Digital BW, The Print

Mark Tucker wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography
> <skid@b...> wrote:
> > Try it yourself.  Go to Nancy Scans or some other good, high
> end service bureau, you might be amazed.
>
> I agree with Martin; the tones seem smooth and creamy. What
> more could have been done, maybe more contrast work in
> photoshop on the existing scan?

Yes, smooth and creamy.  But what I think is missing (after seeing better scans of negatives that we did on
our own first) are bigger, deeper tones.  I don't quite know how to put it...it's such a visual thing and
these are words.  But richer and *more* tones is all I can think of.  Perhaps relating back to the Zone
System.  A good scanner will yield 10 zones and ours will only yield 6.5.

>
> I have tried letting outside labs do scans for me, but even though
> they mean well, and they're fine citizens and all that, it's just not
> their image. Nor do they have any sixth-sense feeling about what
> the scan should feel like. So, for me, I don't think I could EVER let
> someone else do a scan for me.

I agree.  We were really lucky with the scan I mentioned before.  And now we are talking with a service bureau
who wants to talk with us first, before scanning...Sounds like a plan.

>
> I know I'm spoiled to the Imacon, with it's great preview functions.

Yes, you are, and I might add that I'm jealous.  ;- )  The Imacon is the most affordable high end scanner out
there...But, still, we don't have the money.  :- (

>
> But so much of the interpretation of the neg happens at this
> stage of the game. Unless I had the permission to be standing
> there while a lab made a scan for me, (which I'm sure they'd say
> no to, because I'd be pacing and making suggestions and be
> generally an annoyance), then I'd say ANY scan that YOU made,
> even from an inferior-hardware scanner , would be better than a
> scan from some high-end thing, made by someone who wasn't
> there when you shot the image.
>
> I know there are people who would argue this, but I also think
> there's some mojo to having the photographer have his
> thumbprint on all steps of the process. Somehow, you can just
> feel it. Especially in your style of shooting, it's gotta be you doing
> it.
>
> Anyway, that lab would be in there with the Rubber Stamp tool,
> trying to take out all those Scotch Tape lines. Wouldn't THAT be
> special? No way. That musician in that shot would come out
> looking like some Republican MBA after a lab got done "cleaning
> up" your scan.
>

I agree that the photog's input is *really* important to a good scan...I've yet to find a service bureau which
would do the spotting for me...*that* would be nice.  On the other hand, we have a friend who does these 4x5
moonlight shots (think hour long exposures, and still thin negs) who sent her negs to the same bureau that we
had such good luck with.  When the scans came back, they A: Hadn't been cleaned of dust *before* the
scan....terrible, and B: They over corrected the tonal ranges.  So instead of these wonderfully moody, just
short of a black or pure white image, she got these scans that made the images look like really bad daylight.
We sent them back (after a talking to) and got a less adjusted scan back that was pretty clean, which was
definitely better, and with more tones than we could make on our scanner.

So, perhaps we were really lucky to get such a great scan from the source book negative, but I do know that
our $350 flatbed scanner simply does not have the dynamic range of the higher end scanners (like an Imacon),
and handles color negs atrociously.

Although I have gotten better at scanning, there are certain limitations to the equipment we have, and, I
suspect, there were also limitations to a lot of the scans from which the print exchange prints were printed
from.  And yes, again, I am being very picky...I can't help it.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC

PS: Mark...after reviewing the exchange images a few more times (but not enough yet), I think I like your
image the best...Of course we shoot celebrities for a living, so we're a little partial!  ;- )


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]