Digital BW, The Print

Ii am pulling out old film cameras to shoot black and white film to scan, then to digitally print. I will primarily be shooting medium format. I live in then land of no sun,Seattle Wa  so use tmax 400 rather than a 100 Asa film. I will be using a good lab to develop the film withou any push or pull. They provide a low level scan with developing for a reasonable price. I will have them do a high Rez drum scan when I have a print made. My golal is to have 20 by 20 prints. Ok, my question... In reading this site it seems like I need to under expose the film. Is this correct? And if so by how much? And just to make sure I get this right I would set the light meter for say 500 Asa for tmax 400 (not set the meter for Asa 300)

Thanks!

My presumption is: you have bought or have a source for the film and you 
have no other film options available.  And, that you have a particular 
subject in mind.

First of all, I don't know why you'd under expose it if you are not 
going to increase development, thus the contrast.  If that is a "grain 
reduction" thing, I don't see it.  It is 1/5th of a stop.
However, setting the meter to 500 instead of 400 is what you want. Since 
cameras haven't had 1/400 second shutter speeds in a long time, that 
gives you 1/500 @ f/16 (sunny 16 rule) in the bright sun--which you 
don't have.

Let me just add, if this is a project that is really important to you, 
why not use a tripod and ASA 100?  Better yet, if you can get Technical 
Pan instead of TMax, go that way (tripod also).

Seth

You need to test.  It's not that hard.  Effective film speed will depend on
your metering technique, accuracy of your shutter... For instance, I
recently tested 4x5 TMY, now that all of my TMX Readyloads are gone.  About
10 years ago, TMY was an EI 250 film for me. (Zone 1 > .1 above film base
plus fog.) Now, though, it's an EI 500 film in my system.

I use a spotmeter and densitometer to test my film, but given you aren't
going to be adjusting development, and you might not have a densitometer,
you could simply expose a series.  Find a representative subject and
lighting for your photography. Rate the film at EI 200.  Now take a series
of pictures using 1/3 stop less exposure each time.  So EI 200, 250, 320,
400...  Now have them developed and scanned.  Compare results.  Your EI
will be the one that gives you the best results.

On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Seth Rossman <seth@msrphoto.com> wrote:

> **
>
>
> My presumption is: you have bought or have a source for the film and you
> have no other film options available. And, that you have a particular
> subject in mind.
>
> First of all, I don't know why you'd under expose it if you are not
> going to increase development, thus the contrast. If that is a "grain
> reduction" thing, I don't see it. It is 1/5th of a stop.
> However, setting the meter to 500 instead of 400 is what you want. Since
> cameras haven't had 1/400 second shutter speeds in a long time, that
> gives you 1/500 @ f/16 (sunny 16 rule) in the bright sun--which you
> don't have.
>
> Let me just add, if this is a project that is really important to you,
> why not use a tripod and ASA 100? Better yet, if you can get Technical
> Pan instead of TMax, go that way (tripod also).
>
> Seth
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm sure you will receive quite a few answers but here is my take.

First TMY-2 is an excellent film though the response curve will not be like Tri-X (in all it's flavors) just to note the comparison. Normally the HD curve is very straight line, which for me is good though I still like traditional films as an alternative, though these days not often.

Second, for many years I used a pyro type developer of one kind or another but since TMY-2 was introduced I started using TMAX developer (@ 1:8 - 75F, 8.00 min) since I no longer print traditional darkroom and need to have easily scanable negs. You can easily expose at full rated value of 400 but you may wish to rate at 650 or 800 depending upon the contrast range. At all costs avoid over exposure with this film and double that advice since you are scanning. You can probably zero in on a good work habit after 5 to 10 test rolls.

I don't know what lab you plan to use but most of the few remaining labs don't provide quality processing for B&W. 

Frankly you should process the film yourself since it is drop dead simple and easy and inexpensive for MF film. All of which can be done in daylight (no darkroom required.) On the other had if your lab really is competent you may be saving yourself time and energy, especially if you are shooting for hire. 

20x20 prints are easy from a MF neg.

My 2 cents,

Don Bryant

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "russmeadseattle" <russmead@...> wrote:

>
> Ii am pulling out old film cameras to shoot black and white film to scan, then to digitally print. I will primarily be shooting medium format. I live in then land of no sun,Seattle Wa  so use tmax 400 rather than a 100 Asa film. I will be using a good lab to develop the film withou any push or pull. They provide a low level scan with developing for a reasonable price. I will have them do a high Rez drum scan when I have a print made. My golal is to have 20 by 20 prints. Ok, my question... In reading this site it seems like I need to under expose the film. Is this correct? And if so by how much? And just to make sure I get this right I would set the light meter for say 500 Asa for tmax 400 (not set the meter for Asa 300)
> 
> Thanks!
>

Seth,

I thought Tech Pan was no longer produced. 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/p255/p255.pdf 


In the distant past I used Tech Pan processed in C-41 developer and found the results to be quite nice. But that was then. I don't think the effort to conquer TP are worth the effort any longer. TMY-2 is an excellent film, though I won't try to convince YOU otherwise.

Don Bryant

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Seth Rossman <seth@...> wrote:

>
> My presumption is: you have bought or have a source for the film and you 
> have no other film options available.  And, that you have a particular 
> subject in mind.
> 
> First of all, I don't know why you'd under expose it if you are not 
> going to increase development, thus the contrast.  If that is a "grain 
> reduction" thing, I don't see it.  It is 1/5th of a stop.
> However, setting the meter to 500 instead of 400 is what you want. Since 
> cameras haven't had 1/400 second shutter speeds in a long time, that 
> gives you 1/500 @ f/16 (sunny 16 rule) in the bright sun--which you 
> don't have.
> 
> Let me just add, if this is a project that is really important to you, 
> why not use a tripod and ASA 100?  Better yet, if you can get Technical 
> Pan instead of TMax, go that way (tripod also).
> 
> Seth
>

I have not kept current with film technology.  Is there still a color
negative based B&W film out there?  I used medium format Kodak T400CN when
I needed speed and found it to give a better image than Tri-X of Tmax 400.
 The silver grain films had a sharper edge, but the lower grain of the dye
based color negative technology tipped the scales in that direction for me.
 So, it was usually Tech Pan or T400CN for my MF film cameras.

(I still have lots of frozen 120 Tech Pan that will be sold some time soon.
 It and my Nikon 8000 appear to have actually appreciated in price.)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ilford XP-2 Super is a great chromogenic film in 120mm, especially for
scanning.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Your approach is sound, but with each camera you plan to use, you will need to shoot a test roll with varying ASA settings of your typical scenes under typical lighting, to ensure the lower contrast you are looking for while retaining adequate shadow density for a good scan.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "russmeadseattle" <russmead@...> wrote:

>
> Ii am pulling out old film cameras to shoot black and white film to scan, then to digitally print. I will primarily be shooting medium format. I live in then land of no sun,Seattle Wa  so use tmax 400 rather than a 100 Asa film. I will be using a good lab to develop the film withou any push or pull. They provide a low level scan with developing for a reasonable price. I will have them do a high Rez drum scan when I have a print made. My golal is to have 20 by 20 prints. Ok, my question... In reading this site it seems like I need to under expose the film. Is this correct? And if so by how much? And just to make sure I get this right I would set the light meter for say 500 Asa for tmax 400 (not set the meter for Asa 300)
> 
> Thanks!
>

If its not a daft question , why not just use a decent colour film and scan
that? Assuming decent colour films are still available ...

SW

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Roark
Sent: 02 September 2012 05:49 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: What Asa to shoot tmax400 with standard
development

 

  

I have not kept current with film technology. Is there still a color
negative based B&W film out there? I used medium format Kodak T400CN when
I needed speed and found it to give a better image than Tri-X of Tmax 400.
The silver grain films had a sharper edge, but the lower grain of the dye
based color negative technology tipped the scales in that direction for me.
So, it was usually Tech Pan or T400CN for my MF film cameras.

(I still have lots of frozen 120 Tech Pan that will be sold some time soon.
It and my Nikon 8000 appear to have actually appreciated in price.)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

My thoughts are to first find out which developer your "good lab" will be using 
to develop TMAX 400. Then for normal development (no + or - development), 
consult Chris Johnson book "The Practical Zone System" for a starting ASA value 
for the developer you lab will use. Assuming the lab is using TMAX diluted 1:4 @ 
68 deg F, you would set the ASA at 320. This will give a negative that will 
handle a normal range of contrast. If you have low contrast scenes, use the ASA 
320 but request expansion or + development. (N+1 or N+2 depending on how much 
contrast you want to add). Your lab should be able to give you "good" advise on 
ASA setting based upon their developer and processing parameters.
I don't understand why you would want to under expose the film and use standard 
development

 Dr. John C. Thacker
jthacker43@...




