Digital BW, The Print

For eons I've used Tri-x (the 400 not the 320 pro) and HC110 dil B 
for 4.5 min in distilled water. Keeping the dev time low to prevent 
highlights blocking and making sure to give enough exposure in the 
shadows.I took up this 'formula' from Adams' The negative and 
Picker's book & newsletters. 
This has worked well for my silver prints.
I've packed up my darkroom and now that I'm scanning my negs (for 
1160 quadtone printing/MIS) I find the grain objectionable - it's not 
crisp and it's big.
Any advice on adjusting my 'formula' or....a change ? I'm not too 
sure about changing to a chromogenic film as on occasion I may still 
want to have a silver print made.
thanks
Frank

Frank,

I'm in the middle of experimenting with 'stand development' for taming
highlights, meaning two bath's where the developer from the first bath
exhausts itself in the second bath restraining high density's, specifically
for scanning with ccd scanners. I'm trying Dixactol because it's advertised
to leave grain un-dissolved, allowing high accutance, and adds a stain to
fill in between the grain and reduce how apparent it is. Supposedly there's
just a small speed loss from rated film speeds, unlike the pyro developers.

If your interested I'll let you know how it works out.

Dixactol info is at www.barrythornton.com and is available from
Photographers Formulary in the states.

Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: frankg_photo [mailto:frank@...]
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 9:29 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Tri-x/HC110 user needs a change


For eons I've used Tri-x (the 400 not the 320 pro) and HC110 dil B
for 4.5 min in distilled water. Keeping the dev time low to prevent
highlights blocking and making sure to give enough exposure in the
shadows.I took up this 'formula' from Adams' The negative and
Picker's book & newsletters.
This has worked well for my silver prints.
I've packed up my darkroom and now that I'm scanning my negs (for
1160 quadtone printing/MIS) I find the grain objectionable - it's not
crisp and it's big.
Any advice on adjusting my 'formula' or....a change ? I'm not too
sure about changing to a chromogenic film as on occasion I may still
want to have a silver print made.
thanks
Frank


Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

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:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "frankg_photo" 
<frank@f...> wrote:
> Any advice on adjusting my 'formula' or....a change ? I'm not too 
> sure about changing to a chromogenic film as on occasion I 
may still 
> want to have a silver print made.

To speak in broad terms, I'd say that the scanner is having a 
MUCH greater effect on the look of the grain than any of these 
subtle differences you'd see with these developer combinations.

All I know is that when I went from an Agfa T2500 to the Imacon 
Photo, my scans started looking like photographic grain again. 
The grain was tack sharp with the Imacon.

Who knows what the internal sharpening algorithms are doing to 
your Tri-X grain in whatever scanner you're using now. I'd say, if 
you're not using at least an Imacon, or better yet, a drum 
scanner, then you're getting all kinds of translations in the look of 
the grain. (And even then, the math is pretty intense).

Just my opinion. I might be wrong.

And for the record, my B/W film of choice is also PortraBW400. 
It's C41 and it scans killer in the Imacon. But lately I've been 
thinking about going even finer, but I don't think there's a 
chromogenic slower than 400. In general terms, the C41 film 
slopes seem much calmer than the silver films; no highlights to 
fight.

Mark Tucker
http://marktucker.com/

on 8/4/02 12:38 PM, marktuckerdotcom wrote:

> And for the record, my B/W film of choice is also PortraBW400.
> It's C41 and it scans killer in the Imacon. But lately I've been
> thinking about going even finer, but I don't think there's a
> chromogenic slower than 400.

Mark,

Have you tried rating it at ASA 200 or less? In general, overexposure of the
chromogenic BW films leads to finer grain.

Todd Flashner

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner 
<tflash@e...> wrote:
> Mark,
> Have you tried rating it at ASA 200 or less? In general, 
overexposure of the
> chromogenic BW films leads to finer grain.


I am CERTAINLY not trying to start some long technical 
discussion here. But that whole "modify this to change the grain" 
thing has just never proven that true to me.

People used to tell me, "Oh, just push the Tri-X four minutes in 
the soup to get chunkier grain". I guess you could see it some, 
but it just never made that much difference to me, where I 
actually saw it in the print.

