Digital BW, The Print

I have an increasingly annoying problem in that what appears to be grain in
my scans is worse at higher dpi's than it is in the quicky 500 dpi 8 bit
scans I do as proofs. This is for traditional, 35mm, bw film coming out of
my darkroom.

From what I've been able to read on the net, this may be due to aliasing &
not the actual grain in the film (It's much worse than I'd see in a
traditional, gs print.). Contrary to what I've read, however, it is not a
matter of threshold iso/grain size issues, rather it's a continuum, getting
progressively worse as iso/grain increases. It may not be readily noticeable
at lower iso's, but close inspection reveals it to be there.

Here are what I believe to be the pertinent the settings I use in Vuescan
for my, hopefully, best scans:

Media: B/W negative
Bits/pixel 16 bit gray
Resolution: 4000 dpi
Number of samples: 8
Fine mode: Yes (checked)
Multi Exposure: Yes (checked)

I've been playing, unsuccessfully, with checking/unchecking, no of samples
etc... Medium size jpg's seem to produce better scans than the maxed out
settings above, but of course, they won't work for larger prints going
forward.


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

Lew,
I have the LS5000 but don't run it with Vuescan..  Just for kicks try this.. Scan the film using color rather then B&W and then convert it afterwards..B&W has a limited amount of density capture steps where color has infinitely more.. I think this might help.. worth a try anyway..

jimbo

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lew Schwartz 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 7:10 AM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Grain/aliasing, CoolScan 5000 and VueScan


    
  I have an increasingly annoying problem in that what appears to be grain in
  my scans is worse at higher dpi's than it is in the quicky 500 dpi 8 bit
  scans I do as proofs. This is for traditional, 35mm, bw film coming out of
  my darkroom.

  >From what I've been able to read on the net, this may be due to aliasing &
  not the actual grain in the film (It's much worse than I'd see in a
  traditional, gs print.). Contrary to what I've read, however, it is not a
  matter of threshold iso/grain size issues, rather it's a continuum, getting
  progressively worse as iso/grain increases. It may not be readily noticeable
  at lower iso's, but close inspection reveals it to be there.

  Here are what I believe to be the pertinent the settings I use in Vuescan
  for my, hopefully, best scans:

  Media: B/W negative
  Bits/pixel 16 bit gray
  Resolution: 4000 dpi
  Number of samples: 8
  Fine mode: Yes (checked)
  Multi Exposure: Yes (checked)

  I've been playing, unsuccessfully, with checking/unchecking, no of samples
  etc... Medium size jpg's seem to produce better scans than the maxed out
  settings above, but of course, they won't work for larger prints going
  forward.

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



  

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

In my experience, the 5000 does not deal well with grainier film, at it
really exacerbates the size of the grain.  For instance, I could get better
scans of Kodak High Speed Infrared film, a very grain film, on a Canon
flatbed scanner than on my Nikon film scanner.  My guess is that one of the
culprits is the hard light source.  A gentleman used to sell diffusion
panels for Minolta scanners that were said to help quit a bit with this
problem.  http://www.scanhancer.com/index.php?art=1&men=1  It wouldn't be
too hard to come up with a DIY version and give it a try.


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

If I understand the problem of aliasing correctly, it results from a
phenomenon similar to the one encountered in the darkroom with diffuser vs
condenser light sources on the enlarger and, if this is the case, a diffuser
may well be the answer. Since the 5000 has an auto frame advance mechanism
to deal with, however, I don't think this would be very easy.

On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 11:47 AM, pdesmidt tds.net <pdesmidt@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> In my experience, the 5000 does not deal well with grainier film, at it
> really exacerbates the size of the grain. For instance, I could get better
> scans of Kodak High Speed Infrared film, a very grain film, on a Canon
> flatbed scanner than on my Nikon film scanner. My guess is that one of the
> culprits is the hard light source. A gentleman used to sell diffusion
> panels for Minolta scanners that were said to help quit a bit with this
> problem. http://www.scanhancer.com/index.php?art=1&men=1 It wouldn't be
> too hard to come up with a DIY version and give it a try.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>


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

Can the 5000 use an FH-3 carrier?  If so, place a piece of white acrylic or
plexi on top shouldn't be too hard.  Perhaps one of the frosted pieces from
a Rosco filter swatch sample book would work. You'd want one with fairly low
diffusion and as little texture as possible.


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

Lew, Why scan to JPEG? That was the biggest question of your posting to me. 

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lew
Schwartz
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 8:11 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Grain/aliasing, CoolScan 5000 and VueScan

 

  

I have an increasingly annoying problem in that what appears to be grain in
my scans is worse at higher dpi's than it is in the quicky 500 dpi 8 bit
scans I do as proofs. This is for traditional, 35mm, bw film coming out of
my darkroom.

