Yes, I’m sure that’s the case too. A drum scan uses a point light source while ‘c’ prints were made using diffusion enlargers. I want to know how others deal with this excess grain, which seems to only plague color negatives. Some purposely use larger apertures on the scanner and even put it slightly out of focus while others use noise filtering or blurring in Photoshop. Of course, those who photograph a negative on a lightbox using a DSLR on a copy stand wouldn’t have this problem. From: MARK SEGAL Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 9:07 AM To: John Castronovo ; Ernst Dinkla Cc: 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List Subject: Re: Does MF color slides scanning in 24 bit still make sense The visibility or accentuation of grain depends on the kind of lighting set-up used to make the capture. Think diffusion versus condenser enlargers of the film era and you'll have a good enough feel for the basics. Mark -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Castronovo <jc@technicalphoto.com> To: Ernst Dinkla <info@pigment-print.com> Cc: 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 1:40 AM Subject: Re: Does MF color slides scanning in 24 bit still make sense I've always found that drum scans of color negative films show a lot more grain than a direct chromogenic print made from the same neg. I usually soften the grain through independent channel by channel noise reduction, but I'm curious to know how others deal with it. I"m not sure how a DSLR sees color negs, so I'm leaving the subject line as is for the moment.