Digital BW, The Print

Lite debate :-)

>  hogarth@s... wrote:
 
>> djon43 wrote:

> > I don't think scanners want "thin" negs
> 
> Ah, but they do. I'm a drum scanner operator. I've run a long series of 
> tests with my own work using 5x4 Tri-X. Optimum for my scanner turns
out 
> to be what you might call an N-1.5 negative.
> 
> There are a number of reasons for this. Not least is the collimated 
> light and the resulting Callier effect. If you can get the amount of 
> silver down, you decrease light scatter. That, by itself, argues for 
> less density (thinner negs).

Callier: interesting info. 

I'm pretty sure my negs would always have seemed "thin" to people who
didn't have much control over their exposure/processing (typically
they like "high contrast" images more than extended scale).

> > The use of "dense" and "thin"
> > suggests earlier negs were never optimal for the darkroom .
> 
> They weren't really. That was why guys like Adams worked so hard on 
> tools like the Zone System - to bring negatives closer to optimal for 
> darkroom printing with the fixed paper grades of the day.

You've made my point here: People unfamiliar with basics like Zone
System rarely made good negs, they simply got into utilitarian habits,
such as doing habitual darkroom work-arounds with negs that they now
think are too dense for scanning.

I continue to recommend Ansel's book, especially for 35-shooters like
I am now. It doesn't translate perfectly from sheet to roll, but the
comparison is instructive in itself.

> 
> >
> > Exposing/processing B&W film with basic N/N+/N- controls, one can
> > almost always print "properly" on one standard grade of one's standard
> > paper, and of course those negs scan well.
> 
> They do in deed scan well. If they were a bit thinner, they would scan 
> even better however.

 ...you've advocated N-1.5 whereas my typical roll film negs were N-1
 ...that's cutting things pretty fine  :-) 

> ...if you are only going 
> to scan (that would be me)....
> --
> Bruce Watson

Me too. John Kelly