From what I've been able to read on the net, this may be due to aliasing &
not the actual grain in the film (It's much worse than I'd see in a
traditional, gs print.). Contrary to what I've read, however, it is not a
matter of threshold iso/grain size issues, rather it's a continuum, getting
progressively worse as iso/grain increases. It may not be readily noticeable
at lower iso's, but close inspection reveals it to be there.

Here are what I believe to be the pertinent the settings I use in Vuescan
for my, hopefully, best scans:

Media: B/W negative
Bits/pixel 16 bit gray
Resolution: 4000 dpi
Number of samples: 8
Fine mode: Yes (checked)
Multi Exposure: Yes (checked)

I've been playing, unsuccessfully, with checking/unchecking, no of samples
etc... Medium size jpg's seem to produce better scans than the maxed out
settings above, but of course, they won't work for larger prints going
forward.

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





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

Scanning at 4000 dpi for a 35mm neg takes about 10 - 15 min using the
settings I like. Not practical for a 36 exp roll when a single shoot may
involve upwards of 4 rolls, so what I do is to proof everything at a very
low res into jpgs ... easy to store, share, etc... but not great for serious
prints.

On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Eric Neilsen <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Lew, Why scan to JPEG? That was the biggest question of your posting to me.
>
>
> _____
>
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lew
> Schwartz
> Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 8:11 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Grain/aliasing, CoolScan 5000 and VueScan
>
> I have an increasingly annoying problem in that what appears to be grain in
> my scans is worse at higher dpi's than it is in the quicky 500 dpi 8 bit
> scans I do as proofs. This is for traditional, 35mm, bw film coming out of
> my darkroom.
>
> From what I've been able to read on the net, this may be due to aliasing &
> not the actual grain in the film (It's much worse than I'd see in a
> traditional, gs print.). Contrary to what I've read, however, it is not a
> matter of threshold iso/grain size issues, rather it's a continuum, getting
> progressively worse as iso/grain increases. It may not be readily
> noticeable
> at lower iso's, but close inspection reveals it to be there.
>
> Here are what I believe to be the pertinent the settings I use in Vuescan
> for my, hopefully, best scans:
>
> Media: B/W negative
> Bits/pixel 16 bit gray
> Resolution: 4000 dpi
> Number of samples: 8
> Fine mode: Yes (checked)
> Multi Exposure: Yes (checked)
>
> I've been playing, unsuccessfully, with checking/unchecking, no of samples
> etc... Medium size jpg's seem to produce better scans than the maxed out
> settings above, but of course, they won't work for larger prints going
> forward.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>


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

Then, if these are just proof scans, have you checked those same setting as
a tif or dng? I don't worry about JPEG image files so much. But I am a
little confused, you mention jpeg for proofing at a much lower res too. Are
you using both and just noticing the problem with the higher res settin?

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lew
Schwartz
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 2:39 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Grain/aliasing, CoolScan 5000 and VueScan

Scanning at 4000 dpi for a 35mm neg takes about 10 - 15 min using the
settings I like. Not practical for a 36 exp roll when a single shoot may
involve upwards of 4 rolls, so what I do is to proof everything at a very
low res into jpgs ... easy to store, share, etc... but not great for serious
prints.

On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Eric Neilsen <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Lew, Why scan to JPEG? That was the biggest question of your posting to
me.
>
>
> _____
>
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lew
> Schwartz
> Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 8:11 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Grain/aliasing, CoolScan 5000 and VueScan
>
> I have an increasingly annoying problem in that what appears to be grain
in
> my scans is worse at higher dpi's than it is in the quicky 500 dpi 8 bit
> scans I do as proofs. This is for traditional, 35mm, bw film coming out of
> my darkroom.
>
> From what I've been able to read on the net, this may be due to aliasing &
> not the actual grain in the film (It's much worse than I'd see in a
> traditional, gs print.). Contrary to what I've read, however, it is not a
> matter of threshold iso/grain size issues, rather it's a continuum,
getting
> progressively worse as iso/grain increases. It may not be readily
> noticeable
> at lower iso's, but close inspection reveals it to be there.
>
> Here are what I believe to be the pertinent the settings I use in Vuescan
> for my, hopefully, best scans:
>
> Media: B/W negative
> Bits/pixel 16 bit gray
> Resolution: 4000 dpi
> Number of samples: 8
> Fine mode: Yes (checked)
> Multi Exposure: Yes (checked)
>
> I've been playing, unsuccessfully, with checking/unchecking, no of samples
> etc... Medium size jpg's seem to produce better scans than the maxed out
> settings above, but of course, they won't work for larger prints going
> forward.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>


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



------------------------------------

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

Yes, I use both and the problem is only with the hi-res scans.

