Digital BW, The Print

I think I see your point.  I have not followed all the messages in this
thread, but basically it is that the scanner is capable of resolving more
detail and range than silver paper.  That is probably true.  I know inkjet
prints appear sharper than silver prints, unless you go to the trouble of
unsharp masking the negative for a silver print (I don't do that since I
haven't seen what it brings to the image except to make it...sharper).  I
will say that the scanner allows you to salvage a neg that might not be
possible in the darkroom.  That plus using TriX are two good tools if you
are, as I am, prone to gross exposure errors at times.  And, now that I
think about, I think there is something to what you say about the highlight
detail being there.  For example, a neg that I have exposed and developed
for platinum printing will usually not print on silver paper because of the
density, unless maybe you were to use VC paper and burn in the highlights
with a number 0 filter --yechhh.  (That is with a "conventional" developer -
with Rollo or PMK pyro you can get a neg that will work for both because of
the pyro stain).  Now I'm curious - I'll dig up a few _really_ bulletproof
negs and see what I can do.

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Gulstene" <kevin@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanning and Zone Sys Development.


> Ken,
>
> It seemed counterintuitive to me as well.  But here is a more
> traditional way to look at it.  when you make the exposure the image is
> on the film.  There is no other opportunity to capture more
> information.  The only thing that you can affect now is how dense the
> highlights are made.  The highlight detail _is_ there.  If you use N-4
> development you bring the highlight density down to a range where it
> can be printed traditionally.
>
> As I said there are going to be extreme cases where this is not true.
> Maybe N-4 (which I have never done) is that extreme.  The
> film/developer combination you use will also make a big difference.
> You can create situations where highlight detail is lost because the
> film just won't get any more dense.  If you are doing N-4 development
> you may have those circumstances.
>
> I have one TMAX negative of my old house in Chicago.  It was taken in
> bright sunlight, snow on the ground and shadows in the front
> porch/garden.  Vuescan tells me (and I don't know how accurate it is)
> that the density range is from (~.6 to ~3.2).  Using vuescan and my
> normal scanning workflow I get detail in the snow drifts and on the
> porch.  Mind you it looks pretty flat cramming all those zones in.
>
> So, I think, it comes down to where do you want to do the work.  In
> managing the density range on the negative or finessing the scan and
> adjustments
>
>
> On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 10:00 AM, Ken Carney wrote:
>
> > Kevin: I can very quickly run out of knowledge about scanning (or
> > exactly
> > how electricity works, for that matter).  I may well be missing the
> > point,
> > but here is where I'm stuck.  Let's suppose I have a common
> > high-contrast
> > scene, say a long 10-15 minute exposure and the meter says, e.g., that
> > Zone
> > 8 is placed four stops above where I need it.  I don't know any way to
> > capture that image without adjusting the film speed downward and using
> > compensating development ("N-4" in my example, or thereabouts).  In
> > other
> > words, I wouldn't know how to get a negative with enough info to scan
> > without first getting all the info on the neg.  Normal exposure or
> > development would get me a bullet-proof neg with no high detail.  Help.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >   --Ken Carney
> >     www.kencarney.com
> >