Any successfulB&W digital images from 35mm film?

If anyone has made a digital image comparable to a darkroom print from
35mm film, I would like to know the "secret". I am using a low end Scan
Dual scanner with VueScan Software. The 35mm film is Panatomic X. I am
using an Epson Photo printer. I am only blowing it up to a 5X7 image.
But when I compare it to an 8X10 darkroom print, the digital print is much
grainier and the tonal value is not as great. I have tried to blur the
grain with Photoshop but it loses its sharpness. I have tried to control
the grain with VueScan but that too results in a less sharp picture and
the grain is still more noticeable in comparison to the larger 8X10
darkroom print. I can actually make a better digital image by scanning
the 8X10 darkroom print than scanning the negative.

In article , QkaG wrote:
If anyone has made a digital image comparable to a darkroom print from
35mm film, I would like to know the "secret". I am using a low end Scan
Dual scanner with VueScan Software. The 35mm film is Panatomic X. I am
using an Epson Photo printer. I am only blowing it up to a 5X7 image.
But when I compare it to an 8X10 darkroom print, the digital print is much
grainier and the tonal value is not as great. I have tried to blur the
grain with Photoshop but it loses its sharpness. I have tried to control
the grain with VueScan but that too results in a less sharp picture and
the grain is still more noticeable in comparison to the larger 8X10
darkroom print. I can actually make a better digital image by scanning
the 8X10 darkroom print than scanning the negative.

The first problem is that while you think you are getting lots of colors,
you only get 256 of them in grayscale. 24 bit color is 256 levels or red,
256 levels of green and 256 levels of blue.

Since gray is the same level for each color, that only gives you 256 levels
of gray. If you scanner can support higher color resolutions scan in color
using the higher resolution. If you wish to save space, you can convert
the file to grayscale using photoshop or the GIMP, or a similar program.

Second make sure that any dust or scratch reduction software isturned
off. They work by making a fourth scan of the negative in infra-red. A
color negative will scan as translucent except for dust (black) and
scratches (clear), while a silver based monochome negative will scan as
grayscale.

Make sure to scan at the highest resolution you scanner can actually
scan at. Avoid "interpolated" resolutions, they create false data.

Remember that almost any film you have will appear to the eye as having
more gray levels than any scanner will be able to discern. Unless you have a
very carefully controled contrast negative, you have to give up something,
either highlight/shadow detail or contrast range. Trying to recreate it
photoshop is just a waste and creates false information.

The same is with a digital print. No digital printer has the range of film.
A laser based photographic printer, i.e. one that prints on silver based
paper, will have better range than an ink-jet, but it's still not going to
be the same as a "real" print.

I've found that the best results I have had are from scanning a negative
as a slide and then inverting it in the GIMP.

With that said, I've been able to produce good prints from a 35mm negative,
scanned with a 1200 dpi scanner and printed on a 720dpi printer. Close up
they look lousy, viewed at the "normal viewing distance" (about 1 foot for
an 8x10 print) they look fine at A4.

You also can get better results if you print on a higher resolution printer
in color. That way you can adjust the tone of the ink to resemble your
favorite print paper. Using black ink only forces you to the color of
black your ink manufacturer decides is correrct. IMHO it's usually too
magenta, in the 10-20cc range.

Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson

In article ,
says...
If anyone has made a digital image comparable to a darkroom print from
35mm film, I would like to know the "secret". I am using a low end Scan
Dual scanner with VueScan Software. The 35mm film is Panatomic X. I am
using an Epson Photo printer. I am only blowing it up to a 5X7 image.
But when I compare it to an 8X10 darkroom print, the digital print is much
grainier and the tonal value is not as great. I have tried to blur the
grain with Photoshop but it loses its sharpness. I have tried to control
the grain with VueScan but that too results in a less sharp picture and
the grain is still more noticeable in comparison to the larger 8X10
darkroom print. I can actually make a better digital image by scanning
the 8X10 darkroom print than scanning the negative.

See if my discussions about scanning B&W negatives will help you.
You don't say what the resolution of your scanner is, but you really
need at least 1500 dpi for a 5x7 inch print. (1500/300 = 5x
enlargement). It seems doubtful you are seeing grain. If you are
printing on a medium quality printer and only using the black ink you
may be seeing a similar effect due to the lack of enough tonal steps.
Printing in color mode may help. I have a discussion of this as well.
Follow the tips link on my home page..

--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

My thanks to Geoffrey and Robert for your responses and suggestions.
I did scan the B&W in color mode as opposed to grayscale. I wish I had
the 4th infrared channel but I have a low end film scanner. Its
resolution is not that bad. It's 2800 dpi for 35 mm film and that should
be ample for a 5X7 image.

Ithink what I see is grain but what do I know. I am new at this. It
looks like a darkroom enlargement of Tri X film. However my negative is
Panatomic X. If it is grain, digitized Tri X must look like crap.

I'll take a look at your home page Robert but I am getting the feeling
that a digitized B&W image from 35 mm film cannot compare to a darkroom
print.