On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Eric Neilsen <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:

> **
> Are you using both and just noticing the problem with the higher res
> settin?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lew
> Schwartz
> Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 2:39 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Grain/aliasing, CoolScan 5000 and VueScan
>
>
> Scanning at 4000 dpi for a 35mm neg takes about 10 - 15 min using the
> settings I like. Not practical for a 36 exp roll when a single shoot may
> involve upwards of 4 rolls, so what I do is to proof everything at a very
> low res into jpgs ... easy to store, share, etc... but not great for
> serious
> prints.
>
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Eric Neilsen <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Lew, Why scan to JPEG? That was the biggest question of your posting to
> me.
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lew
> > Schwartz
> > Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 8:11 AM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Grain/aliasing, CoolScan 5000 and VueScan
> >
> > I have an increasingly annoying problem in that what appears to be grain
> in
> > my scans is worse at higher dpi's than it is in the quicky 500 dpi 8 bit
> > scans I do as proofs. This is for traditional, 35mm, bw film coming out
> of
> > my darkroom.
> >
> > From what I've been able to read on the net, this may be due to aliasing
> &
> > not the actual grain in the film (It's much worse than I'd see in a
> > traditional, gs print.). Contrary to what I've read, however, it is not a
> > matter of threshold iso/grain size issues, rather it's a continuum,
> getting
> > progressively worse as iso/grain increases. It may not be readily
> > noticeable
> > at lower iso's, but close inspection reveals it to be there.
> >
> > Here are what I believe to be the pertinent the settings I use in Vuescan
> > for my, hopefully, best scans:
> >
> > Media: B/W negative
> > Bits/pixel 16 bit gray
> > Resolution: 4000 dpi
> > Number of samples: 8
> > Fine mode: Yes (checked)
> > Multi Exposure: Yes (checked)
> >
> > I've been playing, unsuccessfully, with checking/unchecking, no of
> samples
> > etc... Medium size jpg's seem to produce better scans than the maxed out
> > settings above, but of course, they won't work for larger prints going
> > forward.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> 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
>
>  
>


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

On 08/07/2011 09:38 PM, Lew Schwartz wrote:
> Scanning at 4000 dpi for a 35mm neg takes about 10 - 15 min using the
> settings I like. Not practical for a 36 exp roll when a single shoot may
> involve upwards of 4 rolls, so what I do is to proof everything at a very
> low res into jpgs ... easy to store, share, etc... but not great for serious
> prints.

It would not surprise me if the Nikon scanner still scans at 4000 PPI 
and the driver downsamples it to 500 PPI. The Nikon 8000 does that. 
Depending on the downsampling routine the (aliased) grain could dissolve 
if for example an anti-aliasing filter is included in the downsampling.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst

Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

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

Hi res as TIF or DNG? 

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lew
Schwartz
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 3:44 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Grain/aliasing, CoolScan 5000 and VueScan

Yes, I use both and the problem is only with the hi-res scans.

On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Eric Neilsen <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:

> **
> Are you using both and just noticing the problem with the higher res
> settin?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lew
> Schwartz
> Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 2:39 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Grain/aliasing, CoolScan 5000 and VueScan
>
>
> Scanning at 4000 dpi for a 35mm neg takes about 10 - 15 min using the
> settings I like. Not practical for a 36 exp roll when a single shoot may
> involve upwards of 4 rolls, so what I do is to proof everything at a very
> low res into jpgs ... easy to store, share, etc... but not great for
> serious
> prints.
>
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Eric Neilsen <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Lew, Why scan to JPEG? That was the biggest question of your posting to
> me.
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lew
> > Schwartz
> > Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 8:11 AM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Grain/aliasing, CoolScan 5000 and VueScan
> >
> > I have an increasingly annoying problem in that what appears to be grain
> in
> > my scans is worse at higher dpi's than it is in the quicky 500 dpi 8 bit
> > scans I do as proofs. This is for traditional, 35mm, bw film coming out
> of
> > my darkroom.
> >
> > From what I've been able to read on the net, this may be due to aliasing
> &
> > not the actual grain in the film (It's much worse than I'd see in a
> > traditional, gs print.). Contrary to what I've read, however, it is not
a
> > matter of threshold iso/grain size issues, rather it's a continuum,
> getting
> > progressively worse as iso/grain increases. It may not be readily
> > noticeable
> > at lower iso's, but close inspection reveals it to be there.
> >
> > Here are what I believe to be the pertinent the settings I use in
Vuescan
> > for my, hopefully, best scans:
> >
> > Media: B/W negative
> > Bits/pixel 16 bit gray
> > Resolution: 4000 dpi
> > Number of samples: 8
> > Fine mode: Yes (checked)
> > Multi Exposure: Yes (checked)
> >
> > I've been playing, unsuccessfully, with checking/unchecking, no of
> samples
> > etc... Medium size jpg's seem to produce better scans than the maxed out
> > settings above, but of course, they won't work for larger prints going
> > forward.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> 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
>
>  
>


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



------------------------------------

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

I've been using both or one or the other. It doesn't matter as far as this
problem is concerned.