I'm not a chemist, but to me, the grain is just going to develop out 
to whatever it's going to develop out to -- it seems predetermined 
and unalterable. 

Maybe the APPEARANCE of grain -- maybe there's something to 
that. But grain is grain - a 400 film is going to have consistent 
grain, no matter how you rate it. 

A friend recently tested Ilford XP2, and rated it from 50 all the way 
to 1600, and yes, the 1600 frame was "grainier" looking, but I 
think it was more to do that the frame was radically 
underexposed, and he also had to apply a steeper curve to get it 
to look right.

I've been shooting for 22 years, and I've always wondered the 
truth about alot of this grain stuff. To me, a lot of it is 
misinformation, wives tales, and myth.

God knows how long I've always wanted to say that to 
somebody...a weight has been lifted.

Mark Tucker
http://marktucker.com/

Mark

What you say can be true and wrong at the same time. I've been a grain
aficionado (though I throw it to the wind for some of what I do), so some of
my work is on fast or grainy 35mm film, printed 16x20. Subtle grain
differences/characteristics are plainly visible if you want to look for
them. to my eyes, the difference between straight D-76, or the dilute
Rodinol I use matters to me. One has smooth "mushy" grain, the other sharp
acutance. Other eyes wouldn't notice. For med format work, or smaller
prints, even I probably wouldn't see it.

Todd

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner
> <tflash@e...> wrote:
>> Mark,
>> Have you tried rating it at ASA 200 or less? In general,
> overexposure of the
>> chromogenic BW films leads to finer grain.
> 
> 
> I am CERTAINLY not trying to start some long technical
> discussion here. But that whole "modify this to change the grain"
> thing has just never proven that true to me.
> 
> People used to tell me, "Oh, just push the Tri-X four minutes in
> the soup to get chunkier grain". I guess you could see it some,
> but it just never made that much difference to me, where I
> actually saw it in the print.
> 
> I'm not a chemist, but to me, the grain is just going to develop out
> to whatever it's going to develop out to -- it seems predetermined
> and unalterable. 
> 
> Maybe the APPEARANCE of grain -- maybe there's something to
> that. But grain is grain - a 400 film is going to have consistent
> grain, no matter how you rate it.
> 
> A friend recently tested Ilford XP2, and rated it from 50 all the way
> to 1600, and yes, the 1600 frame was "grainier" looking, but I
> think it was more to do that the frame was radically
> underexposed, and he also had to apply a steeper curve to get it
> to look right.
> 
> I've been shooting for 22 years, and I've always wondered the
> truth about alot of this grain stuff. To me, a lot of it is
> misinformation, wives tales, and myth.
> 
> God knows how long I've always wanted to say that to
> somebody...a weight has been lifted.
> 
> Mark Tucker
> http://marktucker.com/

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner 
<tflash@e...> wrote:
> What you say can be true and wrong at the same time.

Obviously, you can manipulate the grain for some crazy effect -- I 
remember in college, shooting Tri-X 35 at about 12000ASA and 
running it in 95 degree straight Dektol (not D76) for about ten 
minutes. Then, chasing it with stop bath that was at about 60 
degrees, then chasing that with fixer that was at 95 degrees.

We did another bong hit, then we washed the film to see what 
we'd gotten. The grain looked like a snowstorm, but from 
reticulation. So that proves that it's doable, and doable to a large 
degree. (But why -- that's another matter).

I agree with you -- for most images, only the photographer would 
obsess enough to know the difference in the two grain styles. 
And if it's that subtle, who really cares?

To go back to that guy's post, I still think it's the scanner that's 
messing with his grain, moreso than the film developer. I'm the 
king of badly-scanned film grain.

MTucker

I still think it's the scanner that's 
> messing with his grain, moreso than the film developer. > MTucker

I rented (from a local photo equip rental co) a Polaroid Sprintscan 
120 with SilverFast 5.2
I'm scanning the B&W negs (35 & 21/4) as 16 bit HDR Grayscale @ 
4000dpi (scanners optical res max).