________________________________

From: russmeadseattle <russmead@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, September 1, 2012 11:07:58 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] What Asa to shoot tmax400 with standard development

  
Ii am pulling out old film cameras to shoot black and white film to scan, then 
to digitally print. I will primarily be shooting medium format. I live in then 
land of no sun,Seattle Wa  so use tmax 400 rather than a 100 Asa film. I will be 
using a good lab to develop the film withou any push or pull. They provide a low 
level scan with developing for a reasonable price. I will have them do a high 
Rez drum scan when I have a print made. My golal is to have 20 by 20 prints. Ok, 
my question... In reading this site it seems like I need to under expose the 
film. Is this correct? And if so by how much? And just to make sure I get this 
right I would set the light meter for say 500 Asa for tmax 400 (not set the 
meter for Asa 300)

Thanks!


 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 9/2/2012 10:20 AM, Steve Wolfenden wrote:
>
> If its not a daft question , why not just use a decent colour film and scan
> that? Assuming decent colour films are still available ...
>

At the risk of wandering off-topic: a B&W capture is different than a color capture.
The crystalline nature of the B&W capture as well as the spectral and density
response is just different than that of a color capture; it's possible to apply
filters to a color scan to emulate these effects, but sometimes there's nothing
like the real thing.

Dana



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Russ,

Don't take the following as pedantic, but you shouldn't be underexposing
the film as there is a point at which you'll lose information that you
might actually want for your prints.

If I understand what you wrote about underexposing your film (rating it at
500), I think you have it backwards. I personally wouldn't set the film ISO
rating at a higher value than the manufacturer unless your processing lab
recommends it and their results bear out the practice. I haven't used T-Max
film in quite a while, but I always found it effective to derate the ISO by
about half (100 to 50, 400 to 200-320), again, to make sure the shadows got
enough exposure to register on the film.

Whatever the ISO number you finally opt to use for your meter, choose an
exposure that will preserve the parts of the scene you most want to keep.
For negative film, especially B&W, make sure your shadows get enough
exposure on the film (for example, I like to meter dark shadows and then
give it 2 stops less exposure just to make sure there's something there on
the film - underexposing might mean something like 4-5 stops less exposure
than the meter indicates which might result in blank film areas). Since
you're having the film processed at a "normal" rating, your highlights will
fall "where they may" - sometimes they'll be perfect for the desired image
contrast and sometimes they'll be too flat or too harsh. You can do a lot
with digital processing to tame this, of course, as long as you have enough
local contrast in the negative to support your intent.

With this film, you'll probably have little trouble scanning negatives that
have gotten pretty dense in the highlights, although in extreme cases you
may be forced to have multiple scans performed and then assemble a
composite yourself (think HDR techniques).

Bear in mind that this set of guidelines works opposite to what you'd want
to do with color transparency film, which has a whole different set of
challenges and rewards.

Pete

On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 12:27 AM, russmeadseattle <russmead@...>wrote:

> Ii am pulling out old film cameras to shoot black and white film to scan,
> then to digitally print. I will primarily be shooting medium format. I live
> in then land of no sun,Seattle Wa  so use tmax 400 rather than a 100 Asa
> film. I will be using a good lab to develop the film withou any push or
> pull. They provide a low level scan with developing for a reasonable price.
> I will have them do a high Rez drum scan when I have a print made. My golal
> is to have 20 by 20 prints. Ok, my question... In reading this site it
> seems like I need to under expose the film. Is this correct? And if so by
> how much? And just to make sure I get this right I would set the light
> meter for say 500 Asa for tmax 400 (not set the meter for Asa 300)
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the Files
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� AND
> �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
>  �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR
> THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
> GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
> GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Don't know about color-based negatives, but Ilford, T-Max and Fugi are
still there.  A full service camera shop can process your negatives.  We
scan our negatives and save the dark room for special projects.
On Sep 2, 2012 11:49 AM, "Paul Roark" <roark.paul@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I have not kept current with film technology. Is there still a color
> negative based B&W film out there? I used medium format Kodak T400CN when
> I needed speed and found it to give a better image than Tri-X of Tmax 400.
> The silver grain films had a sharper edge, but the lower grain of the dye
> based color negative technology tipped the scales in that direction for me.
> So, it was usually Tech Pan or T400CN for my MF film cameras.
>
> (I still have lots of frozen 120 Tech Pan that will be sold some time soon.
> It and my Nikon 8000 appear to have actually appreciated in price.)
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks Pete. So let me call this back to see if I understand what has worked for you. I set my meter at asa 200 for tmax 400 film. Then I don't use my normal practice of looking for a medium grey zone to use my spot meter, I look for shadows. So lets say my shadow reads f8 at 1/250. Then I set the camera for f4 at 1/250. This would be 3 stops over exposed, but would be perfect in your experience to get the best scan for latter printing. Is this correct? (one stop for the asa change on the meter, and two stops for adjusting the aperture from the meter.) Is this correct? And thanks again for sharing your expertise. 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Pete Bergstrom <petebergstrom@...> wrote:

>
> Hi Russ,
> 
> Don't take the following as pedantic, but you shouldn't be underexposing
> the film as there is a point at which you'll lose information that you
> might actually want for your prints.
> 
> If I understand what you wrote about underexposing your film (rating it at
> 500), I think you have it backwards. I personally wouldn't set the film ISO
> rating at a higher value than the manufacturer unless your processing lab
> recommends it and their results bear out the practice. I haven't used T-Max
> film in quite a while, but I always found it effective to derate the ISO by
> about half (100 to 50, 400 to 200-320), again, to make sure the shadows got
> enough exposure to register on the film.
> 
> Whatever the ISO number you finally opt to use for your meter, choose an
> exposure that will preserve the parts of the scene you most want to keep.
> For negative film, especially B&W, make sure your shadows get enough
> exposure on the film (for example, I like to meter dark shadows and then
> give it 2 stops less exposure just to make sure there's something there on
> the film - underexposing might mean something like 4-5 stops less exposure
> than the meter indicates which might result in blank film areas). Since
> you're having the film processed at a "normal" rating, your highlights will
> fall "where they may" - sometimes they'll be perfect for the desired image
> contrast and sometimes they'll be too flat or too harsh. You can do a lot
> with digital processing to tame this, of course, as long as you have enough
> local contrast in the negative to support your intent.
> 
> With this film, you'll probably have little trouble scanning negatives that
> have gotten pretty dense in the highlights, although in extreme cases you
> may be forced to have multiple scans performed and then assemble a
> composite yourself (think HDR techniques).
> 
> Bear in mind that this set of guidelines works opposite to what you'd want
> to do with color transparency film, which has a whole different set of
> challenges and rewards.
> 
> Pete
> 
> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 12:27 AM, russmeadseattle <russmead@...>wrote:
> 
> > Ii am pulling out old film cameras to shoot black and white film to scan,
> > then to digitally print. I will primarily be shooting medium format. I live
> > in then land of no sun,Seattle Wa  so use tmax 400 rather than a 100 Asa
> > film. I will be using a good lab to develop the film withou any push or
> > pull. They provide a low level scan with developing for a reasonable price.
> > I will have them do a high Rez drum scan when I have a print made. My golal
> > is to have 20 by 20 prints. Ok, my question... In reading this site it
> > seems like I need to under expose the film. Is this correct? And if so by
> > how much? And just to make sure I get this right I would set the light
> > meter for say 500 Asa for tmax 400 (not set the meter for Asa 300)
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> > they are often being updated.
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> > page.
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> > them short.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> > Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> > membership without notice.
> > - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> > printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> > the membership.
> > - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> > guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> > and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
> > section:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> >
> > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> > YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> > "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> > YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> > EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> > PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
> >  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> > ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR
> > THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> > UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> > STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
> > GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
> > GROUP.
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Don-

Oh, I don't have anything against T-Max and have shot thousands of rolls 
of it.  It was just the incredible quality I got from TP that brought 
that up.

I used it mostly to reproduce old (50-100 yrs.) photographs that had to 
be blown up for exhibits.  It was used for grain quality plus tricks 
that actually brought out detail in the photo that were no longer 
visible to the eye.

I agree with all about running tests.  Cameras and meters all differ.  
In fact, I'd shoot 21-step gray scales in the expected ambient light also.

Processing yourself is still IMHO better than any lab unless they are 
doing it by hand.  But, I'm from the Ansel Adams school of shoot for the 
shadows and process for the highlights.  Even with digital I carry an 
Xrite Color Passport and a spot meter for zone system.  I have done many 
brackets, then HDR before converting to B&W.

I can't say I don't miss film.  I do.  Someone brought a like new Rollei 
to me last week for a price estimate.  I almost bought it!! Her dad had 
left it in a closet.

Seth

On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 2:25 PM, russmeadseattle <russmead@...>wrote:

> Thanks Pete. So let me call this back to see if I understand what has
> worked for you. I set my meter at asa 200 for tmax 400 film. Then I don't
> use my normal practice of looking for a medium grey zone to use my spot
> meter, I look for shadows.


