Digital BW, The Print

I've only been shooting 4x5 for the last two years, but I use  
predominantly Polaroid type 55 for the negative.  Cost is comparable  
to tmax readyloads and since I no longer have a darkroom the type 55  
was better suited to my needs.  I think the negatives are beautiful,  
very fine grained, and similar to the old Panatomic X.  They scan  
easily on my Epson 3200 flat bed using Vuescan and since I don't  
print larger than 16x20, resolution (80 mb 16 bit gray files) is more  
than adequate.  I just hope type 55 doesn't disappear from the market  
too soon (like the Kodak B&W films have).  It doesn't store well so I  
can't easily hoard a supply for the future.

Carl


On Aug 29, 2005, at 1:40 PM, Paul Roark wrote:

> I used Type 55 for a while, and have seriously considered using it  
> again.
> Some factors that have stopped me, so far, include that 55 has  
> become rather
> expensive on a per-shot basis (but cheaper than a darkroom or 22 mp  
> large
> sensor), it is not that easy to get a perfectly even "pull" when  
> developing
> the film, and the film does not lay very flat in those holders.
>
> Additionally, the flatbed scanners that we usually consider (i.e., the
> affordable ones like Epson's) are at best half as  
> "efficient" (sharp) as
> good, dedicated film scanners, which are much less efficient than  
> digital
> cameras in terms of image quality per pixel.  What all this means  
> is that
> for a given sharpness level on the print, the pixel count of a
> flatbed-scanned negative has to be many times the size of a good film
> scanner file, which, in turn, has to be much larger than a direct  
> digital
> camera image.  I, personally, much prefer to deal with smaller (more
> "efficient") files.
>
> The alternative of a better 4x5 scanner might get expensive, and I,  
> frankly,
> don't know how much more one can pull from a Type 55 over what the  
> best
> current Epson flatbed can record.  I have not explored that issue  
> very far.
> I would be curious if there is any non-drum option for getting a  
> 4x5 scan
> that is as sharp as a 4000 dpi medium format scan from a good film  
> scanner.
> I have no doubt that a Type 55 scan on a "good" flatbed will be  
> much less
> grainy than a 100 ISO medium format scan, but I'm not sure the  
> sharpness
> will be equal.  (I again lament the demise of Tech Pan.)
>
> However, for those without a darkroom (which could be my future in  
> five
> years given local real estate prices), it may be the best way to  
> really
> beautiful, very large prints.  It's a very intriguing possibility.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of  
>> Martin
>> Wesley
>> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 5:28 AM
>> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: LF Workshops? was
>>
>> The process of shooting, developing and flatbed scanning Polaroid  
>> 55 film
>> for digital B&W printing was described in depth by George de Wolfe  
>> in View
>> Camera magazine in 2001(?). The back issues would be worth finding  
>> for
>> anyone considering this procedure. http://www.viewcamera.com/
>>
>> George and others have done some beautiful work with this.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of  
>> skipc52
>> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 6:09 PM
>> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: LF Workshops? was
>>
>>
>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Scott McLoughlin
>> <scott@a...> wrote: <snip>
>>
>>
>>> I'd likely dev the negs myself, and then scan the negs on a 4990
>>>
>> flatbed
>>
>>> (not too pricey) and digi-print from there.  No room for a wet
>>>
>> darkroom. Scott
>>
>> Try Polaroid Type 55 film on a 4x5 LF. Shoot for either a neg
>> orprint-not both-and
>> scan on a flatbed scanner for b/w digital printing without a
>> darkroom. Groovyborders if you
>> so choose...skip
>>
>
>