints of images or  
renderings....24X36 and 36X48 being pretty common.  When you say that  
they want some "quality b/w as well as digital color", it makes me  
think that they could want really great looking, very large b/w  
prints.  That gets me to worrying about grain being obtrusive.   I'd  
suggest that if you're going to be shooting film, that you use medium  
format or 4x5.  If you have to use 35mm, then use the finest grained  
film you can get.  Otherwise, scanning down to the grain level and  
then enlarging to that size will yield a salt and peppery grain-storm.

I have my own darkroom and did lots of 35mm up to 4x5 b/w development  
and printing for years, but if I had that assignment today, I'd shoot  
digital and convert to b/w or shoot 4x5 transparency's if I needed  
perspective control and then scan that.  From those scan's I'd get  
both the color and if needed, I'd convert to b/w.

Brad

On Feb 3, 2009, at 7:41 PM, Paul Whiting wrote:

> Greetings all, interesting thread. I share Dana's approach.
>
> I thought about this issue a lot last week. I have a project coming up
> with an architect who wants some quality b/w as well as digital color.
> I began investigating how to get b/w from my digital color files,
> knowing there was more to it than just clicking on "remove color" in
> PhotoShop Elements. The more I looked at options like CS3 or CS4,
> various plug-ins, stand-alone conversion to b/w software and so on, I
> finally ended up thinking heck, why not shoot in b/w film as I shoot
> the color digital. So I plan to shoot the digital color, leave the
> tripod in the same place, mount my b/w film camera and take the same
> shot. Develop the film, scan it, and hey, I've got the film look. Been
> developing b/w film for 40 years so am quite comfortable with it.
> Plus, I would then have a hard copy b/w original which is more
> comforting archivally speaking than a file on a CD when CD players may
> go the way of the dinosaur.
>
> I did some tests, scanning some Ilford FP4+ film, 35mm yet!, and got
> some very fine 8x10's using the MK3 approach on an Epson R1800. A
> friend of mine calls this the hybrid approach. I'm inclined to go this
> way for the time being.
>
> fwiw,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> 



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

I have been using RealGrain from Imagenomic for several years now to add
grain back into my images. Excellent controls over grain size, distribution
throughout shadows, midtones and highlight and while your there, you can
make the B&W conversion, tone control adjustments and without destroying
your histogram.

 

Paul, I don't think that scanning B&W film is a very good way to get "that
B&W grain look" as the scanning process nearly made me lose my lunch the
first few years I had a scan made of B&W films. It is just not the same
thing. If scanners could reproduce the grain of B&W they could get rid of
dust too, but the way the light get turned into pixels, just leaves this
darkroom printer cold.  

 

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214-827-8301

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

 

SKYPE   ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Brad
Smith
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:42 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] That film look

 

Paul,
I worked in a large engineering/architecture operation. Just be aware 
of one thing. Often, architects want large sized prints of images or 
renderings....24X36 and 36X48 being pretty common. When you say that 
they want some "quality b/w as well as digital color", it makes me 
think that they could want really great looking, very large b/w 
prints. That gets me to worrying about grain being obtrusive. I'd 
suggest that if you're going to be shooting film, that you use medium 
format or 4x5. If you have to use 35mm, then use the finest grained 
film you can get. Otherwise, scanning down to the grain level and 
then enlarging to that size will yield a salt and peppery grain-storm.

I have my own darkroom and did lots of 35mm up to 4x5 b/w development 
and printing for years, but if I had that assignment today, I'd shoot 
digital and convert to b/w or shoot 4x5 transparency's if I needed 
perspective control and then scan that. From those scan's I'd get 
both the color and if needed, I'd convert to b/w.