Yes. Rather than finding a medium gray zone (i.e., V), I find it easier to
identify something I want to be a shadow with detail (per zone system -
around III), meter it and adjust the exposure to make sure I get the detail
on film. Remember, there may be some density in the negative, but if there
isn't enough exposure to show differences between slightly different
brightness values you'll just have gray mush (in the technical jargon, this
is called getting it off the "toe" of the film-exposure-development (aka
"characteristic" curve). Don't get alarmed by the jargon on this page, but
it's helpful to have a mental image of the curve in mind: see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitometry .


> So lets say my shadow reads f8 at 1/250. Then I set the camera for f4 at
> 1/250.


Nope, you want two stops less exposure than your meter tells you to use
(whatever the ISO rating you finally decide to set on the meter). So make
it f8 @ 1/1000 second.

By the way, it wouldn't be necessary to adjust this exposure if the
straight line response of the film to exposure extended a long way. It
doesn't, so we're trying to make sure everything that's important to us in
the scene is recorded well. By adjusting the exposure to get the shadow
detail exposure good enough, we're trying to make sure that the highlight
exposure+development doesn't go past the "shoulder" of that
film-exposure-development curve I mentioned before. As the complement to
the shadow exposure, if there is too much exposure (and as I recall, you
said you're not planning to adjust development), you'll have density on the
film for these highlights, but you won't have a recording of the
differences between slightly different brightness values - you'll have (a
different) gray mush.

The entire goal is to get the exposure for as much of the scene you want on
the film so that you can do great things with it later. By the way, you
might dedicate a few moments to some "finger exercises". Set up your camera
and meter a few substantially different lighting scenes: bright daylight
with and without shadows, full shade without highlights. You'll often find
10-15 or more stops of brightness differences between shadows and bright
sunlit areas; given that your plan is to scan the negatives, your film
probably can record 6-10 with good detail and have loss of detail in the
rest ranging from some loss to total mush. Fully shaded scenes might have
2-3 stops of brightness difference. In the film world, altering development
can help with this, but it's a lot more convenient with digital tools such
as channel curves. Channels won't do anything to extract detail out of gray
mush, however.

Now, the pedantic reference in my earlier message was that I wouldn't want
to see someone adopt a general rule of underexposing everything by
inflating the film ISO value. You may actually find that with your
equipment (meter, camera shutter and lens) and your photo developer shop,
the appropriate ISO rating to use is 500; frankly it doesn't matter what
the number is once you've established a baseline for getting your negatives
the way you want them.

Pete


> This would be 3 stops over exposed, but would be perfect in your
> experience to get the best scan for latter printing. Is this correct? (one
> stop for the asa change on the meter, and two stops for adjusting the
> aperture from the meter.) Is this correct? And thanks again for sharing
> your expertise.
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Pete Bergstrom
> <petebergstrom@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Russ,
> >
> > Don't take the following as pedantic, but you shouldn't be underexposing
> > the film as there is a point at which you'll lose information that you
> > might actually want for your prints.
> >
> > If I understand what you wrote about underexposing your film (rating it
> at
> > 500), I think you have it backwards. I personally wouldn't set the film
> ISO
> > rating at a higher value than the manufacturer unless your processing lab
> > recommends it and their results bear out the practice. I haven't used
> T-Max
> > film in quite a while, but I always found it effective to derate the ISO
> by
> > about half (100 to 50, 400 to 200-320), again, to make sure the shadows
> got
> > enough exposure to register on the film.
> >
> > Whatever the ISO number you finally opt to use for your meter, choose an
> > exposure that will preserve the parts of the scene you most want to keep.
> > For negative film, especially B&W, make sure your shadows get enough
> > exposure on the film (for example, I like to meter dark shadows and then
> > give it 2 stops less exposure just to make sure there's something there
> on
> > the film - underexposing might mean something like 4-5 stops less
> exposure
> > than the meter indicates which might result in blank film areas). Since
> > you're having the film processed at a "normal" rating, your highlights
> will
> > fall "where they may" - sometimes they'll be perfect for the desired
> image
> > contrast and sometimes they'll be too flat or too harsh. You can do a lot
> > with digital processing to tame this, of course, as long as you have
> enough
> > local contrast in the negative to support your intent.
> >
> > With this film, you'll probably have little trouble scanning negatives
> that
> > have gotten pretty dense in the highlights, although in extreme cases you
> > may be forced to have multiple scans performed and then assemble a
> > composite yourself (think HDR techniques).
> >
> > Bear in mind that this set of guidelines works opposite to what you'd
> want
> > to do with color transparency film, which has a whole different set of
> > challenges and rewards.
> >
> > Pete
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 12:27 AM, russmeadseattle <russmead@...>wrote:
> >
> > > Ii am pulling out old film cameras to shoot black and white film to
> scan,
> > > then to digitally print. I will primarily be shooting medium format. I
> live
> > > in then land of no sun,Seattle Wa  so use tmax 400 rather than a 100
> Asa
> > > film. I will be using a good lab to develop the film withou any push or
> > > pull. They provide a low level scan with developing for a reasonable
> price.
> > > I will have them do a high Rez drum scan when I have a print made. My
> golal
> > > is to have 20 by 20 prints. Ok, my question... In reading this site it
> > > seems like I need to under expose the film. Is this correct? And if so
> by
> > > how much? And just to make sure I get this right I would set the light
> > > meter for say 500 Asa for tmax 400 (not set the meter for Asa 300)
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
> resources as
> > > they are often being updated.
> > >
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> > >
> > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> > > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
> same
> > > page.
> > >
> > > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
> keep
> > > them short.
> > > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> > > Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> > > membership without notice.
> > > - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> > > printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed
> from
> > > the membership.
> > > - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> > > guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group
> Owner
> > > and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
> > > section:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> > >
> > > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT
> > > YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> > > "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE
> TO
> > > YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> > > EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> > > PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
> > >  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE
> BEEN
> > > ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE
> USE OR
> > > THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> > > UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA;
> (iii)
> > > STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO
> > > GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO
> > > GROUP.
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the Files
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� AND
> �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
>  �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR
> THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
> GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
> GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Wow! All I can say is WOW!!

It is just astonishing how quickly knowledge that took a century or more to
acquire and that was more or less widely disseminated, simply fades into
history to be lost forever, and in just a few short years.
This is not aimed at anyone in particular and isn't even a criticism, just
an observation with a side order of shock.

If you are looking for in-depth Zone System based information about film
speed, calibration, etc., go to the history page on my web site. My more
significant past published articles are posted there. If you are looking for
the holy grail; the best average, overall, middle of the road, good enough
for most things approach, all those old articles will be overkill. Just
follow this instead:

1. After extensive testing most photographers find the optimal film speed
for normal reflectance range subjects to be half the published
manufacturer's speed: 200 for ISO 400 films, etc. The variations are so
small as to be insignificant. Just use half the manufacturer's speed, save
all the testing and tweak the speed if your results over time tell you to.
2. You DO NOT have to test every camera and lens. If all your lenses are
multi-coated and one is single-coated, then yes, that single-coated lens
will likely produce a significant shift of some kind. Lenses haven't been
single-coated for decades. If there is a significant difference between
cameras, that means you have a shutter that needs repair. It does not mean
you have to calibrate film speed for every camera. You never have to do
that. There is far, FAR too much alchemy and wizardry about "your film
speed". It is mostly nonsense. The reason for the difference in speed
between the ISO printed on the box and the experience of advanced
photographers is usage, processing and printing differences, and target
market. Kodak is (was) after the best average overall results. Individual
photographers are after something else.
3. Take the recommended development time from the manufacturer, cut it by
10% for T-Max films, 20% for all other films. Again, this is for so-called
normal reflectance range subjects. (Notice that I DO NOT use the word
"contrast". That term is used incorrectly MOST of the time, and misleads.) A
negative that has been slightly under-developed is far easier to print than
the reverse.
4. Do not follow recommendations to use chromogenic B&W films (B&W films
processed in color chemistry), UNLESS you absolutely refuse to process film
yourself. Good machine processing is far more even and consistent than badly
done hand processing. In all other respects, chromogenic films are markedly
inferior to conventional B&W films. Think of it as VERY bad training wheels
for B&W photography.
5. Most pointedly, DO NOT use chromogenic films if your plan is to scan the
negatives and print them digitally. Since they are in fact single-color,
color negatives, they will produce exactly the same noise problems found
when scanning standard color negatives. The noise can of course be reduced,
but why start with a film you know is going to create noise problems?
6. Anyone can process B&W film by hand. It's easy. That is, unless you want
the high quality that was the reason you wanted to process by hand in the
first place. That is very far from easy. You WILL screw it up, OFTEN and for
a long time. Once you learn to do it right, it will be superior to anything
you can get from any commercial labs still in existence.
7. If you process your own B&W film, use Paterson plastic tanks. Everything
about them is easier; loading, agitation, temperature control, the works.
There is a macho aspect to using stainless tanks. Has been for years.
Supposedly you are not a real photographer unless you use stainless. This is
100% nonsense. Stainless is demonstrably and markedly inferior to plastic.
Don't use stainless tanks even if offered to you free.
8. If you are going to use colored filters with B&W film, and you should
because otherwise you lose a great deal of potential, read my two part
article on filters first. T-Max films behave wildly differently from other
films with colored filters. Unless you know why and how, you may get very
disappointing results.
9. There is no such thing as a "typical scene". Either go whole-hog Zone
System and do it right, learning to correctly analyze a scene with a good
spot meter (this will take years and is recommended only for the
masochistic, anal retentive like me), or go best-middle-of-the-road and
accept that some scenes are just not going to work with this approach but
you'll live longer and die happier. If you go middle-of-the-road, the best
meter is an incident meter, NOT a spot meter. Then learn what exposure
adjustments to intuit based on the scene. Also bracket just in case you are
wrong. A spot meter without the Zone System is a recipe for disaster, and
vice versa. Advice to use a spot meter to read a middle tone and then adjust
the exposure is pointless nonsense and is really a misapplication of the
incident meter concept just mentioned.
10. Advice to use a spot meter to look for shadows results from a basic and
profound misunderstanding of the Zone System. In proper Zone System use, a
spot meter is used to read reflectances from multiple parts of a scene.
Based on your analysis and your intent for a final image, YOU decide which
of those reflectances will be represented as darker tones (so-called
shadows), if any, and you CREATE shadows by way of your exposure settings
and subsequent printing technique. You don't measure shadows, you
design/create them. If you are not going to go to these extremes, sell the
spot meter. It is a pointless extravagance.
11. When in doubt, expose a little more to be certain you get full shadow
detail (basically the same as bracketing). You can always print it down.
Modern films do not have shoulders (this just means you don't have to worry
about ruining highlights through overexposure), so you can't really ruin the
image if you expose a little too much. The only exception is chromogenic
films which have the very worst kind of very abrupt and unforgiving
shoulders and a little overexposure can totally ruin your image (much like
overexposing a digital image; the highlights simply cease to exist).
12. No "camera shop" anywhere, at any time, has access to any "lab" to which
you want your roll of B&W film entrusted. Again, the exception is
chromogenic films because they are machine processed. Even then, most camera
shops send their processing out to remarkably inept labs.
I used the Zone System for decades, invented a dozen new tone and contrast
techniques for Zone System use and wrote many articles on those techniques
and the Zone System. I even revised a lot of Zone System theory (such as
proving that a film speed based on .10 over B+F is wrong and that Zone
System theory falls apart with extreme contractions and expansions). About
four years ago I started the switch to complete digital and would now not
consider going back because I can do so much more digitally. However, if I
did decide to go to a film-capture, digital-print setup, it would be because
of the still superior detail capture of film. That is the only remaining
advantage I can see.

