Digital BW, The Print

I haven't looked into this for some time, and since things change weekly,
I'm wondering whether it is now possible to buy a desktop scanner capable of
getting the results once associated only with professional scans.  Or is
there still a huge leap in quality between what can be produced at home, and
what West Coast Imaging can produce with their Tango Drum Scanner?

I recognize that this question depends very much upon film format and degree
of enlargement.  I do, however, shoot medium format and 4x5 as well as 35mm,
and is it perhaps possible, with an affordable flatbed, to get professional
results out of these larger images?

West Coast Imaging argues that you should have them do your scanning *and*
your printing, for the best results.  Clearly most people here feel that
they can get the prints they require out of their personal Epson.  Is
scanning also at this level?

(This is not an implied criticism of West Coast, who are by all accounts one
of the very best shops.  Simply wondering whether the dedicated individual
can replicated these results.)

On 10/9/02 3:23 PM, "Douglas Anthony Cooper" <douglas@...> wrote:

> (This is not an implied criticism of West Coast, who are by all accounts one
> of the very best shops.  Simply wondering whether the dedicated individual
> can replicated these results.)


You are never going to get the same quality from an Epson flatbed as you are
from a tango.  At least not with today's gear.  You're comparing apples and
oranges.  A more reasonable comparison might be howtek vs tango.  My howtek
does a MUCH better job than my Nikon 8000 or Sprintscan 120 ever could and
those a better still than the inexpensive Epson flatbeds.  A good 4x5 scan
from a drum is a thing to behold...

Lawrence
----------------------------------
Lawrence W. Smith Photography
http://www.lwsphoto.com
lsmith@...
----------------------------------

Douglas,

Flatbeds have come a long way in the last few years and I have seen a number
of great prints made from flatbeds scans. George DeWoolfe had nice article
on using the Epson 1640 and wet mounting negs in View Camera magazine a year
or so ago. I did a comparison between my Epson 2450 flatbed, a  Polaroid
SS120 and a Howtek D4000 drum scanner. In doing comparisons there is a huge
jump in quality in moving from the Epson up to the Polaroid. The several
thousand dollar price difference seems somewhat legitimate. In going from
the Polaroid 120 to the Howtek there is improvement but not nearly so
dramatic. As you go up the price and quality ladder you spend more and more
for less and less improvement.

The real bind, and the one I found myself in, was the need to cover 35mm
through 4x5. If all you needed to scan was 35mm and MF then I would go with
one of the MF film scanners unless money is not an object. The flatbeds can
work quite well for scanning 4x5 especially something like the Epson 1680.
The problem is that in order to do all your negs you will really need two
scanners. A film scanner and a flatbed. That is the route I initially took.
I first bought a Linoscan 1400 (1200ppi flatbed) for 4x5 and MF, and a
Polaroid SS4000  for 35mm. I quickly found that the Linoscan was not good
enough for MF. So I sold the SS4000 and bought the SS120 for both my 35mm
and 6x7 negs. It does a very good job of both.

I did some 4x5 scanning on the Linoscan 1400 but I really wasn't satisfied
when comparing the quality to the SS120. So I started looking at the
Polaroid SS45U 4x5 film scanner which sells for about $5,000. Some
investigation found that I could get a used drum scanner for the same amount
of money and I went for that. It makes great scans but it is a little nervy
spending that kind of money for a 10 year old piece of equipment from a
company that no longer exists. It also weighs 150 lbs, has a 2' by 3'
footprint and is rather noisy if it is in the same room with you. Of course
if I had simply bought the Howtek first I would have saved myself a lot of
money.

Nothing against West Coast Imaging but I would always want to do my own
scans even if they were on a lower quality scanner. This is a very important
step in the digital printing process and I want full control of it. Cost is
a factor here too. They are charging $80 for a 100MB scan. I am doing 4x5
4000ppi, 500+MB scans on the Howtek and resampling down to 2400ppi to a file
size around 200MB. I don't know what that would cost but the scanning
charges would pay for a lot of nice equipment pretty quick.

Hard choices. Keep asking questions and maybe you can figure out which way
to jump.

Martin Wesley

http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Anthony Cooper" <douglas@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:23 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: The State of Personal Scanner Technology


>
> I haven't looked into this for some time, and since things change weekly,
> I'm wondering whether it is now possible to buy a desktop scanner capable
of
> getting the results once associated only with professional scans.  Or is
> there still a huge leap in quality between what can be produced at home,
and
> what West Coast Imaging can produce with their Tango Drum Scanner?
>
> I recognize that this question depends very much upon film format and
degree
> of enlargement.  I do, however, shoot medium format and 4x5 as well as
35mm,
> and is it perhaps possible, with an affordable flatbed, to get
professional
> results out of these larger images?
>
> West Coast Imaging argues that you should have them do your scanning *and*
> your printing, for the best results.  Clearly most people here feel that
> they can get the prints they require out of their personal Epson.  Is
> scanning also at this level?
>
> (This is not an implied criticism of West Coast, who are by all accounts
one
> of the very best shops.  Simply wondering whether the dedicated individual
> can replicated these results.)
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

