Digital BW, The Print

----- Original Message -----
From: "Truman Prevatt" <tprevatt@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Film for scanning was Re: The State of
PersonalScanner Technology


> That's basically the way I worked when I was printing silver prints. And
> it works quite well. But given the extra control one has when the image
> is in the digital form, it makes me wonder if compressing the negative a
> bit, scanning and processing in 16 bits would not give better results. I
> don't know yet. When I finally get off my duff and get a printer, I can
> test this a little better.
>

Truman,

My thoughts were running parallel to yours on development but I recently
read that scanners can read some pretty high densities. Epson 1640 - 2.6,
Nikon 8000 - 2.8, Imacon Flextight III - 2.7, Howtek HR8000 - 3.3, Howtek
D4500 - 3.5. From Ansel Adams, The Negative, he puts Zone X densities of a
negative in the 1.5 to 2.2 range with plus developments rising to 2.5 and
minus developments falling to 1.0. So it would appear that scanners have the
capability to handle the highlights in normally developed negatives.

However it is not just density but the fact that film starts to "block up"
due to the vigorous crystal formation in the more highly exposed portions of
the negative resulting in a loss of sharpness and detail.

On the other end of the scale the old "0.10 + Base Film + Fog" rule may not
apply since scanners can reach down much lower and extract usable info. I
have heard 0.02 quoted as the limit. You also have the ability to expand the
density range when you scan. This suggests that shifting the range down on
film may then make sense. A little less exposure and development knowing you
can get more out of the shadows and bring your maximum Zone (VIII, IX,
whatever you use) down a bit to increase detail in the highlights.


Martin Wesley

http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



>
> Roger L Sopher wrote:
>
> > Hi Truman,
> >
> > To be honest, I have done all of my B&W film calibration work via a
> > wet darkroom and a borrowed densitometer. I have gone on the
> > assumption that a good printable negative will also scan well. As long
> > as I do my part and develop absolutely consistently then the negatives
> > are generally predictable (not always good images and worth printing,
> > however). I usually place the highlight I can't do without on Zone
> > VIII (with a spot meter) and let the other stuff fall where it may.
> > Anything beyond zone VIII is usually a specular highlight of some sort
> > with no useful information to be had from it.
> >
> > Roger
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>