I would use a hybrid approach to the handling of film. I would of course use
my Zone System knowledge; it would be silly not to, and I would continue to
determine exposure based on what I wanted to see as darker tones in the
image, but I would base film development on achieving a more or less uniform
density range somewhat flatter than I would normally seek in anticipation of
conventional analog printing. The reason for this is the problem we have all
encountered with digital printing and getting a satisfactory degree of local
contrast in the final image. I won't go into lengthy theory about local
contrast but 

David Kachel

___________________

Artist-Photographer
Fine B&W Photographs

www.davidkachel.com
david@...

PO Box  1893
Alpine, TX 79831
(432) 386-5787





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: David Kachel <david@...>
Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sunday, September 2, 2012 7:31 PM
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>

Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: What Asa to shoot tmax400 with standard
development

I would use a hybrid approach to the handling of film. I would of course use
my Zone System knowledge; it would be silly not to, and I would continue to
determine exposure based on what I wanted to see as darker tones in the
image, but I would base film development on achieving a more or less uniform
density range somewhat flatter than I would normally seek in anticipation of
conventional analog printing. The reason for this is the problem we have all
encountered with digital printing and getting a satisfactory degree of local
contrast in the final image. I won't go into lengthy theory about local
contrast but 

Well, I had decided to delete that email and accidentally hit send instead.
I thought I was a little overbearing in my remarks and decided to just butt
out.
But since I already sent it, I might as well finish that last paragraphŠ

Š I won't go into lengthy theory about local contrast but, from what I know
for certain about the contrast behaviors of film and analog paper (see my
article "The Primacy of Local Contrast") and what I have observed printing
my own scanned B&W negatives digitally, a fairly flat negative with a scan
that is quite different from the conventionally recommended approach (I
don't tighten up the ends but rather leave lots of elbow room) gives me the
best results with lowest noise. When the scan opens up in PS it looks really
flat, but easily withstands all the work I do to it without sacrificing
highlights or shadows in the process. When I followed conventional
instruction for scanning I lost too much information while I worked on the
image in PS. I turn off virtually everything in the scanner, especially
noise reduction, etc.

Oh, and one thing I wanted to add. I think I read that the OP wanted to
process 120 roll film? If you shoot sheet film, watch out for the T-max
films. They scratch VERY easily when hand processed in trays. The only way
to safely process T-Max sheet films and get even results is in tubes (rotary
processing). You can either spend a small fortune on a Jobo processor (are
they still made?) or read "Tray Processing in Tubes" on the same History
page on my site. My method in today's dollars would cost you about $30 in
materials. Some people who made expensive processing tubes got REALLY mad at
me over that one! Not only does it work just as well as the expensive
hardware, the open tube process is also more flexible.


David Kachel

___________________

Artist-Photographer
Fine B&W Photographs

www.davidkachel.com
david@...

Gallery:
www.reddoorfinephotographs.com
director@...

PO Box  1893
Alpine, TX 79831
(432) 386-5787




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

simple…..  320 and see if you're happy with the results.

10 points above film base is the starting point for black with detail.
Shoot a (20 step?)  gray wedge… and figure out where density starts…

expose for the shadows develop for the details.  Then buy a 
nikon D800 and forget about all this nonsense.  I get B&W prints from 
my large format epson printer that are better than anything I ever got in a darkroom....

A few thoughts:

Jobo is introducing a new processor at Photokina.

I've used quite a bit of XP-2 Super in 120 for medium format work, mostly
travel photography.  It printed very well in a traditional darkroom, and it
scans nicely. It's very different from Kodak's chromogenic films. It's a
good choice, especially when you'll encounter varying subject brightness
ranges that you want to accommodate on the same roll.  Shot at EI 200, it
has very fine grain, finer, ime than TMX in xtol when developed to the same
CI.  If you print large enough to see the grain, though, it will look
different than traditional BW films.  I don't do that.

It does pay to develop your own BW,  as many have said. It's not that hard,
and finding a good lab these days is challenging.

If you do shoot scenes of varying contrast on a single roll, or scenes with
a large subject brightness range, divided Pyrocat HD works well.
http://www.pyrocat-hd.com/  I'm not much of a fan of T-max developer.  It's
a high sulfite developer which produces fairly mushy grain.  (T-max RS is
not the same at all.)  D76 1 + 1 is a very reliable and high quality
developer.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The best way to do this is to develop your film yourself with a moderate-contrast developer (e.g., D-23) or use a two-bath technique.  Relying on a commercial standard development provides no flexibility of contrast vs. scene.  With roll film you need to be able to at least develop each roll for the average scene conditions for that roll.  It ain't exactly "zone" development, but it will mostly avoid the bullet-proof highlights and "empty" shadows that confound scanners.  If you have never done development before this is all gobbledegook and your eyes are glazing over.  But there is all the info you need on the internet if you are so motivated.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "togeorge626" <togeorge41934@...> wrote:

>
> Your approach is sound, but with each camera you plan to use, you will need to shoot a test roll with varying ASA settings of your typical scenes under typical lighting, to ensure the lower contrast you are looking for while retaining adequate shadow density for a good scan.
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "russmeadseattle" <russmead@> wrote:
> >
> > Ii am pulling out old film cameras to shoot black and white film to scan, then to digitally print. I will primarily be shooting medium format. I live in then land of no sun,Seattle Wa  so use tmax 400 rather than a 100 Asa film. I will be using a good lab to develop the film withou any push or pull. They provide a low level scan with developing for a reasonable price. I will have them do a high Rez drum scan when I have a print made. My golal is to have 20 by 20 prints. Ok, my question... In reading this site it seems like I need to under expose the film. Is this correct? And if so by how much? And just to make sure I get this right I would set the light meter for say 500 Asa for tmax 400 (not set the meter for Asa 300)
> > 
> > Thanks!
> >
>

David--

I absolutely agree with you about chromogenics.  My theory has always 
been it was for folks to run through a Walmart-type operation.  
Notwithstanding that C-41 can be "zoned" like B&W if you process 
yourself; but, why would you if you have your own lab?

Of course, the whole Zone System suggestions to the OP are moot unless 
he has either one subject/lighting situation; or, an interchangeable 
back system with three backs for push, normal, and pull rolls for 
differing subjects and/or lighting.  After all, Adams, White, Weston, 
etc. had cut film to mark for different situations.

