Digital BW, The Print

Peter, thanks for your informative response.  I do use Vuescan, so 
I've already achieved some of the benefits you speak of.

-Robert

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter A. Klein" 
<pklein@2...> wrote:
> Robert:  I have an FS-4000, and I find it *much* better than the 
2700 
> dpi scanner that it replaced.  2700 dpi and ISO 400 silver film do 
> some nasty aliasing.  With the FS4000, the grains look like the 
> actual grains of the film as viewed with a powerful magnifier, 
rather 
> than stuff 2x to 3x bigger.
> 
> The Nikon scanners use LED light sources, which are more collimated 
> than the Canon's bulb.  So they actually emphasize grain more than 
> the Canon.  The Nikons also have a grain reducer called GEM, which 
> helps. 
> 
> T400CN and XP2 are less grainy than Tri-X by nature, and scan very 
> well. But Tri-X handles low light and underexposure very well.  
> Chromagenic films tolerate overexposure much better than 
> underexposure. They can look beautiful in the midtones and 
> highlights, but be very muddy and grainy in deep shadows.
> 
> My guess is that your grain aliasing problem may be a software 
> problem, not a scanner problem.  The Canon FilmGet software lops 
> quite a bit off the low and high ends of the image.  High contrast, 
> which emphasizes grain. If you switch to VueScan, things are much 
> much better, and you get the full scale, which you can adjust in 
your 
> image editor. VueScan also has three degrees of software grain 
> reduction--I've occasionally used the "Light" setting. 
> 
> Here's a Tri-X shot scanned on the FS-4000 with VueScan:
> http://www2.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/2-03LonyaMischaWeb.jpg
> As you can see, there is not a whole lot of grain, even though it's 
a 
> crop of about 2/3 of the frame. In a letter size print, you can see 
a 
> little grain texture in the print.  I could diminish it with grain 
> reduction in VueScan, or I could use NeatImage.  But you know 
what?  
> I preferred things unaltered.
> 
> For comparison, here's a T400CN shot under the similar conditions.  
> It's smoother, even though it was scanned at only 2700 dpi (Nikon 
LS-
> 2000). Again, with VueScan:
> http://www2.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/quartet.htm
> 
> If you really dislike grain, by all means use XP2, but shoot it at 
> 200, not 400, and give it an extra half stop when shadows are dark 
> and important to your picture.  
> 
> Try VueScan ( http://www.hamrick.com ) before you think about 
dumping 
> your scanner.
> 
> Also, if you're developing with D-76 or HC-100, try Kodak Xtol or 
> Ilford DDX. 
> 
> Hope this helps,
> --Peter
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" 
> <LA_Native@h...> wrote:
> > Alan:  Which scanner are you using for your Tri-X?  My Canon 
FS4000 
> > doesn't take to Tri-X too well -- adding quite a bit of grain and 
> > messing with the tonal qualities too much.  I've much better 
> success 
> > with chromogenics, especially XP-2.
> > 
> > Robert
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "A. Huntley" 
> > <Alan.Huntley@c...> wrote:
> > > Hello Robert,
> > > 
> > > I have yet to find digitally produced B&W to be to my 
> > liking...maybe, it's
> > > just too many years of shooting B&W film. Since I use medium 
and 
> > large
> > > format for all my B&W, grain, sharpness, and tonal 
> > transitions/smoothness
> > > are not issues for me. I'm also an old foggy who still shoots 
Tri-
> X 
> > and,
> > > probably,
> > > still has some Dektol coursing through my veins! <g> Nowadays, 
I 
> > scan my
> > > film and produce quite nice B&W images usually on PR with an 
> Epson 
> > 2200
> > > driven by IP 5.6. I still miss the look of a finely crafted 
> silver 
> > print,
> > > but do not
> > > miss the darkroom at all.
> > > 
> > > Good luck with whatever direction your B&W path leads you.
> > > 
> > > Alan Huntley
> > > 
> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > From: "Robert" <LA_Native@h...>
> > > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 9:43 AM
> > > Subject: [Digital BW] Do most of you still shoot b&w on film?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > To get your best b&w work using Epson's Ultrachrome printers, 
do 
> you
> > > generally shoot your subjects on film and scan it in?  Have you 
> tied
> > > shooting digitally, and were you at all satisfied with the end 
> > result?