<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Print Grain and Print Surface Resolution</title>
	<atom:link href="http://figitalrevolution.com/2009/09/23/print-grain-and-print-surface-resolution-scan-film-rodianl-xtol-kodak-imacon-nikon-scanner/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://figitalrevolution.com/2009/09/23/print-grain-and-print-surface-resolution-scan-film-rodianl-xtol-kodak-imacon-nikon-scanner/</link>
	<description>A Maverick Manifesto for the 21st Century Photograher</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 May 2010 14:33:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vince</title>
		<link>http://figitalrevolution.com/2009/09/23/print-grain-and-print-surface-resolution-scan-film-rodianl-xtol-kodak-imacon-nikon-scanner/#comment-1521</link>
		<dc:creator>Vince</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:25:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://figitalrevolution.com/?p=2860#comment-1521</guid>
		<description>Very interesting post. Thanks once again for sharing your experience and thoughts. Intuitively it would make sense to optically &quot;oversample&quot; the film grain, without applying any digital sharpening, so as to capture the true grain structure in the file; hence the common practice of scanning B&amp;W film at high resolution (4000dpi or higher). However, what you&#039;re saying (if I understand you correctly) is that scanning at high resolution *can* create &quot;grain aliasing&quot;, in which case using a lower, rather than higher, resolution can help mitigate the effect? Thanks for clarifying.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very interesting post. Thanks once again for sharing your experience and thoughts. Intuitively it would make sense to optically &#8220;oversample&#8221; the film grain, without applying any digital sharpening, so as to capture the true grain structure in the file; hence the common practice of scanning B&amp;W film at high resolution (4000dpi or higher). However, what you&#8217;re saying (if I understand you correctly) is that scanning at high resolution *can* create &#8220;grain aliasing&#8221;, in which case using a lower, rather than higher, resolution can help mitigate the effect? Thanks for clarifying.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: figitalrevolution</title>
		<link>http://figitalrevolution.com/2009/09/23/print-grain-and-print-surface-resolution-scan-film-rodianl-xtol-kodak-imacon-nikon-scanner/#comment-1520</link>
		<dc:creator>figitalrevolution</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:00:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://figitalrevolution.com/?p=2860#comment-1520</guid>
		<description>If your scanning something like Ektar it would be very difficult to see much grain as it is so fine (dye cloud)... I scan most of my Ektar and Acros negs at around 3200 - 4000 optical dpi (16 bit) on my Imacon... both wet and dry mount.

Cheers-
Stephen</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If your scanning something like Ektar it would be very difficult to see much grain as it is so fine (dye cloud)&#8230; I scan most of my Ektar and Acros negs at around 3200 &#8211; 4000 optical dpi (16 bit) on my Imacon&#8230; both wet and dry mount.</p>
<p>Cheers-<br />
Stephen</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sojournerphoto</title>
		<link>http://figitalrevolution.com/2009/09/23/print-grain-and-print-surface-resolution-scan-film-rodianl-xtol-kodak-imacon-nikon-scanner/#comment-1519</link>
		<dc:creator>sojournerphoto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:56:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://figitalrevolution.com/?p=2860#comment-1519</guid>
		<description>Hi Stephen

A good article, but I&#039;m not sure this really carries through to the Nikon scanners as reducing resolution doesn&#039;t seem to impact on the underlying hardware resolution. As a result when I scan at 2000dpi (say) instead of 4,000 I don&#039;t necesarily less grain. It&#039;s tru though that I also don&#039;r always see any less detail in prints of quite a reasonable size. 

I don&#039;t tend to sharpen scans much for exactly the reasons you state - the grain can become dreadful - and similarly with digital images, I sem less aggressive than many other I discuss with. I&#039;ve always felt a bit of a freak, but I don&#039;t often see edges that hard in life, so don&#039;t necessarily picture them either.

I would be interested to know what resolution you find works for ektar and acros though.

Mike</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Stephen</p>
<p>A good article, but I&#8217;m not sure this really carries through to the Nikon scanners as reducing resolution doesn&#8217;t seem to impact on the underlying hardware resolution. As a result when I scan at 2000dpi (say) instead of 4,000 I don&#8217;t necesarily less grain. It&#8217;s tru though that I also don&#8217;r always see any less detail in prints of quite a reasonable size. </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t tend to sharpen scans much for exactly the reasons you state &#8211; the grain can become dreadful &#8211; and similarly with digital images, I sem less aggressive than many other I discuss with. I&#8217;ve always felt a bit of a freak, but I don&#8217;t often see edges that hard in life, so don&#8217;t necessarily picture them either.</p>
<p>I would be interested to know what resolution you find works for ektar and acros though.</p>
<p>Mike</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