Another member of this group has been helping me, off list, to get 
the scanner/software setup correctly. I'm not sure if there's any way 
to improve the scan (maybe there are tweaks ?) except as you say to 
go to a higher end scanner, which is not a consideration at this 
time. 

So I have to find an improvement in my film/dev. I do rate it at 250 
which is what my "correct film speed" test indicates.
I'm open to new film recommendations. However, I still have a good 
stock of the old Tri-x and must first use it up - with a recommended 
new developer or a change in my developer's dil/time 

thanks
Frank

download the demo of vuescan and try that. I've never got good results from
silverfast for BW negs.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "frankg_photo" <frank@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 10:09 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Tri-x/HC110 user needs a change


> I still think it's the scanner that's
> > messing with his grain, moreso than the film developer. > MTucker
>
> I rented (from a local photo equip rental co) a Polaroid Sprintscan
> 120 with SilverFast 5.2
> I'm scanning the B&W negs (35 & 21/4) as 16 bit HDR Grayscale @
> 4000dpi (scanners optical res max).
>
> Another member of this group has been helping me, off list, to get
> the scanner/software setup correctly. I'm not sure if there's any way
> to improve the scan (maybe there are tweaks ?) except as you say to
> go to a higher end scanner, which is not a consideration at this
> time.
>
> So I have to find an improvement in my film/dev. I do rate it at 250
> which is what my "correct film speed" test indicates.
> I'm open to new film recommendations. However, I still have a good
> stock of the old Tri-x and must first use it up - with a recommended
> new developer or a change in my developer's dil/time
>
> thanks
> Frank
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> 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:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

It still seems your film is not fully developing.  At the 250 speed and Dilution B, you might try six minutes at 20 degrees instead of 4.5 minutes.  Unless you're using a rotary processor, in which case 4.5 might be pretty close.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: frankg_photo 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 3:09 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Tri-x/HC110 user needs a change


  I still think it's the scanner that's 
  > messing with his grain, moreso than the film developer. > MTucker

  I rented (from a local photo equip rental co) a Polaroid Sprintscan 
  120 with SilverFast 5.2
  I'm scanning the B&W negs (35 & 21/4) as 16 bit HDR Grayscale @ 
  4000dpi (scanners optical res max).

  Another member of this group has been helping me, off list, to get 
  the scanner/software setup correctly. I'm not sure if there's any way 
  to improve the scan (maybe there are tweaks ?) except as you say to 
  go to a higher end scanner, which is not a consideration at this 
  time. 

  So I have to find an improvement in my film/dev. I do rate it at 250 
  which is what my "correct film speed" test indicates.
  I'm open to new film recommendations. However, I still have a good 
  stock of the old Tri-x and must first use it up - with a recommended 
  new developer or a change in my developer's dil/time 

  thanks
  Frank



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  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:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

"Ken Carney" <kcarney1@c...> wrote:
> It still seems your film is not fully developing.  At the 250 speed 
and Dilution B, you might try six minutes at 20 degrees instead of 
4.5 minutes. 

Perhaps if I make the dev more dilute - already the negs are a little 
denser than i'd like. At 6 min they'd block up
Frank

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "frankg_photo" <frank@f...> 
wrote:
> For eons I've used Tri-x (the 400 not the 320 pro) and HC110 dil B 
> for 4.5 min in distilled water. Keeping the dev time low to prevent 
> highlights blocking and making sure to give enough exposure in the 
> shadows.I took up this 'formula' from Adams' The negative and 
> Picker's book & newsletters. 
> This has worked well for my silver prints.
> I've packed up my darkroom and now that I'm scanning my negs (for 
> 1160 quadtone printing/MIS) I find the grain objectionable - it's 
not 
> crisp and it's big.
> Any advice on adjusting my 'formula' or....a change ? I'm not too 
> sure about changing to a chromogenic film as on occasion I may 
still 
> want to have a silver print made.
> thanks
> Frank

ive tried most all of the major black and white films, and tmx 100 
has always been my personal fav (although i havent used delta 100). 
when pulled to iso 50 and under developed %20 in d-76 1:1 the grain 
appears to be noticebly finer, in my eys at least, than when rated at 
100 and fully developed, and is much finer than tri x and plus x. the 
only problem with tmx is it is very sensitive to changes in 
developement, so its easy blow out the highlights if you goto far. 
this isnt a problem in the darkroom but can be very frustrating 
during scanning.

