Scanned Moose wrote:
> be a result of the Nikon scanner design with semi-coherent light source.
Absolutely, that is part of the issue. The Nikon scanner certainly
mimics the characteristics of a normal condenser-head enlarger while
your scanner mimics the characteristics of a diffusion-head enlarger.
I almost exclusively use diffusion-head enlargers. But the problem is
that contrast has to be increased to compensate. Typically, in the
darkroom, you'll seen an increase by 1/2 to a full grade of contrast
adjustment.
As to the scan, I can dial in some noise reduction in Lightroom to
smooth things up a lot and give the same look/feel as you have with
your scan. Overall contrast of the image will go down only very
slightly, but the look/feel changes to the diffusion scan. Lightroom's
NR seems to work about the best of all the methods, right now.
Photoshop CC seems to be about two steps behind Lightroom.
> My Canon FS4000, with its incoherent light source, just doesn't do that.
> Multiple passes, for example, while they do slightly increase pixel level
> detail, if lens and technique are up to it, don't do much to grain.
Not so sure if multiple-pass increases pixel level detail. It doesn't
seem to be the case, for me. What it does do, however, is lower grain
aliasing and give smoother tonal gradient.
> Unfortunately, I did this scanning in 2008, and my "filing system" of drifts
> of stuff in boxes, didn't immediately reveal the original negs. The film is
> probably Plus-X. Certainly doesn't look like Tri-X.
Yes, it is probably Plus-X processed D76. Just this week, I've
processed Plus-X in D76, Acufine and DD-X. honestly, the difference
between the three is pretty incredible. While the D76 chemistry seemed
a bit on the weak side and the negs aren't exactly "thin", but they
are a full paper grade off from my normal density. At least the
highlights are in awesome shape. DD-X gives the nice smooth grain that
your scan shows, but is certainly more contrasty and the highlights
can block up. The Acufine negs are like sand. VERY gritty, but sharp
enough to let me back things off.
> OK, my scans are about 5500 pixels wide, half of which is 2750, so 1600
> would be considerable downsampling. Are you scanning at a lower resolution?
4000 PPI.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|