On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Eric Neilsen <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hi res as TIF or DNG?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lew
> Schwartz
> Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 3:44 PM
>
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Grain/aliasing, CoolScan 5000 and VueScan
>
> Yes, I use both and the problem is only with the hi-res scans.
>
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Eric Neilsen <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> > Are you using both and just noticing the problem with the higher res
> > settin?
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lew
> > Schwartz
> > Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 2:39 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Grain/aliasing, CoolScan 5000 and VueScan
> >
> >
> > Scanning at 4000 dpi for a 35mm neg takes about 10 - 15 min using the
> > settings I like. Not practical for a 36 exp roll when a single shoot may
> > involve upwards of 4 rolls, so what I do is to proof everything at a very
> > low res into jpgs ... easy to store, share, etc... but not great for
> > serious
> > prints.
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Eric Neilsen <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Lew, Why scan to JPEG? That was the biggest question of your posting to
> > me.
> > >
> > >
> > > _____
> > >
> > > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lew
> > > Schwartz
> > > Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 8:11 AM
> > > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Subject: [Digital BW] Grain/aliasing, CoolScan 5000 and VueScan
> > >
> > > I have an increasingly annoying problem in that what appears to be
> grain
> > in
> > > my scans is worse at higher dpi's than it is in the quicky 500 dpi 8
> bit
> > > scans I do as proofs. This is for traditional, 35mm, bw film coming out
> > of
> > > my darkroom.
> > >
> > > From what I've been able to read on the net, this may be due to
> aliasing
> > &
> > > not the actual grain in the film (It's much worse than I'd see in a
> > > traditional, gs print.). Contrary to what I've read, however, it is not
> a
> > > matter of threshold iso/grain size issues, rather it's a continuum,
> > getting
> > > progressively worse as iso/grain increases. It may not be readily
> > > noticeable
> > > at lower iso's, but close inspection reveals it to be there.
> > >
> > > Here are what I believe to be the pertinent the settings I use in
> Vuescan
> > > for my, hopefully, best scans:
> > >
> > > Media: B/W negative
> > > Bits/pixel 16 bit gray
> > > Resolution: 4000 dpi
> > > Number of samples: 8
> > > Fine mode: Yes (checked)
> > > Multi Exposure: Yes (checked)
> > >
> > > I've been playing, unsuccessfully, with checking/unchecking, no of
> > samples
> > > etc... Medium size jpg's seem to produce better scans than the maxed
> out
> > > settings above, but of course, they won't work for larger prints going
> > > forward.
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>  
>


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

It'd be interesting if this works since it would imply a connection to the
ideas that concern choice of light source, condenser vs diffuser, on an
enlarger in a traditional darkroom. What I've read, however, is that it's
due to the pixel configuration of the scanner's ccd and the software that
records its output.

On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 12:11 PM, pdesmidt tds.net <pdesmidt@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Can the 5000 use an FH-3 carrier? If so, place a piece of white acrylic or
> plexi on top shouldn't be too hard. Perhaps one of the frosted pieces from
> a Rosco filter swatch sample book would work. You'd want one with fairly
> low
> diffusion and as little texture as possible.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>


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

On 07/08/2011 Lew Schwartz wrote:
> From what I've been able to read on the net, this may be due to 
> aliasing &
> not the actual grain in the film (It's much worse than I'd see in a
> traditional, gs print.). Contrary to what I've read, however, it is 
> not a
> matter of threshold iso/grain size issues, rather it's a continuum, 
> getting
> progressively worse as iso/grain increases. It may not be readily 
> noticeable
> at lower iso's, but close inspection reveals it to be there.
> 

I think I was the first to describe grain aliasing, in response to a query 
posed by Polaroid regarding a customer inquiry, on the filmscanners list 
filmscanners@... (I still operate this, but it's pretty much 
silent these days). The Photoscientia.com description of it grew out of 
this initial discussion.

Grain aliasing depends on many factors. Grain in any given emulsion is not 
a single size, but a wide range of sizes, affected by the dev used, its 
solvent action, exposure, emulsion thickness etc. Rodinal, which produces 
ferociously sharp grain and local adjacency effects, is much more likely 
to be problematic than a high-solvent-action fine grain dev like Microdol X.

The LED lightsource used by Nikon is particularly susceptible as it is 
partly collimated light which sharply renders grain topology onto the 
sensor. B&W silver films are worst, colour materials have replaced the 
silver grains with dye clouds which tend to have a softer edge.

Still if any material contains some grains sized near the Nyquist limit, 
aliasing is inevitable.

The earlier 2700ppi Nikon scanners were worse, they aliased most materials 
of ISO100 or over, expecially in areas of medium exposure, like blue sky. 
The result was often like blue sandpaper.

You aren't likely to be able to improve the Nikon's behaviour with the 
problem material by much. With some Nikon scanners it is possible to 
manually defocus the image just a little, which can help - but they 
already tend to have problems with narrow depth of focus and film 
flatness. The lens being wide aperture to cope with the fact that Nikon 
LED's are not very bright means you could end up with just a blurry mess, 
or patches of aliased and unaliased grain.

It's hard to see how a diffuser could be introduced into the optical path 
except perhaps sandwiched with the film with spacers - though attentuating 
the already dim illumination could cause underexposure.

