----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Franklin" Subject: Re: istD test
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 20:39:36 -0600, William Robb wrote: > > > [...] Much of the grain artifacts that people complain about is > > the fault of the scanning process, not the film. [...] > > Would you mind expanding on that? Anything I can do to make my > scanning process better is a Good Thing. Are there specific mistakes > that you think people make, or what? This is a purely non technical, based on observation, not measurement. Bear this in mind. What I see in scanned negative to print vs optically printed negatives is that the scanner seems to see film grain much better than photo paper. I suspect that it is because most scanners are point source, while optical printers are mostly diffused source. My Epson 2450 shows less of this than my old HP S10 did, and the Epson is a diffused source, the HP is a point source, so this seems to bear out in the real world to some extent, anyway. I don't know enough about the science of scanning to know if there is a way around it or not. I suspect diffusion scanning, such as what the Epson does is the best way around it, but I am also prepared to be corrected on this. My way around it is to not scan my film, but I am in a somewhat unique position. I am a very good darkroom technician, and I have access to an excellent wet colour darkroom that will allow me to print up to 4x5 negs if I want to, and I have my own black and white darkroom that allows me to print up to 4x5 negatives. Ultimately, I think going full digital is the answer, if you have to print digitally. William Robb