QkaG wrote:
: My thanks to Geoffrey and Robert for your responses and suggestions.
: I did scan the B&W in color mode as opposed to grayscale. I wish I had
: the 4th infrared channel but I have a low end film scanner. Its
: resolution is not that bad. It's 2800 dpi for 35 mm film and that should
: be ample for a 5X7 image.

: Ithink what I see is grain but what do I know. I am new at this. It
: looks like a darkroom enlargement of Tri X film. However my negative is
: Panatomic X. If it is grain, digitized Tri X must look like crap.

: I'll take a look at your home page Robert but I am getting the feeling
: that a digitized B&W image from 35 mm film cannot compare to a darkroom
: print.

When you are scanning a silver based B&W negative the IR channel won't
help you. You cannot use the IR based dust and scratch removal feature for
silver based B&W scans.

Ray

--
E. Ray Lemar

In article , (QkaG) wrote:

My thanks to Geoffrey and Robert for your responses and suggestions.
I did scan the B&W in color mode as opposed to grayscale. I wish I had
the 4th infrared channel but I have a low end film scanner. Its
resolution is not that bad. It's 2800 dpi for 35 mm film and that should
be ample for a 5X7 image.

Sending a 35mm image scanned at "2800dpi" is about 30% more than the
printer can handle, so the printer is downsampling, possibly introducing
artifacts in the process. The artifacts can be exacerbated by printing on
only the black cartrige. Another possibility is that the scanner isn't
_really_ doing 2800, but interpolating to make that figure, and
interpolation definitely adds artifacts.

What does the image look like on your monitor? Can you see the same
artifacts that appear on the print?

If you have Photoshop you might try duotone (or even tritone or quadtone)
using some brown and blue tints.

If anyone has made a digital image comparable to a darkroom print from
35mm film, I would like to know the "secret".

I also have never make a good scan from a negative color or otherwise but my
slides always looked great. So I got this crazy idea of contacting B&W
negatives onto litho film and process in Dektol to make a positive slide. Then
I scan that. Best scans are low contrast slides resulting by pulling the lith
film out of the Dektol in less then 1 minute.

I get really great looking 8x12 B&W Kodak dye sub prints at 5MB. Ten MB if I am
using a color ribbon which is tricky.

Larry

If you plan on processing all of your negatives this way, you should
process the negatives in such a way as to reduce the dynamic range
(contrast) on the negative (less time in the developer - or colder
temp). The problem is that most good b&w film will allow for a DMAX
of approx 3 - 3.6 - which is a ratio in density between the darkest
and lightest parts of the negative of anywhere from 1000:1 to 4000:1 -
the film scanner is probably 8 bits per colour, which means that when
scanning b&w it has an ability to see a ratio in density of 256:1, so
when you scan the negative, you lose a lot of the information that is
there.

Paper prints have a maximum density ratio of about 100:1 - which is
one reason that we spend time in the darkroom burning and dodging -
there is more ability for the negative to hold more detail than there
is for the paper to display it, so we select what to emphasize when we
print - your scanner is not so smart.

I personally do not bother trying to scan B&W negatives, if I need an
electronic version of a B&W image, I will print it in the darkroom,
then scan the print. - I do scan my colour transparancies, and have
much better luck with those.

Mark
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 04:53:26 GMT, (QkaG) wrote:

If anyone has made a digital image comparable to a darkroom print from
35mm film, I would like to know the "secret". I am using a low end Scan
Dual scanner with VueScan Software. The 35mm film is Panatomic X. I am
using an Epson Photo printer. I am only blowing it up to a 5X7 image.
But when I compare it to an 8X10 darkroom print, the digital print is much
grainier and the tonal value is not as great. I have tried to blur the
grain with Photoshop but it loses its sharpness. I have tried to control
the grain with VueScan but that too results in a less sharp picture and
the grain is still more noticeable in comparison to the larger 8X10
darkroom print. I can actually make a better digital image by scanning
the 8X10 darkroom print than scanning the negative.

In article ,
(Hemi4268) wrote:

I also have never make a good scan from a negative color or otherwise but my
slides always looked great. So I got this crazy idea of contacting B&W
negatives onto litho film and process in Dektol to make a positive
slide. Then
I scan that.

Isn't dust a huge problem? Uneven development? And FWIW, Kodak makes a
better film for that - 5302.

It is quite possible to get a good B&W image by scanning a B&W negative and
printing on an inkjet printer; it is not the same as a darkroom print, but it
can be very pleasing in its own right. Various methods are used to make B&W
prints on inkjet printers, from using color inks and messing with the color
controls to using dedicated B&W inksets with profiles to match them to specific
papers (Piezography BWICCProfile system, for example {see www.inkjetmall.com
or www.piezography.com for more on this). Also see the digital darkroom forum
at www.photo.net (check the forums under "Community.") One of the advantages
to scanning and printing is that once you have the photograph done and saved
you can print identical copies without additional manipulation. Another
advantage is the ability to make tiny manipulations that are difficult on a
darkroom print; indeed, you can exert all sorts of control over the photograph.
(See also www.johnpaulcaponigro.com--he is a very accomplished digital
worker.) Good scanning practices, appropriate equipment (CRT probably has an
advantage over LED for B&W), and dilligence in learning and applying Photoshop
skills will be of great value. Best regards,
Dan Kapsner