You best bet would probably be to try a different scanner with a diffuse 
lightsource. I use a Polaroid 4000 and an Epson V700. I've only had grain 
aliasing from the Polaroid when trying to scan ISO3200 Delta and TMZ B&W, 
and not at all from the Epson, probably because I've only used it for MF 
slow emulsions.

Best materials for scanning without these issues are the chromagenic 
C41-based B&W materials, Tri Max CN and Ilford XP2.
-- 
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk

For those following this thread, Tony's discussion is easily the best and most comprehensive you'll find on the net.
Thanks Tony!
Lew

On 08/07/2011 05:54 PM, Lew Schwartz wrote:
> If I understand the problem of aliasing correctly, it results from a
> phenomenon similar to the one encountered in the darkroom with diffuser vs
> condenser light sources on the enlarger and, if this is the case, a diffuser
> may well be the answer. Since the 5000 has an auto frame advance mechanism
> to deal with, however, I don't think this would be very easy.

The enlarger light sources differ on the Callier effect in the film 
emulsion which is a kind of diffraction on the spaces between the film 
grain. There might be something of that Callier effect happening in the 
Nikon scanner too but it is likely more complex. There is little 
oversampling done in the Nikon scanner, the sampling rate comes close to 
the delivered resolution. In flatbed models like the Epson V700 the 
sampling rate is much higher than the actual resolution the scanner can 
deliver (based on the sensor well sizes, well pitch). Several sensors 
are shifted half the pitch width in both directions. More samples made 
with bigger sensor well sizes average the readings and noise is reduced 
that way.  Do not expect the resolution to be equal to the sampling 
rate. That oversampling has an analogy to the use of a wider aperture in 
drum scanning for grain reduction.

In practice I can not avoid aliased grain on my Nikon 8000. Nevertheless 
I  do not go the route to reduce grain by making the light more diffuse 
or with a small focus shift. Software like Neat Image can do a good job 
in suppressing aliased grain if I can define the aliased grain as good 
as possible over the frame size. Wet mounting of the film is one step, 
tweaking the film holders to get exact focus on all spots the next step. 
I checked using only the green or blue LEDs for the B&W scan. Vuescan's 
analogue gain sliders allow that:  the channel used at 2x, the other two 
taken out, RAW histogram to check whether there is enough exposure. DNG 
export. Further processing in ARC and Photoshop + Neat Image.
The blue light shifts the grain aliasing a bit on the tone range 
compared to green light but is not noisier in my experience. In theory 
the shorter wavelength blue light should show less diffraction between 
the grain particles if the grain aliasing is partly caused by the 
Callier effect. So far I used ARC's noise reduction very modest to 
remove noise from the positive highlights (actually then still the dense 
part of the digital negative) and in Photoshop Neat Image to reduce it 
in the positive shadows. Still not sure about sharpening, I think 
Photoshop's smart lens sharpening does it better and I should not use 
ARC's tools for it. ARC is typically more made for digital imagers while 
Photoshop still is a mix of tools suitable for both. All in all I can 
reduce noise and keep detail better than with the methods before.

In contrast with selecting one channel from a normally full RGB LED 
lighted scan the focusing in the scanner is also done with the single 
LED color so optimal for that light. I also think that it should reduce 
flare in the optical path and more optical artefacts that an RGB 
lightsource could create in the channel that is selected from a normal 
B&W scan. This method has some analogy to the use of single band/UV rich 
enlarger light in large format B&W photography. The neon A4+ cold light 
that I had made for graphic arts films must be on the attic somewhere 
but I did not forget the principles. Of course I checked what kind of 9" 
CCFL tubes are available with a blue light to make a B&W flatbed. There 
are some with a spectral peak around 457 NM, most likely right in the 
middle of the blue sensor sensitivity.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst

Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

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

Sorry for some ignorance.... what's ARC?

