Digital BW, The Print

Thanks Bruce.
I haven't really noticed that I'm not quite getting the sharpness I 
could as I rarely print anywhere near the limit of a 5x4 scanned at 
2400dpi.  But I'll do the tests (I do my own developing of 100Tmax 
(mostly in XTOL and mostly @ 1+2)) and see if I can get even more 
potential into my scanned files.
Steve Gledhill ----- http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/

hogarth@... wrote:

> Steve Gledhill wrote:
>
> > Bruce,
> > Does your 'thinner negs' experience for scanning only apply to drum
> > scanners or does it apply for all scanners?  From what you say I guess
> > it does, but can you clarify please. 
>
> In theory it would also apply to CCD scanners. But I don't own the
> equipment to do the testing. Sorry.
>
> > I scan 5x4 100Tmax on a 4870
> > flatbed and don't have anything to compare it with.  I could (and
> > probably will) run some tests to try thinner negatives but as far as I
> > can tell my scanning is giving me good scanning material.  But, I must
> > say my negs are in general rather beefy.  My scanner has never failed to
> > scan any of the dense neg highlights that I occasionally get but from
> > what you say, maybe thinner would be sharper?
>
> Almost certainly, scanner or not. Density effects many properties,
> including graininess and perceived sharpness. As density goes down,
> graininess decreases and sharpness increases a bit. This is one of the
> reasons that slide film is perceived to be less grainy and sharper than
> negative film -- slide film has its maximum density in the shadows where
> it's difficult to see the grain, while it has its minimum density in the
> highlights that appear almost grainless and very sharp.
>
> It's easy to run the tests if you are developing your own negs. After I
> found my EI and normal development time per the zone system, I started
> decreasing my development time about 30 seconds per batch. When
> scanning, I kept records of the resulting Dmax from the various
> negatives. I would also use Photoshop to isolate a section so that I
> could print a square about 30cm per side that was a section of what
> would have been a full size print (about 10x enlargement - around 125 x
> 100 cm). It's really hard to judge graininess and sharpness from
> Photoshop. I find that prints are must easier to evaluate.
>
> I could see graininess decrease and sharpness increase (just a bit) in
> the prints. I could also see that tonality and tonal transitions were
> not effected, and that the overall contrast of the image in the image
> file went up (most likely as density decreased, Callier effect also
> decreased, just like in the darkroom).
>
> I got down to the point where I was starting to have to do a bit more
> work in Photoshop - tonality was starting to compress. From there I
> increased development a bit. It worked out to about N-1.5 for me, and
> the lowered development time did cost me about 1/3 stop of EI.
>
> > Steve Gledhill ----- http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/
>
> I'm not saying that this is the answer to Life, the Universe, and
> Everything. That would be 42 ;-)
>
> But it is sound theory, and I have verified it in practice. To become
> accepted theory, many people will have to verify it in practice. To be
> discreditied, many people will have to try it and find that they can not
> verify it in practice. So... take an chance and try it. Or not. Because
> YMMV.
>
> Why guess when you can know?
> --
> Bruce Watson


		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Exclusive Xmas Game, help Santa with his celebrity party - http://santas-christmas-party.yahoo.net/