Brad

On Feb 3, 2009, at 7:41 PM, Paul Whiting wrote:

> Greetings all, interesting thread. I share Dana's approach.
>
> I thought about this issue a lot last week. I have a project coming up
> with an architect who wants some quality b/w as well as digital color.
> I began investigating how to get b/w from my digital color files,
> knowing there was more to it than just clicking on "remove color" in
> PhotoShop Elements. The more I looked at options like CS3 or CS4,
> various plug-ins, stand-alone conversion to b/w software and so on, I
> finally ended up thinking heck, why not shoot in b/w film as I shoot
> the color digital. So I plan to shoot the digital color, leave the
> tripod in the same place, mount my b/w film camera and take the same
> shot. Develop the film, scan it, and hey, I've got the film look. Been
> developing b/w film for 40 years so am quite comfortable with it.
> Plus, I would then have a hard copy b/w original which is more
> comforting archivally speaking than a file on a CD when CD players may
> go the way of the dinosaur.
>
> I did some tests, scanning some Ilford FP4+ film, 35mm yet!, and got
> some very fine 8x10's using the MK3 approach on an Epson R1800. A
> friend of mine calls this the hybrid approach. I'm inclined to go this
> way for the time being.
>
> fwiw,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> 

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

 



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

A supper easy way to make a "Grain Like" print is to use the Three Black printing process.  I print 3K on a R1800, and found that I can make grain by changing the resolution of the file from which I print.  The lower the dpi the larger the grain.

I have also found that files shot with my Canon 1Ds make a better granny looking print then the Canon 5D, or Nikon D3 which I have.  I believe the differences is because of the type of sensors in the cameras.

I have been using a InkRepublic CIS with my 3K printer.  Of the three CIS systems I have used, it was the easiest to install, and has had the least amount of problems of the other two which I have used.  It was also the least expensive of the three.

Ben

Ben




      

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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Brad Smith
<bms0345@...> wrote:
>
> Paul,
> I worked in a large engineering/architecture operation.  Just be aware  
> of one thing.  Often, architects want large sized prints of images or  
> renderings....24X36 and 36X48 being pretty common.  When you say that  
> they want some "quality b/w as well as digital color", it makes me  
> think that they could want really great looking, very large b/w  
> prints.  That gets me to worrying about grain being obtrusive.   I'd  
> suggest that if you're going to be shooting film, that you use medium  
> format or 4x5.  If you have to use 35mm, then use the finest grained  
> film you can get.  Otherwise, scanning down to the grain level and  
> then enlarging to that size will yield a salt and peppery grain-storm.
> 
> I have my own darkroom and did lots of 35mm up to 4x5 b/w development  
> and printing for years, but if I had that assignment today, I'd shoot  
> digital and convert to b/w or shoot 4x5 transparency's if I needed  
> perspective control and then scan that.  From those scan's I'd get  
> both the color and if needed, I'd convert to b/w.
> 
> Brad

Thanks for the feedback, Brad.  What I mean by quality is well
printed, sharp, good tonal range, etc. These architects have never
requested b/w larger than 8 x 10, but they do make color prints of the
size you mention from my color digital files.

Actually the b/w prints I'm talking about here are to accompany an
application to the National Historic Register. We've made other
submissions before, with other buildings, and at those times we
submitted 5 x 7's on fiber paper, printed from medium format Ilford
FP4+. Since then, I've been studying the Register's website and was
surprised to learn that they now accept prints as small as 3 1/2 x 5,
even on RC paper! And furthermore, they have expanded their guidelines
to accept inkjet prints as well, with the files on gold CDs. The
inkjet prints must be made with certain Epson and HP ink and paper
combinations but I have sent them some sample MIS Eboni prints on Moab
paper and I'm suggesting these be acceptable as well. The prints I
sent were 5 x 7, scanned from 35 mm F4+ and I must say I'm extremely
pleased with them. I tweaked them a bit, adjusting levels and added a
bit of sharpening and they turned out very well. They look every bit
as good as those earlier darkroom prints, and in some ways I actually
prefer them. Better Dmax for one thing. And those darkroom prints were
on Ilford MGIV - I have to say, not to brag, but my darkroom prints
are good. I had a show of conventional prints, 8 x 10s, at the MT
State School of Architecture, and have sold a few 11 x 14's to an
architect.