On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Ernst Dinkla <edinkla@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> On 08/07/2011 05:54 PM, Lew Schwartz wrote:
> > If I understand the problem of aliasing correctly, it results from a
> > phenomenon similar to the one encountered in the darkroom with diffuser
> vs
> > condenser light sources on the enlarger and, if this is the case, a
> diffuser
> > may well be the answer. Since the 5000 has an auto frame advance
> mechanism
> > to deal with, however, I don't think this would be very easy.
>
> The enlarger light sources differ on the Callier effect in the film
> emulsion which is a kind of diffraction on the spaces between the film
> grain. There might be something of that Callier effect happening in the
> Nikon scanner too but it is likely more complex. There is little
> oversampling done in the Nikon scanner, the sampling rate comes close to
> the delivered resolution. In flatbed models like the Epson V700 the
> sampling rate is much higher than the actual resolution the scanner can
> deliver (based on the sensor well sizes, well pitch). Several sensors
> are shifted half the pitch width in both directions. More samples made
> with bigger sensor well sizes average the readings and noise is reduced
> that way. Do not expect the resolution to be equal to the sampling
> rate. That oversampling has an analogy to the use of a wider aperture in
> drum scanning for grain reduction.
>
> In practice I can not avoid aliased grain on my Nikon 8000. Nevertheless
> I do not go the route to reduce grain by making the light more diffuse
> or with a small focus shift. Software like Neat Image can do a good job
> in suppressing aliased grain if I can define the aliased grain as good
> as possible over the frame size. Wet mounting of the film is one step,
> tweaking the film holders to get exact focus on all spots the next step.
> I checked using only the green or blue LEDs for the B&W scan. Vuescan's
> analogue gain sliders allow that: the channel used at 2x, the other two
> taken out, RAW histogram to check whether there is enough exposure. DNG
> export. Further processing in ARC and Photoshop + Neat Image.
> The blue light shifts the grain aliasing a bit on the tone range
> compared to green light but is not noisier in my experience. In theory
> the shorter wavelength blue light should show less diffraction between
> the grain particles if the grain aliasing is partly caused by the
> Callier effect. So far I used ARC's noise reduction very modest to
> remove noise from the positive highlights (actually then still the dense
> part of the digital negative) and in Photoshop Neat Image to reduce it
> in the positive shadows. Still not sure about sharpening, I think
> Photoshop's smart lens sharpening does it better and I should not use
> ARC's tools for it. ARC is typically more made for digital imagers while
> Photoshop still is a mix of tools suitable for both. All in all I can
> reduce noise and keep detail better than with the methods before.
>
> In contrast with selecting one channel from a normally full RGB LED
> lighted scan the focusing in the scanner is also done with the single
> LED color so optimal for that light. I also think that it should reduce
> flare in the optical path and more optical artefacts that an RGB
> lightsource could create in the channel that is selected from a normal
> B&W scan. This method has some analogy to the use of single band/UV rich
> enlarger light in large format B&W photography. The neon A4+ cold light
> that I had made for graphic arts films must be on the attic somewhere
> but I did not forget the principles. Of course I checked what kind of 9"
> CCFL tubes are available with a blue light to make a B&W flatbed. There
> are some with a spectral peak around 457 NM, most likely right in the
> middle of the blue sensor sensitivity.
>
>
> --
> Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
>
> Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
>
> | Dinkla Grafische Techniek |
> | www.pigment-print.com |
> | ( unvollendet ) |
>
>  
>


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

On 08/09/2011 01:45 PM, Lew Schwartz wrote:

Adobe Raw Converter.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst

Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

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

It's been my practice using the 5000 and VueScan to scan without sharpening
or grain reduction. I'm applying both, as needed, when I process the files
in Lightroom. I can't evaluate the comparative  success of this method
because I haven't tried anything else.

Care to comment?


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

On 08/09/2011 03:28 PM, Lew Schwartz wrote:
> It's been my practice using the 5000 and VueScan to scan without sharpening
> or grain reduction. I'm applying both, as needed, when I process the files
> in Lightroom. I can't evaluate the comparative  success of this method
> because I haven't tried anything else.
>
> Care to comment?

I'm not familiar with Lightroom. Editing is still done in Photoshop etc 
and printing is done with Qimage.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst

Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

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

Lew, that goes back to the whole workflow. LR uses a very similar conversion
engine to PS - ACR. The noise reduction in ACR is not the best when it comes
to film grain and scanning at least I don't find it to be so. I scan, both
TIF and DNG or in the case of my Nikon Scanning software, NEF. With Capture
NX2 ( Nikons RAW converter) I can see the scan settings. 
 
 
Eric Neilsen
Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
 
www.ericneilsenphotography.com
skype me with ejprinter
www.ericneilsenphotography.com/forum1
Let's Talk Photography
 
  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lew
Schwartz
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 8:28 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Grain/aliasing, CoolScan 5000 and VueScan
 
  
It's been my practice using the 5000 and VueScan to scan without sharpening
or grain reduction. I'm applying both, as needed, when I process the files
in Lightroom. I can't evaluate the comparative success of this method
because I haven't tried anything else.

Care to comment?

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



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

Whether noise reduction will be useful depends a lot on the size of the
problem and how you want the grain, if any, to appear in the image.  With
very grainy film, film that'd have a very visible grain pattern in an 8x10"
print from 35mm, I found that the Nikon scanner lost detail because of the
exacerbation of grain compared to  my Canon 9950F consumer flatbed.
Software noise reduction could get rid of the grain (and a bunch of detail),
but for those images grain was an important part of the final look.  Trying
to minimize grain of  Nikon scan, i.e. making it less noticeable but not
gone, led to a nasty smearing of the grain. In these cases, my Canon flatbed
gave significantly better results than that Nikon film scanner. I was going
to investigate wet-mounting and using diffusion with my Nikon, but I ended
up getting a Screen Cezanne, and so I sold my Nikon.


