Digital BW, The Print

> 
> most of my existing
> negs are developed -10% from "normal"; these negs typically scan
> very easily for me 

By "normal" do you mean the manufacturers recommended development
time, agitation, style of tank/reel, and "official" box ei? 

This is not intended to be argumentative, but I doubt one's own 10%
routine reduction in development time Vs a manufacturer's
recommendation means much (as here) unless one also religiously 
follows the manufacturer's temperature and especially thier agitation
specifications for a particular developer...and I suspect none of us
ever has done that...but I learn something new every day :-)

On the other hand, if one establishes "Normal" using some sort of
densitometry Vs the manufacturer's test strips, and then "under
develops," that would mean something absolute (unarguably? :-}  

Roll film and 35 raise special issues of their own, Vs sheet film, as
we all know...

> 
> Like Peter mentioned, dense highlights tend to be more difficult
> to deal with than somewhat thinner shadows, so it's probably
> better to expose somewhat less than for printing on silver paper.

Yes... if one has habitually produced punchy negatives (ie. print well
on #2)...but if one has instead pursued an extended tonal scale, one
may instead have used punchy papers with intentionally "flat"
negatives (eg #3 instead of #2). Good condensers (eg Durst rather than
Omega/Beseler)also affected contrast in the same way as did excellent
Vs good lens.

> 
> In fact, I ran a simple exposure test earlier this year,
> shooting the same scene at EI 400, 320, 250 and 200 on TMY
> and processing -10% of the Kodak suggested time.  Each neg
> scanned easily and yielded perceptually the same shadow
> detail, even at EI400.  I still expose at EI 320, though.

What did you observe with highlight detail?

> > I think a scanner is a closer approximation of condenser than
> > diffusion enlarger.
  
> Epson flat-bed strikes
> me as a bit more like a diffusion enlarger 

Epsons have utilized two very different optical systems...urban legend
invariably mistakenly lump them, missing their differing characteristics.

And this may be important: due to manufacturing variables they
typically have potential for significantly higher resolution with an
adjustable focus carrier. At their best, which with 120 can be very
good, they can be better than diffusion enlargers. 

John

> 
> > "Snappy" negs can be a problem for scanning if there are big very
> > dense areas. Scanners aren't aspatient as enlargers :-)
> 
> True; this is where the variable analog gain of the LS-9000
> has really come in handy with grossly-over-exposed negs, pretty
> much amazingly every time I've resorted to it.
> 
> Dana
>