I thought of converting my color digital files to b/w, as you did, but
I wasn't ready to get on that learning curve. I learned enough to know
that it's not simply a matter of hitting the "remove color" option in
PhotoShop! Plus, by shooting on film, I feel a little more secure
about archival storage concerns.

I never thought I'd come to say this, but I'm slowly being converted
to b/w digital printing, thanks in large part to what I've learned in
this group. Thanks again for your valuable comments - your points are
well taken, I probably should have been more explicit in my previous post.

Best regards,

Paul

Eric Neilsen wrote:

> Paul, I don't think that scanning B&W film is a very good way to get "that
> B&W grain look" as the scanning process nearly made me lose my lunch the
> first few years I had a scan made of B&W films.

How are you scanning B&W?  My experience is different.  I found
that, once I started scanning at a reasonable resolution (4000 dpi
in a Nikon LS9000), I'm quite happy with the results with a broad
range of film but it pays to optimize a bit, really not that different
than optimizing for condensor vs. diffusion enlarger.

Scanners will favor a somewhat thinner neg in my experience; about
a one-stop pull is good, and this also reduces the impact of the
real problem, which is Callier effect (dense, grainy negs are the
worst for that).

 > It is just not the same
> thing. If scanners could reproduce the grain of B&W they could get rid of
> dust too,

I don't follow this at all - that doesn't seem to make sense.

> but the way the light get turned into pixels, just leaves this
> darkroom printer cold.

I'm sure it's a matter of personal taste as well, but I've seen
far too many outstanding prints made from scanned B&W negs to indict
the process in general.  Like any process, there's a learning curve
that rewards the diligent.

Dana

Hi Eric and Dana-

I found Eric's comments curious- which is to say, not to conform with my
experience. I can't help but believe that the problem is the quality (or
lack of it) of the scan.

Of course, as Dana points out, this is also a matter of personal taste, but
Eric, I'd be interested to hear more about what you didn't like about the
scanned images.

Finally, wet-mounted drum scans do get rid of (almost all) the dust, and the
little scratches too. Then you just have to hope that you took a good
shot!   ;^)

Bill

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Dana H. Myers <dana.myers@...> wrote:

>   Eric Neilsen wrote:
>
> > Paul, I don't think that scanning B&W film is a very good way to get
> "that
> > B&W grain look" as the scanning process nearly made me lose my lunch the
> > first few years I had a scan made of B&W films.
>
> How are you scanning B&W? My experience is different. I found
> that, once I started scanning at a reasonable resolution (4000 dpi
> in a Nikon LS9000), I'm quite happy with the results with a broad
> range of film but it pays to optimize a bit, really not that different
> than optimizing for condensor vs. diffusion enlarger.
>
> Scanners will favor a somewhat thinner neg in my experience; about
> a one-stop pull is good, and this also reduces the impact of the
> real problem, which is Callier effect (dense, grainy negs are the
> worst for that).
>
> > It is just not the same
> > thing. If scanners could reproduce the grain of B&W they could get rid of
> > dust too,
>
> I don't follow this at all - that doesn't seem to make sense.
>
> > but the way the light get turned into pixels, just leaves this
> > darkroom printer cold.
>
> I'm sure it's a matter of personal taste as well, but I've seen
> far too many outstanding prints made from scanned B&W negs to indict
> the process in general. Like any process, there's a learning curve
> that rewards the diligent.
>
> Dana
>  
>



-- 
Regards,

Bill Morse
Wm. Morse Editions

http://www.MorseEditions.com/


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

Dana, I have a Nikon 9000, and Epson V750, and 3200 and I have operated a
Flex Tight II/Imacon, a Nikon 8000 and  have had them scanned on a drum
scanner and a local Heidelberg. A scan is a scan regardless of the scanner
used.  Sure there are differences as to how the grain is interpreted by the
scanner, but it just is not the same as the film to print process. I have
scanned film stock from B&W, Color, XP2, T400CN, etc 110mm to 8x10. negs. 