BTW, has anyone used the new tmax emultions yet? the only thing 
different about them is supposed to be shorter development times, but 
i'd be glad to hear about any other changes.

john

> I rented (from a local photo equip rental co) a Polaroid 
Sprintscan 
> 120 with SilverFast 5.2
> I'm scanning the B&W negs (35 & 21/4) as 16 bit HDR 
Grayscale @ 
> 4000dpi (scanners optical res max).
> 

My experience has been two-fold.  I think that 4000dpi for 120 
film is too high because the silver grains form clumps larger 
than 1/4000 of an inch.  This means the scanner is scanning the 
grains.  I would try using 2000dpi and compare prints.

However, you are correct that the film/developer plays a 
surprising roll in all this.  I've been shooting a bit of Tri-X 4x5, 
developing it in Pyro w/Ammidol added to preserve shadow 
detail, hence film speed.  Actually, Color Services in Needham, 
MA does this for me. Pyro has a couple of interesting properties.  
The first is by staining the highlights yellow, it acts to lower 
contrast so you don't have to worry about n- development as 
much to preserve highlights.  Secondly, by staining the highlight 
areas, there is much less film grain for a more velvety look.

One more thing about films & developers.  Some films like Tri-X 
have more contrast in them.  Other films like HP5+ have less 
contrast.  So in N+ development, films like HP5+ build density 
more than increasing contrast.

Dave G.

Frank,

I'm surprised nobody mentioned it until Todd did, but the developer can have 
quite a lot to do with the appearance of the grain.  If you want softer grain, use 
a developer with silver solvent in it, such as D76, or D76 1 to 1 for even softer 
grain.  HC has no such solvent, which gives it higher acutance, and is why I 
like it.  But if you're concerned about grain, that's the first thing you can do, 
and it doesn't involve buying a new scanner.

Or what about using the newer flat-grain technology films, such as TMax or 
Delta? There is less presence of grain in them, but of course they have 
different characteristics than Tri-X.  Or maybe move to a slower film, which 
inherently has smaller grain.

Phil
http://philbard.com
http://laphotoworkshops.com

> Frank,
> 
> I'm surprised nobody mentioned it until Todd did, but the developer 
can have 
> quite a lot to do with the appearance of the grain.  If you want 
softer grain, use 
> a developer with silver solvent in it, such as D76, or D76 1 to 1 
for even softer 
> grain.  HC has no such solvent, which gives it higher acutance, and 
is why I 
> like it.  But if you're concerned about grain, that's the first 
thing you can do, 
> and it doesn't involve buying a new scanner.
> 
> Or what about using the newer flat-grain technology films, such as 
TMax or 
> Delta? There is less presence of grain in them, but of course they 
have 
> different characteristics than Tri-X.  Or maybe move to a slower 
film, which 
> inherently has smaller grain.
> 

Phil.
Thanks.

 I don't mind grain per se and I've used this film/dev for a long 
while with good result- now I guess I'm wanting it to serve me in the 
digital as well as silver worlds :-) 

But it seems the grain is mushy not sharp/crisp. So maybe a silver 
solvent dev likeD76 is the wrong way to go ?
Frank

----- Original Message -----

From: "frankg_photo" <frank@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 4:56 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Tri-x/HC110 user needs a change


> "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@t...> wrote:
> > It could be you are expecting more from the scanner than it can
> give. Are
> > you using the glass holder? I used to mount all my 35mm negs in
> anti newton
> > slide holders to ensure flatness.
> >
> > Julian
>
> No I dont have the glass holder - actually i didn't even know there
> was one - It's a rental unit that I get from time to time when the
> negs pile up. Unfortunatelly purchasing one is out of reach.
> Is there a way of "making" a glass holder as I have a bit of anti
> newton glass from my enlarger days ?
> Frank