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

On 08/09/2011 01:54 PM, Ernst Dinkla wrote:
> On 08/09/2011 01:45 PM, Lew Schwartz wrote:
>
> Adobe Raw Converter.
>

Sorry that is the abbreviation that sticks in my brain, ACR, Adobe 
Camera Raw it should be.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst

Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

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

You have brought up a very valid point.. Typically getting rid of the grain is at the price of a trade off. That being said my exposure to the grain reducing software is minimal.... What I do , and it's not perfect, is to scan initially or convert the image to Lab rather then RGB.. It holds the image information differently and in cases such as this often times gives you a bit more room.. Anyway.. in either the a or b channel select the channel that has the most offending grain and lesson it don't remove it from the other channels only the most offending channel.. Don't do this to the L channel as that is the Lightness channel.. When you view it after doing this you'll see it's much improved.. but you'll also see you may have lost a tad but it'll be less then doing something to an RGB file.. You can also experiment with a slight sharpening to the other color channel.. If you blur "b" then add a slight sharpening effect to the "a" channel.. You may not like it but sometimes it'll raise the bar.. Sharpening technique can really make a difference here a sharpening mask is preferred.

jimbo

 ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: pdesmidt tds.net 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 12:59 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Grain/aliasing, CoolScan 5000 and VueScan


    
  Whether noise reduction will be useful depends a lot on the size of the
  problem and how you want the grain, if any, to appear in the image. With
  very grainy film, film that'd have a very visible grain pattern in an 8x10"
  print from 35mm, I found that the Nikon scanner lost detail because of the
  exacerbation of grain compared to my Canon 9950F consumer flatbed.
  Software noise reduction could get rid of the grain (and a bunch of detail),
  but for those images grain was an important part of the final look. Trying
  to minimize grain of Nikon scan, i.e. making it less noticeable but not
  gone, led to a nasty smearing of the grain. In these cases, my Canon flatbed
  gave significantly better results than that Nikon film scanner. I was going
  to investigate wet-mounting and using diffusion with my Nikon, but I ended
  up getting a Screen Cezanne, and so I sold my Nikon.

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



  

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

Another approach to controlling the appearance of film grain is using hardware. Enlarging the scanner aperture slightly reduces grain and has little effect on image detail. Many drum scanners can do this but I don't know about other scanners.

Randall R Bresee

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pdesmidt tds.net" <pdesmidt@...> wrote:

>
> Whether noise reduction will be useful depends a lot on the size of the
> problem and how you want the grain, if any, to appear in the image.  With
> very grainy film, film that'd have a very visible grain pattern in an 8x10"
> print from 35mm, I found that the Nikon scanner lost detail because of the
> exacerbation of grain compared to  my Canon 9950F consumer flatbed.
> Software noise reduction could get rid of the grain (and a bunch of detail),
> but for those images grain was an important part of the final look.  Trying
> to minimize grain of  Nikon scan, i.e. making it less noticeable but not
> gone, led to a nasty smearing of the grain. In these cases, my Canon flatbed
> gave significantly better results than that Nikon film scanner. I was going
> to investigate wet-mounting and using diffusion with my Nikon, but I ended
> up getting a Screen Cezanne, and so I sold my Nikon.
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

no way to do it in other scanners... it's the nature of the drum scanner to have an aperture, fixed or variable.

I prefer Neat image if a noise filter is required, having separate control over three different frequency ranges allows very fine tuned and natural looking results. I have Noise Ninja as well and it is good, but for fine tuning grain reduction from scans the extra control in Neat Image works best for me.
Tyler

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

>
> Another approach to controlling the appearance of film grain is using hardware. Enlarging the scanner aperture slightly reduces grain and has little effect on image detail. Many drum scanners can do this but I don't know about other scanners.
> 
> Randall R Bresee
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pdesmidt tds.net" <pdesmidt@> wrote:
> >
> > Whether noise reduction will be useful depends a lot on the size of the
> > problem and how you want the grain, if any, to appear in the image.  With
> > very grainy film, film that'd have a very visible grain pattern in an 8x10"
> > print from 35mm, I found that the Nikon scanner lost detail because of the
> > exacerbation of grain compared to  my Canon 9950F consumer flatbed.
> > Software noise reduction could get rid of the grain (and a bunch of detail),
> > but for those images grain was an important part of the final look.  Trying
> > to minimize grain of  Nikon scan, i.e. making it less noticeable but not
> > gone, led to a nasty smearing of the grain. In these cases, my Canon flatbed
> > gave significantly better results than that Nikon film scanner. I was going
> > to investigate wet-mounting and using diffusion with my Nikon, but I ended
> > up getting a Screen Cezanne, and so I sold my Nikon.
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

Tyler, Noiseware gives users a control over shadow, midrange and highlight
and the high, mid and low frequency.  NI and NW are both quite good.
Interface on either takes a bit of time to learn.  

 

Eric Neilsen

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214-827-8301

 

 <http://ericneilsenphotography.com/forum1> Let's Talk Photography

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

SKYPE ejprinter

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of tboleyyh
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 3:58 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Grain/aliasing, CoolScan 5000 and VueScan

 

  

no way to do it in other scanners... it's the nature of the drum scanner to
have an aperture, fixed or variable.

