Digital BW, The Print

Further to my post 2 below, this was a portrait of a Woman who has
a few facial dimples/very minor acne. She had asked that I remove
them in photoshop. It would not have been much of a problem, and 
turned out to be no problem, as I'd forgotten that Tech Pan has a 
slightly higher red sensitivity (not sure exactly what nm) thus
some of the facial irregularities were not evident or were greatly
lessened in the neg.
Frank


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Seth Rossman" 
<seth@m...> wrote:
> Just a few kudos for Tech Pan.  I used to use it in a former life as
> photographer for the Indiana Historical Society.  When used (with 
filters)
> to copy old photographs, it --better than other films-- brought out 
detail
> (read that, data) that other films did not.  Sometimes I was 
shocked at
> things I could see in the copies, but not in the originals.
> 
> Glad to know it's still being used.
> 
> Seth
> 
> =
> =Ive just shot a roll of Tech Pan through an RB67.
> =It was developed using a product called Techxactol which is 
> =available from www.barrythornton.com.
> =This stuff is truly amazing. As stated on his website, the detail 
of 
> =tech pan is retained, but with the addition of sharpeness.
> =I rated it as recommended at 32, and processed as prescribed for 
> =about 7 min.
> =It was scanned using a Nikon 8000. Clicking on "actual pixels" 
> =in Photoshop revealed no visible grain at all. This by the way 
> =is a 477 ppi file at 16 x 20, which will be printed 
> =using Piezotone Selenium.
> =Frank
> =
> =
> =
> =
> =--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, HPA 
<tom@h...> 
> =wrote:
> => I do alt printing on a professional basis, and scan both new negs
> =as well as
> => hundred year old ones, some designed for bromide papers and some 
for 
> => printing out processes such as platinum. In answer to your
> =question, the
> => short version is that you want to limit development to a range 
that
> =your
> => scanner can handle.
> => 
> => Negatives designed for POP processes are so much denser than 
modern
> =film
> => that it is nearly impossible to buy film good for platinum
> =nowadays.  Agfa
> => P330p was a great one, but that disappeared last year.  Kodalith 
is
> =now used
> => in its place, but cannot compare.  Ordinary camera films can be
> =specially
> => developed to reach for that kind of gamma but the result is, by
> =comparison,
> => not very satisfactory.  These dense negatives are impossible to
> =scan on
> => ordinary flatbeds, and so when the new Artixscan came out with a
> =scan depth
> => of 4.8 I bought it at once, and this scanner can handle most of 
the
> =densest
> => films.  If you are already making alt process negatives, this is
> =the scanner
> => for you.
> => 
> => If you are shooting ordinary camera film and simply want good 
negs
> =for
> => scanning, I would recommend XTOL developer and real silver 
emulsion
> =film,
> => for example the Tmax line by Kodak.  I hesitate to recommend the
> =chromogenic
> => B&W films because they will fade long before your career is over,
> =just like
> => most color film (except Kodachrome) unless you can afford
> =refrigerated
> => storage for your processed negatives.  This is expensive, a
> =suitable Kenmore
> => frost free refrigerator will cost about US$90 a year in electric
> =bills.
> => 
> => I would recommend the Tmax over the old emulsions like Tri-X
> =because of the
> => design of the gamma curve.  Tri-x was designed with a very long
> =shoulder,
> => the purpose was because back in the 1950s most flash was bulb and
> =could not
> => be controlled by amateurs.  Gross overexposure was common, so 
they
> =used very
> => long slopes so that no matter how overexposed the film got there
> =would be at
> => least some highlight separation in the neg that could be burned
> =in.  With
> => the advent of TTL flash, overexposure due to flash was not an 
issue
> =with
> => professionals anymore, so Tmax straightened out the shoulder and
> =made the
> => highlight separation more linear.  This means more natural
> =highlights.  If
> => you want to read the interview with the Kodak engineers who
> =designed the
> => film, it was published in Darkroom Photography, July 1988 
starting
> =on pg. 42
> => 
> => Xtol is an extension of this philosophy, and is probably the
> =biggest single
> => advance in B&W film in the 1990s.  I still use other developers 
for
> =special
> => tasks, but it is no longer necessary to have a half dozen 
different
> =kinds in
> => daily use.
> => 
> => If you do not get satisfactory results, read about modifications 
to 
> => development.  One treatment that I still have to do is for copy
> =negatives,
> => where the result looks too flat.  This is because the shoulder of
> =the gamma
> => curve is too flat (because the subject was too flat of course) 
and
> =these
> => negatives can be toned in selenium, which puts a big lift only on
> =the
> => extreme top of the curve.  Full instructions in Kodak's
> =book "Copying &
> => Duplicating"(many editions) or in Ansel Adams series "The 
Negative"
> =& "The
> => Print"(many editions)
> => 
> => One final note is grain, since this is a component of artistic
> =expression in
> => fine art printing.  Starting with Tmax, film was coated under a
> =magnetic
> => field to align the grain. The result as far as scanning goes
> =depends largely
> => on your scanning technique and specific equipment.  If you are
> =using a glass
> => carrier in a slide scanner, you may notice a big difference.  If
> =you are
> => using open carriers to hold your film, the heat from the scanning
> =bulb
> => usually causes enough motion of the film from heat expansion to
> =render the
> => grain somewhat unsharp, but of course this is individual to each
> =setup and
> => you will have to see for yourself.
> => 
> => Hope that helps.
> => Tom Robinson
> => >Subject: film processing
> => 
> => >I tried a couple of searches but I guess I didn't find the right
> =key
> => >words.
> => 
> => >I would like to ask about the processing of black and white 
> =film, for 
> => >ultimately scanning and printing on an ink jet printer. I 
> =am curious 
> => >as to what kinds of negatives produce the best results. Would a 
> => >denser negative, like for platinum printing or a thinner 
> =negative be 
> => >better for scanning? If this is not the right place for 
> =this kind of 
> => >question, could some one please point me in the right dirction? 
I 
> => >went to a general photo forum, and people thought that
> =I
> => >was crazy for wanting to waste a fine negative on an ink jet
> =printer.
> =
> =
> =------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> =---------------------~-->
> =Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's 
> =Important Questions.
> =http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/ucIolB/TM
> =---------------------------------------------------------------
> =------~->
> =
> =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 
flames
> =- 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/ 
> =
> =
> =