Not a 35 mm scanner carrier but you could check how I made one that gives me
a very homogeneous grain structure from 6x9 negatives, no Newton glass
needed:

http://members.chello.nl/e.dinkla/MF_FM_carrier.htm

Ernst

It could be you are expecting more from the scanner than it can give. Are
you using the glass holder? I used to mount all my 35mm negs in anti newton
slide holders to ensure flatness.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "frankg_photo" <frank@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 5:22 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Tri-x/HC110 user needs a change


>
> > Frank,
> >
> > I'm surprised nobody mentioned it until Todd did, but the developer
> can have
> > quite a lot to do with the appearance of the grain.  If you want
> softer grain, use
> > a developer with silver solvent in it, such as D76, or D76 1 to 1
> for even softer
> > grain.  HC has no such solvent, which gives it higher acutance, and
> is why I
> > like it.  But if you're concerned about grain, that's the first
> thing you can do,
> > and it doesn't involve buying a new scanner.
> >
> > Or what about using the newer flat-grain technology films, such as
> TMax or
> > Delta? There is less presence of grain in them, but of course they
> have
> > different characteristics than Tri-X.  Or maybe move to a slower
> film, which
> > inherently has smaller grain.
> >
>
> Phil.
> Thanks.
>
>  I don't mind grain per se and I've used this film/dev for a long
> while with good result- now I guess I'm wanting it to serve me in the
> digital as well as silver worlds :-)
>
> But it seems the grain is mushy not sharp/crisp. So maybe a silver
> solvent dev likeD76 is the wrong way to go ?
> Frank
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> 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:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

"Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@t...> wrote:
> It could be you are expecting more from the scanner than it can 
give. Are
> you using the glass holder? I used to mount all my 35mm negs in 
anti newton
> slide holders to ensure flatness.
> 
> Julian

No I dont have the glass holder - actually i didn't even know there 
was one - It's a rental unit that I get from time to time when the 
negs pile up. Unfortunatelly purchasing one is out of reach.
Is there a way of "making" a glass holder as I have a bit of anti 
newton glass from my enlarger days ?
Frank

Hi Frank,

as to developers, try a roll or two in Rodinal, it will be anything 
but mushy unless your scanner doesn't focus well... and if that's the 
case the high accutance of this developer will help. It's available 
here in 125ml bottles (I don't know about stateside), and is 
inexpensive, so you won't be out much.

I'm afraid that I forgot the format you're working, Julian's comments 
about AN glass could work two ways, if you're using a flatbed, put 
the film emulsion side down and cover with a piece of AN glass, if 
you're working with 35mm in a dedicated film scanner, mount the 
frames in AN glass slide mounts.

>  I don't mind grain per se and I've used this film/dev for a long 
> while with good result- now I guess I'm wanting it to serve me in the 
> digital as well as silver worlds :-) 
> 
> But it seems the grain is mushy not sharp/crisp. So maybe a silver 
> solvent dev likeD76 is the wrong way to go ?


-- 
Tim Spragens

http://www.borderless-photos.de
http://www.borderless-photos.com

Thanks to all for responding to my film/dev post - I will have to 
spend a little time digesting all the indications given.

Meanwhile, I suspect that the scanner (Sprintscan 120) may possibly 
have a defective focus mechanism ? Not sure but it's a possibility, 
especially since it's a rental unit and I dont know who may have 
rented it and bumped it out of allignment or whatever?

Othr than having the same neg scanned on another machine, is there 
any way to verify that the focus is working correctly ?