I prefer Neat image if a noise filter is required, having separate control
over three different frequency ranges allows very fine tuned and natural
looking results. I have Noise Ninja as well and it is good, but for fine
tuning grain reduction from scans the extra control in Neat Image works best
for me.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , "lgrrrb@..."
<lgrrrb@...> wrote:
>
> Another approach to controlling the appearance of film grain is using
hardware. Enlarging the scanner aperture slightly reduces grain and has
little effect on image detail. Many drum scanners can do this but I don't
know about other scanners.
> 
> Randall R Bresee
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , "pdesmidt tds.net"
<pdesmidt@> wrote:
> >
> > Whether noise reduction will be useful depends a lot on the size of the
> > problem and how you want the grain, if any, to appear in the image. With
> > very grainy film, film that'd have a very visible grain pattern in an
8x10"
> > print from 35mm, I found that the Nikon scanner lost detail because of
the
> > exacerbation of grain compared to my Canon 9950F consumer flatbed.
> > Software noise reduction could get rid of the grain (and a bunch of
detail),
> > but for those images grain was an important part of the final look.
Trying
> > to minimize grain of Nikon scan, i.e. making it less noticeable but not
> > gone, led to a nasty smearing of the grain. In these cases, my Canon
flatbed
> > gave significantly better results than that Nikon film scanner. I was
going
> > to investigate wet-mounting and using diffusion with my Nikon, but I
ended
> > up getting a Screen Cezanne, and so I sold my Nikon.
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>





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

I had forgotten about Noiseware, years since I tried the demo. Sounds great and would avoid some of the luminance soft masking I've done before with grain control. Those kinds of controls are great for addressing grain. Most noise filters are probably optimized for working on digital noise, so working on the look of film grain in a scan may require some finessing with good control and a careful user, rather than "auto" settings and profiling.
I'll take another look at Noiseware, and yes the interface with NI is a bit odd, and it can be quite slow...
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "EJ Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:

>
> Tyler, Noiseware gives users a control over shadow, midrange and highlight
> and the high, mid and low frequency.  NI and NW are both quite good.
> Interface on either takes a bit of time to learn.  
> 
>  
> 
> Eric Neilsen
> 
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
> 
> Dallas, TX 75226
> 
> 214-827-8301
> 
>  
> 
>  <http://ericneilsenphotography.com/forum1> Let's Talk Photography
> 
> www.ericneilsenphotography.com
> 
> SKYPE ejprinter
> 
>  
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of tboleyyh
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 3:58 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Grain/aliasing, CoolScan 5000 and VueScan
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> no way to do it in other scanners... it's the nature of the drum scanner to
> have an aperture, fixed or variable.
> 
> I prefer Neat image if a noise filter is required, having separate control
> over three different frequency ranges allows very fine tuned and natural
> looking results. I have Noise Ninja as well and it is good, but for fine
> tuning grain reduction from scans the extra control in Neat Image works best
> for me.
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , "lgrrrb@"
> <lgrrrb@> wrote:
> >
> > Another approach to controlling the appearance of film grain is using
> hardware. Enlarging the scanner aperture slightly reduces grain and has
> little effect on image detail. Many drum scanners can do this but I don't
> know about other scanners.
> > 
> > Randall R Bresee
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , "pdesmidt tds.net"
> <pdesmidt@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Whether noise reduction will be useful depends a lot on the size of the
> > > problem and how you want the grain, if any, to appear in the image. With
> > > very grainy film, film that'd have a very visible grain pattern in an
> 8x10"
> > > print from 35mm, I found that the Nikon scanner lost detail because of
> the
> > > exacerbation of grain compared to my Canon 9950F consumer flatbed.
> > > Software noise reduction could get rid of the grain (and a bunch of
> detail),
> > > but for those images grain was an important part of the final look.
> Trying
> > > to minimize grain of Nikon scan, i.e. making it less noticeable but not
> > > gone, led to a nasty smearing of the grain. In these cases, my Canon
> flatbed
> > > gave significantly better results than that Nikon film scanner. I was
> going
> > > to investigate wet-mounting and using diffusion with my Nikon, but I
> ended
> > > up getting a Screen Cezanne, and so I sold my Nikon.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I have Noise Ninja, and it works quite well on digital camera images, but I
didn't like it very much for scans.  I expect that Tyler's right that Neat
Image would be a better choice.

Changing topics slightly, recently I tested scanning at various resolutions
with my Cezanne.  I tried 6000 spi, 5000 spi, ... down to 2000 spi.  I found
that the character of the grain changed quite dramatically, with the 6000
spi scans having the finest grain by far.  While that's probably pretty
hardware dependent, it's probably worth trying some different resolutions to
see what happens.  In addition, I scan BW film as a color positive and pick
the best channel to keep in photoshop. Often there're pretty big differences
as to how the individual channels show grain.


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