 

And while I speak strongly for the quality of direct B&W prints, I am not
saying that very good interpretations of the captured image are not being
made with scanners. I think you'll recall seeing my name around for awhile
and a variety of the list discussing B&W. My head is NOT barried in the
sands of time.  You should not take my words to be an indictment of the scan
to print paradigm. 

 

AS to the dust and grain, it is well known that scanner don't handle the
grain of B&W film well with ICE. It is how they work or don't that sets that
up as I understand it. It doesn't see the grain as much as it interprets
light and dark. 

 

In making my digital negs for contact printing, I try hard to get prints
that have the grain feel. AS it would have been from the original source. 

 

At this point I much prefer RealGrain to help in that process.  

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen   

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214-827-8301

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

SKYPE ejprinter

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dana H.
Myers
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 11:13 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] That film look

 

Eric Neilsen wrote:

> Paul, I don't think that scanning B&W film is a very good way to get "that
> B&W grain look" as the scanning process nearly made me lose my lunch the
> first few years I had a scan made of B&W films.

How are you scanning B&W? My experience is different. I found
that, once I started scanning at a reasonable resolution (4000 dpi
in a Nikon LS9000), I'm quite happy with the results with a broad
range of film but it pays to optimize a bit, really not that different
than optimizing for condensor vs. diffusion enlarger.

Scanners will favor a somewhat thinner neg in my experience; about
a one-stop pull is good, and this also reduces the impact of the
real problem, which is Callier effect (dense, grainy negs are the
worst for that).

> It is just not the same
> thing. If scanners could reproduce the grain of B&W they could get rid of
> dust too,

I don't follow this at all - that doesn't seem to make sense.

> but the way the light get turned into pixels, just leaves this
> darkroom printer cold.

I'm sure it's a matter of personal taste as well, but I've seen
far too many outstanding prints made from scanned B&W negs to indict
the process in general. Like any process, there's a learning curve
that rewards the diligent.

Dana

 



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

Eric Neilsen wrote:

> AS to the dust and grain, it is well known that scanner don't handle the
> grain of B&W film well with ICE. It is how they work or don't that sets that
> up as I understand it. It doesn't see the grain as much as it interprets
> light and dark.

The reason ICE doesn't work with silver films is that silver is opaque
to infrared, unlike dye films.  ICE basically works by scanning with
an IR channel, to which dust is opaque and the dye layers are not, and
effectively creating a mask.  Since silver is opaque, the image is treated
as a dust and removed.

It has nothing to do with the scanner actually recreating the grain.

Cheers,
Dana

Perhaps I am just poor at writing but you seem to get the point. I should
have connected the film types more closely together; C41 base and silver
based.  The light is being interpreted with or without grain, there is NOT a
direct response as there is with film to print. I have yet to see a good
relationship between scanning and enlargement to grain to print. i.e. scan a
4x5 and print to 16x20. Enlarge a 4x5 to 16x20 and compare grain. Now do
that over with 35mm and 2 ¼ and at various print sizes as well. The
interpretation should change at each print size. Change the scan resolution
and you change the pixel matching of the grain etc.  We interpret what grain
we want to see based on our film days. We get rid of scanner noise, sharpen,
etc. All subjective acts performed by us and our software. We are not simply
looking at the grain passing through a sharp or unsharp lens that has great
focus or doesn’t. 

 

 It sounds like a real film print to 5x7 or 8x10 will work for Paul. 

 

Eric Neilsen

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214-827-8301

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

SKYPE ejprinter

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dana H.
Myers
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:03 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] That film look

 

Eric Neilsen wrote:

> AS to the dust and grain, it is well known that scanner don't handle the
> grain of B&W film well with ICE. It is how they work or don't that sets
that
> up as I understand it. It doesn't see the grain as much as it interprets
> light and dark.

The reason ICE doesn't work with silver films is that silver is opaque
to infrared, unlike dye films. ICE basically works by scanning with
an IR channel, to which dust is opaque and the dye layers are not, and
effectively creating a mask. Since silver is opaque, the image is treated
as a dust and removed.

It has nothing to do with the scanner actually recreating the grain.

Cheers,
Dana



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