> Dave wrote:
> >I don't see significant differences in grain at the print level
> >between 100 speed negs and chromes, and print level is all I really
> >care about.
>
> Really??! In the scans I see a huge difference between say Superia
100
> and Sensia II 100. There's a *much* bigger difference when you go
to Provia
> 100F. There is no apparent grain with Provia 100F. Sensia II shows
little
> grain. Superia 100 or Reala shows a lot of ugly grain in
highlights - particularly
> skies. I haven't done enough large prints to know for sure, but
from the
> evidence I have there's a big difference between the quality of
prints from
> slides compared to prints from negs.
In general grain doesn't bother me, it's an artifact of silver halide
technology I've grown to accept. I *do* want to see it in the print,
and I want it to look very similar to how it would in a very good
equal size analog print. How it looks on the monitor doesn't concern
me really. When magnified you'll see significant differences in grain
size and structure between various emulsions, yes. As a general rule,
it's pretty easy to inadvertently overemphasize grain in digital, so I
try to avoid that.
> *However* one thing I don't recall you mentioning was what program
you're
> using to scan with. Are you using Nikonscan? If so, I'm not
suprised you
> have less problems with grain in the sky. Vuescan seems to increase
grain
> in highlight areas of negs, and earlier versions put a distinct
orange/brown
> tint in the image compared to Nikonscan.
I haven't used Vuescan since figuring out how to get what I want out
of NikonScan.
> The detail in the skies tend to "blow out" in Nikonscan with the
LS30 since
> it only works with 8 bit data - this has the side effect of reducing
apparent
> grain in the sky. Unfortunately Nikonscan is useless for me since I
get
> jaggies with it, so I have to use Vuescan. I may be able to
"improve" things
> a little by deliberately adjusting the white point, but I don't want
to
> lose too much sky detail.
I see some artifacts from ICE on edges of tonal contrast areas on the
monitor, but again, in print it's a non-issue, so I've been able to
ignore it.
> > I'm scanning a variety of films from my files etc, but
> > these days I tend to shoot mostly Fuji Provia 100,
> > Astia 100, 64T, NPS 160, and NHG 800. (I guess I like Fuji :)
>
> I mostly use Fuji as well. The only non-fuji film I've used much in
the
> last ten years is Kodak T400CN. At the moment I generally use
Superia 100
> or Provia 100F.
>
> >My judgement is completely subjective and therefore probably not
worth
> >too much. (Take with a large "grain" of halide :) I judged the
> >distortion by comparing the grain on monitor at 100% to how I think
it
> >would look with no distortion, and to tonal areas in the same scan
> >with less aliasing distortion.
>
> Ah. I was wondering whether you were comparing it to grain in a
photographic
> 10x8 print or something.
>
> > My ideas about how grain looks are formed by seeing grain
> > magnified in various ways over the years.
>
> The joys of experience. :) I'm not so fortunate.
Or perhaps you are <g>.....
> >Generally, the grain in least aliased areas of 800 speed neg film
> >looks pretty close to no distortion with LS-30 scans, to my eye.
>
> Meaning the grain is real? To me, Fuji 800 looks very grainy when
scanned.
"Real" is a relative term. Aliasing is a "reaction formation" to real
grain, to varying degrees of visual distortion. If the distortion
artifacts don't obliterate the grain structure completely (and to my
way of looking at it they don't), then at *lower magnifications*
(prints) the essential qualities of the original are more or less
intact.
Fujicolor 800 looks relatively grainy because it is. But it has a
smooth structure, and looks great in large prints. Wouldn't shoot
architecture on 35mm with it :), but for personal work I love it.
Sometimes it "packs up" on smaller prints (don't know better way to
describe it), to me it looks better at bigger print sizes oddly
enough, but I don't mind it small either, it does what it does. So
much improvement in high speed neg films in the past couple of years.
I wouldn't have considered an 800 speed neg film years ago except in
"emergencies".
> >I'm not sure how aliasing distortion could cause color shift, but
> >since aliasing becomes greater at certain tonal transitions you may
be
> >seeing the additive effect of two problems overlapping. Does your
> >printer profile posterize blues?
>
> I'm not using the same printer anymore, but regardless - the colour
shift
> was in the scanned image. See my comments above about Vuescan and
negs.
> Vuescan does seem to highlight odd colours in blue skies for some
reason
> when scanning negs. This may be an old problem though - I'd have to
try
> scanning the same panoramic frame again with the current incarnation
of
> Vuescan.
> Ed has made a LOT of changes to the colour transformations since I
made
> the original scan. Sky grain is still an issue though.
>
> > Jon Cone suggests to avoid overemphasing grain when sharpening
scans
> > (I suppose equally true for aliasing distortion), never use a
radius
> > setting higher than 0.8.
>
> This is interesting. I'll have to check my unsharp mask settings.
Having
> said that - I don't always sharpen scans prior to printing. I
imagine sharpening
> would be more important when printing to larger sizes as you are.
The largest
> I can print at the moment is A3+, and I have yet to try it. I've
only printed
> to something a little smaller than A3.
>
> >NikonScan 2.5, and it seems about right to me.
>
> I guess this answers my question about what program you use. :)
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
>
>
>
>