Seth

From: Seth Rossman <seth@...>
Organization: Seth Rossman Photography
Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Monday, September 3, 2012 9:11 AM
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>

Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: What Asa to shoot tmax400 with standard
development

>>Of course, the whole Zone System suggestions to the OP are moot unless
he has either one subject/lighting situation; or, an interchangeable
back system with three backs for push, normal, and pull rolls for
differing subjects and/or lighting. After all, Adams, White, Weston,
etc. had cut film to mark for different situations.

Seth,

Actually you don't need separate backs for 120 roll film to use the Zone
System.
I preferred a Pentax 6x7 and therefore didn't have the luxury of multiple
backs. I used templates to cut roll film if I had to switch development in
the middle of a roll.

The way it is done is by skipping a frame when you want to change
development. That way you have a place to cut: in the middle of the skipped
frame.
It just so happens that the distance from the end of a roll to the middle of
any frame is exactly the same as the distance from the middle of a frame to
the middle of another frame, assuming the same number of complete frames in
between. So the same set of templates serve whether starting from the end of
the roll or cutting out a number of frames in the middle. Mark the templates
with cutouts just like sheet film so you can determine which template you
have in the dark.

I used this method for years and never missed a cut once. Even a single
image length of film is long enough to load into a reel and stay there with
vigorous agitation.

The first thing people think when I tell them about this method is that
skipping frames wastes film. But if you stop and think about it, you are
very unlikely to change development requirements more than twice in the
middle of a roll, and usually only once. The film wastage is negligible
compared to the benefits.


David Kachel

___________________

Artist-Photographer
Fine B&W Photographs

www.davidkachel.com
david@...

Gallery:
www.reddoorfinephotographs.com
director@...

PO Box  1893
Alpine, TX 79831
(432) 386-5787




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://www.amazon.com/Way-Beyond-Monochrome-Traditional-Photography/dp/0240816250


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 03/09/2012 David Kachel wrote:
> 4. Do not follow recommendations to use chromogenic B&W films (B&W 
> films
> processed in color chemistry), UNLESS you absolutely refuse to 
> process film
> yourself. Good machine processing is far more even and consistent 
> than badly
> done hand processing. In all other respects, chromogenic films are 
> markedly
> inferior to conventional B&W films. Think of it as VERY bad training 
> wheels
> for B&W photography.

I disagree pretty much completely:) I used XP-1 & 2 and TCN for many years 
out of preference. I didn't take it to a lab, and it was a PITA to process 
compared to trad B&W films, but the tonality was/is amazing in return for 
a little trade-off in sharpness.

Chromagenics were capable of tonality and extended highlight range that 
went way beyond normal ISO400 films. I did masses of testing of Tri X, 
HP5, Tmax400, Delta400 in different devs at different dilutions and ISO's, 
and used all of them for extended periods (years). They all had their good 
points, but chromagenics offered tonality that was simply impossible with 
trad ISO400.

If you just ran chromagenic through a Snappy Snaps and concluded it was 
junk, it's not a fair test. My only problem with XP1/2 was that it was 
occasionally prone to inexplicably filthy processing (using Ilford's 
custom dev) that would put a rash of tiny particulate crap across the odd 
frame. TCN never did that.

> 5. Most pointedly, DO NOT use chromogenic films if your plan is to 
> scan the
> negatives and print them digitally. Since they are in fact 
> single-color,
> color negatives, they will produce exactly the same noise problems 
> found
> when scanning standard color negatives. The noise can of course be 
> reduced,
> but why start with a film you know is going to create noise problems?

I couldn't agree less: chromagenics are REALLY well matched to scanning IME.

What noise problems "when scanning colour negatives"?

Noise is a lot LESS of an issue with chromagenics, IME, exactly because 
the sharp well-defined grain pattern has been replaced by more diffuse dye 
clouds.

Most noise seen in CCD-based scanning is grain aliasing artifacts at some 
critical interference frequency. Think of it as a chaotic version of 
moire, caused by grain spatial frequency being close to the sampling 
frequency of the CCD**.

Scanning at higher PPI is the answer. Most 2700ppi scanners could produce 
awful artifacts, especially the Nikons with semi-collimated LED sources. 
Many people mistook the horrid "grain" in colour neg blue sky for actual 
grain, but it was aliasing. Most 4000ppi scanners were largely immune.

** As far as I know I was the first to identify this problem, which was 
puzzling Polaroid engineers. They couldn't understand why a few customers 
were reporting excessive grain that was not in the emulsion.  John 
Brownlow's Photoscientia site went on to try and quantify this in greater 
depth.

-- 
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk (don't bother, currently broken)

From: Tony Sleep <TonySleep@...>
Organization: Tony Sleep Photography
Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Monday, September 3, 2012 3:00 PM
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>

Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: What Asa to shoot tmax400 with standard
development

>>Chromagenics were capable of tonality and extended highlight range that
went way beyond normal ISO400 films.

You are entitled to your opinion but even the manufacturers of chromogenic
films would disagree with you.
What amateurs thought were extended highlights in these films were really
flattened highlights due to the severe shoulders.
The inexperienced got muddy gray highlights instead of blown out highlights
and thought it was better.

>>I did masses of testing of Tri X,
HP5, Tmax400, Delta400 in different devs at different dilutions and ISO's,
and used all of them for extended periods (years). They all had their good
points, but chromagenics offered tonality that was simply impossible with
trad ISO400.

Nonsense (and I would ask why you didn't just pick a film and stick with it
rather than do "masses of testing"). All that chromogenic films do is to
turn a good grain structure into mush and substitute a nondescript gray mass
for blown highlights. They have one and ONLY one advantage: they can be
processed in C-41 machines for photographers too inept to correctly process
a roll of B&W film.
Also, characteristic curves don't lie. These films are simply not up to par.
The fact that zero established fine art photographers use these weekend
warrior films pretty much cinches it.

>>chromagenics offered tonality that was simply impossible with
trad ISO400.

For which photographers are eternally grateful. Who on Earth would want to
see traditional B&W films produce the oatmeal you get from chromogenic
films. This belongs in the same category as those who stomp their feet and
insist that RC papers are just as good as fiber papers. In both cases, they
appear to be better because they are easier to use for those who are not
capable of getting the best out of real film and real paper.  They are
training wheels. They are little plastic pianos.

Those who are unable to wring peak performance out of a Ferrari will always
insist that their Volkswagens drive just as well.

Lastly, if you are serious about your work, you won't create it on film
doomed to destruction even if you think it creates good images. Chromogenic
films are simply one-color, color films. That is, unstable and destined to
fade. Real B&W film is almost bullet proof, especially if you treat it in
selenium.

David Kachel

___________________

Artist-Photographer
Fine B&W Photographs

www.davidkachel.com
david@...

Gallery:
www.reddoorfinephotographs.com
director@...

PO Box  1893
Alpine, TX 79831
(432) 386-5787




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: Alexander <mamccarron@...>
Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sunday, September 2, 2012 9:02 PM
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>

Subject: [Digital BW] Re: What Asa to shoot tmax400 with standard
development

>>10 points above film base is the starting point for black with detail.
Shoot a (20 step?) gray wedge? and figure out where density starts?

This kind of thing is the reason for my astonishment in my first post.
Everything in this statement is completely wrong.
This isn't news. It was all demonstrated and proven years ago! One wonders
what point there is in publishing anything when the flat earthers will
continue as if nothing happened.

I'm not even going to bother to explain/correct this. It is pointless. Ansel
has to be rolling over in his grave.


David Kachel

___________________

Artist-Photographer
Fine B&W Photographs

www.davidkachel.com
david@...

Gallery:
www.reddoorfinephotographs.com
director@...

PO Box  1893
Alpine, TX 79831
(432) 386-5787




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

David Kachel has written the truth: finally a set of recommendations for 
this thread that make sense... I can add one short dictum that helps to 
keep the process simple: "Over expose and under develop." The over 
exposure boosts shadow detail. The under development reduces highlight 
contrast. The combination makes negatives that are much easier to print 
and/or scan. When scanning, scan as a positive rather than a negative. 
Do the inversion in Photoshop, not in the scanning software....
Film development is, for me, one of the most interesting parts of the 
photographic process. So much can be done at that stage that really 
affects how your image looks in print.
Happy souping!
Paul

Paul Kohl
Visiting Professor: Art, Design and Media
Nanyang Technological University
Singapore

Tony Sleep <TonySleep@...> wrote:
>
> ... I used XP-1 & 2 and TCN for many years 
> out of preference. ...
> Chromagenics were capable of tonality and extended highlight 
> range that went way beyond normal ISO 400 films. I did masses 
> of testing ...

>... chromagenics are REALLY well matched to scanning IME.
> ...

Reasonable people can disagree, but my experience with Kodak T400CN is more in line with Tony's.

At the time I was using Kodak's T400CN, Kodak Technical Data sheets claimed, "... image quality equals or surpasses 100-speed traditional black-and-white films [read non-T-grain]."  The RMS Granularity rating was 9, compared to 10 for the Tmax 400 of the day.  My tests tended to support the Kodak claims.  Note that I'm talking only of Kodak T400CN.  I preferred it to the XP-1.