Frank











--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Alan Zinn <AZinn@n...> 
wrote:
> At 07:31 PM 8/5/2002 +0100, you wrote:
> >Hi Frank,
> >
> >as to developers, try a roll or two in Rodinal, it will be 
anything 
> >but mushy unless your scanner doesn't focus well... and if that's 
the 
> >case the high accutance of this developer will help. It's 
available 
> >here in 125ml bottles (I don't know about stateside), and is 
> >inexpensive, so you won't be out much.
> >
> >I'm afraid that I forgot the format you're working, Julian's 
comments 
> >about AN glass could work two ways, if you're using a flatbed, put 
> >the film emulsion side down and cover with a piece of AN glass, if 
> >you're working with 35mm in a dedicated film scanner, mount the 
> >frames in AN glass slide mounts.
> >
> >>  I don't mind grain per se and I've used this film/dev for a 
long 
> >> while with good result- now I guess I'm wanting it to serve me 
in the 
> >> digital as well as silver worlds :-) 
> >> 
> >> But it seems the grain is mushy not sharp/crisp. So maybe a 
silver 
> >> solvent dev likeD76 is the wrong way to go ?
> >
> >
> >-- 
> >Tim Spragens
> >
> >http://www.borderless-photos.de
> >http://www.borderless-photos.com
> >
> 
> Frank,
> 
> Grain is too fine for the scanner to reproduce as "natural" grain so
> whatever developer you use may not make a diference. The scanner 
software
> creates a grain-like texture that can range from soft to coarse. 
That is not
> to say that you will not see a difference among developers. I would
> experiment with the scanner settings and PS before switching to a 
new
> developer. You want to get good at scanning your existing HC110 
negs no?

> 
> AZ
> 
> Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
> http://www.panoramacamera.us
>          or
> keyword.com lookaround

Although I mostly use Plus-X I have tried this with Tri-X with good 
results as far as "smoother" apparent grain.

Develop in FG-7 1:15 but instead of water use a 9% solution of Sodium 
Sulfite. I would have to look at my notes for developing times.

I would also comment that  All the scanning processes I've tried do tend 
to accentuate the grain of films, and I've tried quite a few, I currently
own a SS4000 and an Optronics Drum Scanner.

Any developing scheme that reduces aparent grain is useful if that is 
the desired outcome. Limiting density of the neg. helps capturing highlight
detail, but too flat and/ or thin a neg will cause furthur exageration 
of apparent grain in a scan.

J.Z.

on 8/5/02 5:41 PM, frankg_photo wrote:

> Othr than having the same neg scanned on another machine, is there
> any way to verify that the focus is working correctly ?

Take a dud neg, or even a piece from the tail of a processes roll, take a
needle and scratch an X into the emulsion (corner to corner across a film
"frame") then scan that. It should give some idea of how sharp your scan is.

BTW, Are sure to look at your scans at good screen resolutions? Odd number
magnifications (i.e., 33%, 67%, etc) give very poor renderings. 100% is
truest, then 50%, and so on down. (more or less anyway).

Todd

At 07:31 PM 8/5/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi Frank,
>
>as to developers, try a roll or two in Rodinal, it will be anything 
>but mushy unless your scanner doesn't focus well... and if that's the 
>case the high accutance of this developer will help. It's available 
>here in 125ml bottles (I don't know about stateside), and is 
>inexpensive, so you won't be out much.
>
>I'm afraid that I forgot the format you're working, Julian's comments 
>about AN glass could work two ways, if you're using a flatbed, put 
>the film emulsion side down and cover with a piece of AN glass, if 
>you're working with 35mm in a dedicated film scanner, mount the 
>frames in AN glass slide mounts.
>
>>  I don't mind grain per se and I've used this film/dev for a long 
>> while with good result- now I guess I'm wanting it to serve me in the 
>> digital as well as silver worlds :-) 
>> 
>> But it seems the grain is mushy not sharp/crisp. So maybe a silver 
>> solvent dev likeD76 is the wrong way to go ?
>
>
>-- 
>Tim Spragens
>
>http://www.borderless-photos.de
>http://www.borderless-photos.com
>

Frank,

Grain is too fine for the scanner to reproduce as "natural" grain so
whatever developer you use may not make a diference. The scanner software
creates a grain-like texture that can range from soft to coarse. That is not
to say that you will not see a difference among developers. I would
experiment with the scanner settings and PS before switching to a new
developer. You want to get good at scanning your existing HC110 negs no?

AZ

Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
http://www.panoramacamera.us
         or
keyword.com lookaround

sure to look at your scans at good screen resolutions? Odd number
> magnifications (i.e., 33%, 67%, etc) give very poor renderings. 
100% is
> truest, then 50%, and so on down. (more or less anyway).
> 
> Todd

Yes, I'm looking at 100% - that's what' upsetting me :-)
Frank