Digital BW, The Print

Michael, 

I have tried the DR5 process and love it.  I shoot 6x7 and scan using a Microtek Artixscan 
120f.  I find that the DR5 scans have more latitute, more detail, and less grain.  Also you 
don't have to invert which is great as you save another altering step.  I swear by it, but I 
would say that you have to like the look.  I happen to love the look of tmax100 with dr5.  
It helps control those highlights that are so hard to control with tmax100.  It is extremely 
easy to scan.  I have also used it with efke 25 film and find that it is nice as well.  Although 
I have no comparison to compare the efke 25 with since i only have used it with dr5.  The 
tmax i have used for years developed the traditional way so I can say from exprience that 
for me I prefer tmax 100 in dr5 than in any other process I have tried.  I shoot landscape 
photography on a tripod so you will know where i am coming from.  It is expensive 
however costing about $13 dollars a roll.  For me though, the results it gives you are 
worth it.  

My thoughts,

Josh Randall

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Michael Vendrell 
<mjvendrell2@...> wrote:
>
> Paul,Ginny, et al: I'm planning on giving the dr5
> reversal processing a try for some selected B&W films
> as well.  There's a rather extensive list of films
> with their characteristics on his site which makes for
> impressive reading but I don't as yet have direct
> experience - anyone?  I know it has been discussed
> before, but does anyone have further thoughts about
> scanning B&W film positives vs negatives in a scanner
> such as the Nikon 9000?
> 
> --- Paul Roark <paul.roark@...> wrote:
> 
> > >  ... XTOL produces a less 'dramatic' image than
> > HC-110, 
> > > but lends an almost luminous quality...with
> > better, 
> > > more subtle tonal separations.
> > 
> > When I run out of medium format Tech Pan, Tmax 100
> > with Xtol will probably
> > be my choice.  Xtol has the least amount of
> > adjacency I've seen in a
> > developer.  So, it produces very smooth grain.  I
> > would have considered it
> > too soft for the enlarger, but with a good scanner
> > and unsharp masking in
> > Photoshop, I now think low grain is more important
> > than chemically-sharpened
> > film.
> > 
> > > (And with all the Vitamin C in XTOL plus selenium
> > toning, my pictures are
> > > so 'healthy' they should live forever!! <G>)
> > 
> > The city sewer police saw my darkroom in house plans
> > and were very concerned
> > about the health of their sewer system.  Oddly,
> > Microdol X was at the top of
> > their list of bads.  Xtol was formulated,
> > apparently, in part to avoid these
> > problems.  The health of the sewer systems is one of
> > its main points.
> > 
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>