Currently T400CN is no longer made, and Tmax 400 has been improved.  I think now that the current Tmax 400 is considered their finest grained and sharpest 400 ISO film.

I never had any problems with the highlights going flat with T400CN.  The shape of the characteristic curve was very typical of what we got with mildly compensating developers, which were preferred by many B&W photographers.  In fact, the Kodak Technical Data sheets show the T400CN characteristic curve to be straighter/more linear than Tmax 100 developed in D76.

At any rate, this is getting a bit OT.  The more direct answer to the exposure issue is that many preferred to rate 400 ISO films at less than 400.  

(With a spot meter and knowing exactly where each value is going to be on the characteristic curve, the issue of the "proper" speed for average types of metering was not particularly relevant to me.  But most don't graph out their characteristic curves and use spot meters.) 

I do miss the magic of pulling the roll of medium format negatives out of the tank and later seeing the image develop on the paper in the tray under the darkroom lights.  But digital tools are so powerful, there's no going back.  (Then again my 30 year old negatives are still as good as new.  I wonder whether I'll think that about my digital files 30 years from now -- as if I'll live that long.)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Tim Vitale's
2007-04-vitale-filmgrain_resolution.pdf
is still worth reading.

Both on what actually generates noise in B&W silver and color negatives 
and what can be done to improve the scanning method. Though the scanning 
chapter could use an update.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

Dinkla Grafische Techniek
Quad, pi\ufffdzografie, gicl\ufffde
www.pigment-print.com

On 04/09/2012 David Kachel wrote:
> >>Chromagenics were capable of tonality and extended highlight range 
> that
> went way beyond normal ISO400 films.
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion but even the manufacturers of 
> chromogenic
> films would disagree with you.
> What amateurs thought were extended highlights in these films were 
> really
> flattened highlights due to the severe shoulders.
> The inexperienced got muddy gray highlights instead of blown out 
> highlights
> and thought it was better.

You seem to have descended into sneering hyperbole. This is not a 
religious debate. Have you ever actually used chromagenics?

Retaining some sort of vestige of detail in non-specular highlights has 
always looked better to me than detailless paper white. Rather than having 
to burn in what might not be there, chromagenics made this easier. If you 
got grey mush, it wasn't the film, it was your printing.

Chromagenics offered a different balance of attributes that looked great 
and made them tolerant of variable lighting conditions. This suited the 
kind of work I did.

Since you ask "why the testing?" it was because I was never a fan of 
grain. Starting in the '70's when TriX+D63/ID11 was the conventional 
wisdom, I was never crazy about it. I used it but I never had access to 
deep tank processing which was the only way it worked optimally. I was 
always one-shot processing in small tanks, not endlessly replenished D63 
that had a much greater solvent action. Eventually I switched to 
Promicrol, then Microdol X (lovely, but it cost a stop).

ISO100/125 35mm or better, PanF (ISO50) gave results I far preferred, but 
it was far too slow and awkward to use for magazine work.

In 30 years I tried most things as they became available. Why would I not? 
The whole point was to see whether I could do things better. I'd then 
standardise on what seemed to be the best for a few years.

For a lengthy period from the early 1980's to early 90's I standardised on 
chromogenics because they were, in my terms, the best blend of attributes.

Throughout that time I was running my own darkroom and printing my own 
work, usually against deadlines. I quickly became aware of relative 
strengths and weaknesses - which are, I have to say, largely subjective 
means-to-an-end. Unless you are St Ansel working each of sheet film to 
suit the ZS, photography is a balance, like cookery, rather than the 
mathematical absolutism that seems to dominate many peoples' thinking in 
the pixel-peepers' era.

Later the T-grain films offered a balance of improved grain (over TriX 
generation) smoother tonality and reduced tendency to block highlights. 
All without C41 PITA processing. I then switched to TMax400, later 
Delta400, w/TMax dev, for 35mm general purpose.

This means I have 100,000 or so negs ranging from ISO320rated FP4 in 
Diafine, through chromogenics, to Delta400 & 3200 in HC110 modified with 
extra sulphite, or TMax. Oh, and in 6x6, TMax100 in 1:50 Rodinal was my 
favourite, and still is

NONE of them are difficult to scan because I always preferred to dev on 
the slightly thin side and print slightly hard. But the chromagenic stuff 
is easiest of the lot, and the tonality and residual grain translate well 
to digital without aliasing problems.

You seem to be exaggerating and making assertions I find unrecognisable:

"Oatmeal mush" (you lose adjacency effects of silver dev which actually 
destroys fine detail, but chromagenic could resolve similar LPMM as 
comparable silver, with smoother tones).

"Also, characteristic curves don't lie" (true, they don't - chromogenics 
are very similar to any other film except in a somewhat extended highlight 
range due to absence of terminally clumped silver.)

"The fact that zero established fine art photographers use these weekend 
warrior films pretty much cinches it" (I have no idea whether that's true 
but FA photographers have all sorts of reasons for wanting to stay purist 
organic wholemeal, many marketing related. I am just a photographer, I 
don't elevate myself with the FA label, but nor do FA priorities indicate 
the path to nirvana for all photographers.)

 > These films are simply not up
 > to par...
 > Who on Earth would
> want to
> see traditional B&W films produce the oatmeal you get from chromogenic
> films. This belongs in the same category as those who stomp their 
> feet and
> insist that RC papers are just as good as fiber papers. In both 
> cases, they
> appear to be better because they are easier to use for those who are 
> not
> capable of getting the best out of real film and real paper. They are
> training wheels. They are little plastic pianos.

Hysteria aside, you use what is appropriate. This may be RC paper or 
fibre. I mostly shot for magazine repro, on deadlines. RC was quite 
useful. If I had time, fibre was much nicer and more satisfying to use, 
but once it had been halftoned and litho printed you'd not see a 
difference on the page. RC enabled me to sometimes get to bed instead of 
not. Clients wouldn't pay for fibre either, because I charged 5x as much 
for 5x as much work.

If you want to sneer at the sheer indolence and sloppiness of not giving 
clients air-dried, archivally processed, selemium toned fibre prints, 
well, I think that says more about you than about me.

> Those who are unable to wring peak performance out of a Ferrari will 
> always
> insist that their Volkswagens drive just as well.

Please just accept that different photographers have a less fixed and more 
pragmatic view. I have worked as a pro for 32 years, have processed my own 
photos since age 11, had a bit of a name for B&W quality when it was still 
in demand, and have done consultancy for Polaroid (fat lot of good that 
did them). I do not expect everyone to like what I like, nor use the same 
methods - it is part of photography for everyone to negotiate their own 
path to wherever they want to get. Your dogmatism and exaggeration is 
rhetorical, according to my experience. Which you are welcome to disregard 
but please try not to be so bloody rude. I don't know why photography 
forums are so infested with intolerance, there is no One True Way.

> Lastly, if you are serious about your work, you won't create it on 
> film
> doomed to destruction even if you think it creates good images. 
> Chromogenic
> films are simply one-color, color films. That is, unstable and 
> destined to
> fade. Real B&W film is almost bullet proof, especially if you treat 
> it in
> selenium.

Regrettably untrue. You seem unaware of mould, which I have on a few 
frames of my 70's negs, and the tendency of acetate base to turn to acetic 
acid, which is afflicting a colleague's work of similar age (Kodak 
Rochester published a paper c.1990, no longer seems to be on the web since 
K's decline). Estar seems OK though. Which reminds me, I've met the 
purists who sneer at anyone who doesn't shoot everything on 2475 Recording 
Film - who'd tell you that a "proper fine artist" would have no need of 
ISO400 anyway. The same people have lists of Leica serial numbers in their 
heads and will throw a hissy fit if you use the wrong Summicron. Of course 
a proper, proper real fine artist would be mining and refining their own 
silver, hand-coating wet-plates and shooting on (at least) 10x8 Deardorff. 
God save photography from the photo pedants.

FWIW my allegedly ghastly and heretical chromogenic negs show no sign of 
fading dye, but any I really care about have been transposed to digital 
anyhow. I suppose I'll start another row by saying I can get more out of 
them, or at least far more easily, printing digitally anyway. In fact 
there are negs I was never able to print well from early in my career that 
digital has made possible to realise properly. I abandoned darkroom 
printing after 25 years of doing it almost daily, because all my favourite 
best papers had disappeared or been eco-reformulated to not work so well.


-- 
Regards

Tony Sleep

Tony,

> ... Eventually I switched to ... Microdol X
>
>  As another OT aside, I fully disclosed my darkroom in a building permit
process, and the city sewer department insisted on the MSDS's for the
chemicals.  What bothered them the most was Microdol-X.  I had to agree to
a limit on the rolls/day I'd develop.  There must be something rather toxic
in that developer.  (I used it 1:3 for years.)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Truly, I,ve found my heaven with Delta 100 and Microdol-X 1:3. Finest grain, easy to scan and marvelous results in darkroom or in computer.

Jacques Caron
Photographe
jacques.caron@...

