Digital BW, The Print

Interesting observation and question. 

If very thin, flat film scans and prints well, it's no
surprise...though it may be overkill Vs your camera's lenses. I
wouldn't be surprised if you got equally good results with
"normal-looking" Fuji Acros, for example. 

Scanners don't necessarily "want" low contrast, thin negs, but I think
they do better with them than do enlargers. And with more density (eg
my Rodinal negs) I've noticed that dust is a smaller problem...

A parallel: I use Emofin much of the time because it doesn't build
grain or contrast...Fuji Neopan 400 @ 1200 scans and prints
beautifully and with low grain, but the negative can be frighteningly
thin-looking. On a lightbox, with a loupe, areas that seem to hold
virtually no detail turn out to be rich with detail when scanned. The
takeaway: My Nikon V take better advantage of B&W film's capability
than did my enlargers.

John



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "David Keenan"
<ausdlk@...> wrote:
>
> I just developed my two trial rolls of Bluefire Police film.
> 
> Overall they are both very thin. Some frames so thin that I fear
whether I
> can pull a satisfactory scans from them.
> 
> Both rolls were exposed at ISO 80 and developed using the
low-contrast 16
> minute development method in the developer provided.
> 
> Maybe the thin film is a result of the low-agitation/low-contrast
> development because I am confident that my metering was done
correctly. But
> I have no point of reference about this.
> 
> Anyone else have experience with this film?
> 
> Dave.
> -- 
> Web Site: www.david-keenan.com
> 2007 PAW: www.david-keenan.com/paw
> 2006 EuroBlog: www.david-keenan.com/euroblog
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>