On 9/3/2012 4:09 PM, David Kachel wrote:
>
>
> For which photographers are eternally grateful. Who on Earth would want to
> see traditional B&W films produce the oatmeal you get from chromogenic
> films. This belongs in the same category as those who stomp their feet and
> insist that RC papers are just as good as fiber papers. In both cases, they
> appear to be better because they are easier to use for those who are not
> capable of getting the best out of real film and real paper. They are
> training wheels. They are little plastic pianos.
>
> Those who are unable to wring peak performance out of a Ferrari will always
> insist that their Volkswagens drive just as well.
>

A little OT there, David.

Dana


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 04/09/2012 Tony Sleep wrote:
> TriX+D63/ID11 

I meant D76/ID11. It's been a long time :)
-- 
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk

From: Dana Myers <dana.myers@...>
Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:15 AM
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>

Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: What Asa to shoot tmax400 with standard
development

>>A little OT there, David.

You're probably right. I just have gotten so tired of hearing all this
nonsense over so many years. 'Plastic papers are wonderful, Eastern Bloc
films and papers are just as good as Kodak, Agfa and Ilford, magazine
articles singing the praises of B&W papers from Outer Slobovia that were so
incredibly bad they were unusable for even the most mundane purpose, wonder
gadgets that didn't work at all staunchly defended by so-called experts.'
The worst I ever saw was an expensive spot meter supposedly designed
specifically for the Zone System, whose manufacturer didn't bother to learn
anything at all about the Zone System before designing it. The meter took
multiple readings and averaged them!!

Mostly I hate to see photographers just starting out being led down the
garden path by manufacturers touting products they know are inferior, aided
by know-it-alls who always think the best they can do must be the best
anyone can do. It is hard enough to learn everything necessary to produce
good work without so many people shouting in their ears that clearly
inferior products and materials  are really  just as good as everything
else. They are not, and claiming so doesn't make it true.


David Kachel

___________________

Artist-Photographer
Fine B&W Photographs

www.davidkachel.com
david@...

Gallery:
www.reddoorfinephotographs.com
director@...

PO Box  1893
Alpine, TX 79831
(432) 386-5787




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 04/09/2012 Paul Roark wrote:
> What bothered them the most was Microdol-X.

As far as I know, the only unusual thing about Microdol X is some Kodak 
proprietary benzotriazole-like stuff for the solvent action that gives the 
fine grain and speed loss.  Perhaps it's that. At one time I had a bottle 
of benzotriazole (branded Johnsons Fog & Grain Restrainer) in my quest for 
fine grain, and don't remember any toxicity warnings.

Just found this, not very nice.
http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9923061
-- 
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk

On 04/09/2012 David Kachel wrote:
> Plastic papers are wonderful, 
> Eastern Bloc
> films and papers are just as good as Kodak, Agfa and Ilford, magazine
> articles singing the praises of B&W papers from Outer Slobovia that 
> were so
> incredibly bad 

Well, here I agree with you. Most papers produced at most times were 
mediocre at best.

There was a brief period in the 1970's when Agfa made a few downright 
beautiful, sensual-to-print on papers (Brovira, Portriga, Record Rapid). 
My personal favourite being Record Rapid. There were a few others too, 
notably Oriental Seagull and Kodak Royal Bromesko. But a combination of 
economics and environmental concerns wiped them out. Agfa ruined RR by 
taking out all the noxious cadmium c.1979. Oriental went out of production 
and the new owner formulated a new paper with the same label but was 
nothing special. Royal Bromesko was discontinued.

The Bunker Hunt crisis made this all worse. Silver content was pared to 
the bone to try and hold down prices, which almost trebled in UK. Agfa UK 
drove me mad by stopping import of any New Unimproved Mk2 RR except 
G2,3,4, before deciding we didn't need G4 either, then finally deciding 
we'd have Classic and Classic Multicontrast instead - papers utterly 
unrelated to the sensual ancestor.

Agfa Multicontrast and Ilford Multigrade, both RC, were capable of OK 
results, for many purposes. Practical and fast but no pleasure. I used 
hundreds of boxes and never once enjoyed it, it was just a means from A to B.

Then we had the designer label print materials, Galerie and so on. I found 
those underwhelming too, compared to the earlier silver-and-toxin rich 
antecedents. Selenium obligatory if you wanted a proper black.

And then we had Forte etc purporting to have the traditional values  that 
the new papers had lost. And, unmentioned, the manufacturing defects 
(pinholes, blisters, instability etc), agonisingly low sensitivities and 
wayward inconsistency between sheets, never mind batches.

It wasn't that you couldn't use these later materials to make nice prints, 
but every step of the way the materials fought you. Nothing ever came 
close to original Record Rapid which leapt voluptuously from the packet 
"so you want to make a gorgeous print, let's have fun together". It was 
just impossible not to love the way that paper worked. The blacks! The 
tones! The surface! The later materials were like making love with a 
foul-tempered hooker whilst wearing Marigolds. Not that I have any 
experience behind the metaphor, but...

I think the paper manufacturers fed the flight from the darkroom. Perhaps 
it was inevitable as the pollution of chemical photography became 
intolerable. But it made the switch to digital much easier, since the best 
of silver gelatine had long gone. What sort of surprises me is how any old 
crap on bromide now commands a mystical "hand made" reverence, as if none 
of this decline ever happened.

But all that's just a personal viewpoint.

-- 
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk

From: Tony Sleep <TonySleep@...>
Organization: Tony Sleep Photography
Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2012 1:34 PM
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>

Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: What Asa to shoot tmax400 with standard
development

>>There was a brief period in the 1970's when Agfa made a few downright
beautiful, sensual-to-print on papers (Brovira, Portriga, Record Rapid).

I never used Record Rapid but would actually consider a return to the
darkroom for a big stockpile of Portriga.
Until they ruined it, nothing could match it. That stuff was truly
beautiful. Right now I'm looking at an Edward Curtis print on my wall, made
on Portriga.


David Kachel

___________________

Artist-Photographer
Fine B&W Photographs

www.davidkachel.com
david@...

Gallery:
www.reddoorfinephotographs.com
director@...

PO Box  1893
Alpine, TX 79831
(432) 386-5787




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"Noise is a lot LESS of an issue with chromagenics, IME, exactly because
the sharp well-defined grain pattern has been replaced by more diffuse dye
clouds."

Therein lies the rub for me.  The loss of grain structure is a loss of 
one of the qualities of B&W films.  One of the beauties, as it were, is 
the silver.  Dye clouds sounds exotic (I am not making fun).  David said 
enough that I agree with without beating that horse.

BUT, that was not the OP.

TMax "with standard development," still left too many questions. WHAT 
standard developer?  There were many; all with different effects on 
contrast, shadow detail, etc.

Seth

Hi all
With so many third-party plug-ins for Photoshop that put back grain in digital pictures, it seems that it was not à bad thing!
It can be worse under scanning but it is still the structure of images in the old days.

Jacques Caron
Photographe
jacques.caron@...

On 05/09/2012 Seth Rossman wrote:
> BUT, that was not the OP.
> 
> TMax "with standard development," still left too many questions. WHAT
> standard developer? 

Fair point.

TMax400 in Kodak's own TMax developer is very, very good. I never found a 
dev that suited it better, nor other 35mm T-grain films. I used it for 
many years.

I used to rate at ISO400 and dev at 1+4

6min 30sec 20C
6min 15sec 21C
6min 0sec  22C
5min 45sec 23C
5min 30sec 24C

The above, off a yellowed piece of paper on my darkroom wall, are probably 
about 10% less than Kodak's, due to my preference for delicate negs. 
ISO400 was spot on. I remember that I preferred 24C, but can't now 
remember why. Probably not just impatience. Even at these relatively short 
times I never had any problems with uneven processing.

These negs were aimed at printing with a Durst dichroic head onto 
(usually) multigrade papers. They present no problems with scanning.
-- 
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk

Mr.Sleep,
I think that you opted for a higher temp following advices that the less time the emulsion is immersed in a liquid, the better it will be. In the old times, we were quite a few seeing 'mushed" grain as the emulsion got wet for a long time. Usually, if you don't go under 5 minutes of development everything should be fine. This caution was good for 35mm and some 6x6. In larger format, usually the emulsion and the base are thougher.


Jacques Caron
Photographe
jacques.caron@...

On 05/09/2012 Seth Rossman wrote:
> Therein lies the rub for me. The loss of grain structure is a loss of
> one of the qualities of B&W films.

Fair enough. Despite my stuff being reportage-ish, grain was something I 
didn't like much, it got in the way. I could accept it in other peoples' 
work but generally it bugged me in my own. First time I saw a contact 
print from a 10x8 was a transcendant "holy crap" 10 minutes of just gazing 
at the thing on a wall in disbelief (V&A Museum, "The Land" exhibition 
c.1976 or 7). No grain, sharper than reality, a world in miniature. It 
just never occurred to me that it would have been improved by a coating of 
silver grit :)

-- 
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk

In regards to TMAX 400, while I haven't shot the material in several years I do have a background setting up a few professional B&W processing lines and recall the film's nuances perfectly. The debate between shooting the film at ASA 400 -vs- 320 was always vocal on various forums.

Personally I preferred shooting it at 320 because of it's shoulder. I also found TMAX less flexible for pushing like TX or HP5 was. However, a lot of old school B&W printers prefered negs a bit more on the thinner side while I like a bit beefier negs and lower paper contrast grades. TMAX developer, in my opinion, was the best developer for it at 1:4 while Xtol was a close second. HC-110 was fair while D-76 was ok but not remarkable.

You have to remember what the TMAX films were designed to do. Kodak wanted a pair of B&W films that had more closely matched processing times, met the needs of studio photogs who wanted a straighter shoulder, and was cheaper to manufacture. The TMAX twins met these goals perfectly, but I still feel both emulsions 'lack' the personality of classic B&W films like TX or HP5 or FP4. Fuji Acros is a near clone of TMY 100, and when I google the film some of my images come up :-) Tri-X professional, provided it's still made, is half way between TMAX 400 and classic TXT in terms of tonality, but rates lower than 300 ASA in my book.

Plus-X was a notoriously difficult to process with volume consistency, and was a bear to keep uniform in sheet format which wasn't helped by it's short process time. Panatomic - X was even worse, but had stunning tonality in small format. John Sexton used to write articles on how to build holders for tray development of Plus-X that reduced agitation uniformity issues. In 120 I could keep Plus-X real smooth but in 35mm those sprocket holes caused all sorts of problems. Rotary agitation solved the problem, but constant agitation of Plus-X or Tri-X tends to cause issues with highlight -vs- shadow detail. Hence the TMAX films and their much better behaviour with modern mechanical processing. For hand processing though I'll take TX or HP5 in HC-110 at 1:31 over TMY or TMX anyday, but that's personal taste. I'll also take FP4 over TMX 100 by a long shot.

Remember that the chromogenic B&W films like XP2 were essentially monochrome color neg films. XP2 simply lacked the orange mask of the Kodak version so it was easier to print on conventional B&W paper. The Kodak chromogenics that came later were friendlier with labs using color heads and needed the orange mask to match analog color tables and have a chance at getting a greyscale print from optical gear. With today's digital processing any color neg film will deliver the same curve, better grain, and channel mixing, so the B&W C-41 films are obsolete. I had fun with XP-2 in 6x7 shooting very long brightness ranges and yielding perfect prints with creamy tonality.

One big issue with the chromogenics was they had very little under exposure lattitude (contrary to marketing) and shared the same problem with C-41 films in that dye clouds get chunky and gritty at low DMAX, and this is not the same grain some of us find nostalgic in conventional B&W films. Yes, you could push them (any C-41 film can be pushed contrary to urban myth) but there were better solutions in higher speed B&W. Now a days you are better off shooting regular neg and channel mixing, or desaturating slide film. Last, the B&W chromo films didn't work with zone system very well because they had highly compressed density curves. 

Large format contact printing is in my opinion the apex of B&W fine art production. Even in 4x5 they are remarkable. At 8x10 they'll take your breath away and at 11x14 they'll stop your heart. Too bad they are now rarely made or seen.

--WS

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tony Sleep <TonySleep@...> wrote:

>
> On 05/09/2012 Seth Rossman wrote:
> > BUT, that was not the OP.
> > 
> > TMax "with standard development," still left too many questions. WHAT
> > standard developer? 
> 
> Fair point.
> 
> TMax400 in Kodak's own TMax developer is very, very good. I never found a 
> dev that suited it better, nor other 35mm T-grain films. I used it for 
> many years.
> 
> I used to rate at ISO400 and dev at 1+4
> 
> 6min 30sec 20C
> 6min 15sec 21C
> 6min 0sec  22C
> 5min 45sec 23C
> 5min 30sec 24C
> 
> The above, off a yellowed piece of paper on my darkroom wall, are probably 
> about 10% less than Kodak's, due to my preference for delicate negs. 
> ISO400 was spot on. I remember that I preferred 24C, but can't now 
> remember why. Probably not just impatience. Even at these relatively short 
> times I never had any problems with uneven processing.
> 
> These negs were aimed at printing with a Durst dichroic head onto 
> (usually) multigrade papers. They present no problems with scanning.
> -- 
> Regards
> 
> Tony Sleep
> http://tonysleep.co.uk
>

From: blasterman789 <blasterman789@...>
Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 3:22 PM
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>

Subject: [Digital BW] Re: What Asa to shoot tmax400 with standard
development


>>In regards to TMAX 400ŠPersonally I preferred shooting it at 320 because of
it's shoulder.

Um, wouldn't you use a HIGHER speed to avoid hitting a shoulder? Which
brings me to ask; what shoulder? I used quite a lot of T-Max 400 in the
research I did for new Zone System contraction techniques. I quit looking
for a shoulder after Zone 20! If it had one, the techniques I invented
wouldn't work and I assure, they do!

>>Last, the B&W chromo films didn't work with zone system very well because they
had highly compressed density curves.

I must admit you've got me on that one. What is a "highly compressed density
curve"?

David Kachel

___________________

Artist-Photographer
Fine B&W Photographs

www.davidkachel.com
david@...

Gallery:
www.reddoorfinephotographs.com
director@...

PO Box  1893
Alpine, TX 79831
(432) 386-5787




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I used TMX in 4x5 for over a decade.  Since my supply of Readyloads finally
gave out, I switched to TMY for a trip this summer.  The newest version is
pretty impressive stuff.  My EI for N development in Xtol 1+2 is 500.  The
grain is very fine, and the film scans well on my Cezanne.  Like Mr.
Katchel, I haven't noticed a shoulder.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 05/09/2012 pdesmidt tds.net wrote:
> Like Mr.
> Katchel, I haven't noticed a shoulder.

I always thought it didn't, and that straight-line response was a design 
aim of T-grain, but it seems like it does and it doesn't, depending on 
dev/temp variables:
See the curves (via buttons) at the bottom of
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f32/f32c.jhtml

The OP also said "However, a lot of old school B&W printers prefered negs 
a bit more on the thinner side while I like a bit beefier negs and lower 
paper contrast grades."

I was definitely on the axis of dev-lite/print hard (G3-G4 was normal for 
me) and TMY seemed shoulderless with slightly weak shadow detail and very 
fine grain. On contrasty scenes it could be a sod to print everything in 
the extended  highlights, lots of burning and flashing, so more exposure 
for the shadows was not an option. ISO400 seemed the best that could be done.

As can be seen from the curves, more dev could change that into a long 
shallow shoulder (more like a reduced slope in upper tones), and more 
exposure would then get you stronger shadow details without the highlight 
headroom becoming unmanageable in printing. It's a slightly different set 
of compromises that I now find interesting. I'd never have thought to look 
in that direction because of my grain aversion.
-- 
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk

On 05/09/2012 David Kachel wrote:
> I must admit you've got me on that one. What is a "highly compressed 
> density
> curve"?

I think "WS" means that it's very non-linear - most of the response of the 
chromogenics is a short toe followed by one long shoulder. There isn't a 
straight bit anywhere. At least with XP1/2, TCN seemed to be flatter 
through the midtones.

He's also right that the shadows could get gruesome if underexposed. I'd 
forgotten that. Despite Ilford's claims of broad exposure latitude it was 
actually _really_ fussy about exposure if you wanted quality results. If 
you weren't, you'd still get a picture but underexposure gave great ugly 
splodges in the dark tones, and over exposure made the whole upper half of 
the tonal range flat and muddy. Push/pull C41 is for masochists and always 
made things worse IME, so I can't imagine a less useful film for ZS 
enthusiasts.
-- 
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk

On 9/6/2012 8:16 AM, Tony Sleep wrote:
>
> On 05/09/2012 David Kachel wrote:
> > I must admit you've got me on that one. What is a "highly compressed
> > density
> > curve"?
>
> I think "WS" means that it's very non-linear - most of the response of the
> chromogenics is a short toe followed by one long shoulder. There isn't a
> straight bit anywhere. At least with XP1/2, TCN seemed to be flatter
> through the midtones.
>
> He's also right that the shadows could get gruesome if underexposed. I'd
> forgotten that. Despite Ilford's claims of broad exposure latitude it was
> actually _really_ fussy about exposure if you wanted quality results. If
> you weren't, you'd still get a picture but underexposure gave great ugly
> splodges in the dark tones
>

Hopefully this isn't too far off-topic in a Digital B&W *Printing* group.

My experience with both Ilford and Kodak chromogenic film is they under-expose
poorly - just like the color emulsions that they really are.  XP2 is worse, with
huge blotches in otherwise no detail, where T400CN/BWC (which, I'm sure, is
the same emulsion on a different base) falls into a noisier darkness, probably
just smaller blotches.

Kodak's BWC-series is faster (I expose it at EI400) where XP2 works best for me
at EI200.

> and over exposure made the whole upper half of
> the tonal range flat and muddy
>

My experience is that XP2 is prone to this in reasonably contrasty
scenes where BWC is less so.

Cheers,
Dana  K6JQ



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]