The best desktop units are the Imacon line, starting at $5grand. You have to figure how many scans a year you do vs. how much you would pay to Westcoast for those scans 
including shipping,  and see if the cost of having the Imacon is justified along with the convience of having it right there. There is something to be said about outsourcing, you can 
be free to go out and shoot, and have the scans "done for you" without the learning curve and feeling "chained" to your desktop doing scans. It all depends what types of tasks 
give you satisfaction. The Tango is the best, but at what level will you notice the Imacon start to look not as good? For inkjet printing at anysize, the Imacons will be more than 
adequate ( Assuming it is being operated properly. Scanning is a whole 'nother artform, and that's where Westcoast is comming from). For a 16x20 coffetable book on  Glen 
Canyon printed in Japan on Consolidated Centura Gloss with a 375 line screen, you may see the benefits of a tango scan. If you are scanning 35mm, and will be making huge 
prints on the Epson 10000, then you really have one choice- a Tango scan mounted with Kami fluid on the drum. That film is just too small to get a really good scan on anything 
less.

> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:58:06 -0000
> From: "John Luke" <jjlphoto@...>
> 
[snip]
> If you are scanning 35mm, and will
> be making huge 
> prints on the Epson 10000, then you really have one choice- a Tango scan
> mounted with Kami fluid on the drum. That film is just too small to get a
> really good scan on anything
> less. 
> 
IMO, if you are regularly attempting to push 35mm beyond its limits (e.g.,
huge prints), no amount of drum scanning, prayer or voodoo magic can help
you. You should really be skipping the drum scans and putting that money
toward a film format that CAN handle the gigantic prints.

As long as you respect the inherent limits of the film format and are able
to get a decent exposure on film, I see no need to ever get a 35mm drum scan
vs. what you can get with one of the 4000dpi dedicated film scanners and a
reasonably talented operator. Unless you just have some excess money you
need to get rid of, in which case feel free to give me a call.... ;-)

Doug

On 10/10/02 10:36 AM, "Doug I." <doug@...> wrote:

> As long as you respect the inherent limits of the film format and are able
> to get a decent exposure on film, I see no need to ever get a 35mm drum scan
> vs. what you can get with one of the 4000dpi dedicated film scanners and a
> reasonably talented operator. Unless you just have some excess money you
> need to get rid of, in which case feel free to give me a call.... ;-)
> 
> Doug


A drum scan is going to pull more detail out the densest areas of the film
than one of the 4000 dpi dedicated film scanners.  It's also going to have
less noise.  Whether these things are important to your final output or not
is the issue.

Lawrence


----------------------------------
Lawrence W. Smith Photography
http://www.lwsphoto.com
lsmith@...
----------------------------------

> [snip]
> > If you are scanning 35mm, and will
> > be making huge
> > prints on the Epson 10000, then you really have one choice- a Tango scan
> > mounted with Kami fluid on the drum. That film is just too
> small to get a
> > really good scan on anything
> > less.
> >
> IMO, if you are regularly attempting to push 35mm beyond its limits (e.g.,
> huge prints), no amount of drum scanning, prayer or voodoo magic can help
> you. You should really be skipping the drum scans and putting that money
> toward a film format that CAN handle the gigantic prints.
>
> As long as you respect the inherent limits of the film format and are able
> to get a decent exposure on film, I see no need to ever get a
> 35mm drum scan
> vs. what you can get with one of the 4000dpi dedicated film scanners and a
> reasonably talented operator. Unless you just have some excess money you
> need to get rid of, in which case feel free to give me a call.... ;-)
>
> Doug

Doug,

Though I agree with you completely in principle, there are ways of getting
amazing results from 35mm, and one is to use a tripod.  You won't get better
than 40lp/mm from hand held no matter how hard you try...and that's usually
the killer, more so than simply film grain.  The obvious other, is to use
the best films you can, with careful exposure and development.  I get some
absolutely amazing results from Delta 100 and Plus-X from 35mm film.

Austin

On 10/10/02 9:08 AM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:

>> [snip]
>>> If you are scanning 35mm, and will
>>> be making huge
>>> prints on the Epson 10000, then you really have one choice- a Tango scan
>>> mounted with Kami fluid on the drum. That film is just too
>> small to get a
>>> really good scan on anything
>>> less.
>>> 
>> IMO, if you are regularly attempting to push 35mm beyond its limits (e.g.,
>> huge prints), no amount of drum scanning, prayer or voodoo magic can help
>> you. You should really be skipping the drum scans and putting that money
>> toward a film format that CAN handle the gigantic prints.
>> 
>> As long as you respect the inherent limits of the film format and are able
>> to get a decent exposure on film, I see no need to ever get a
>> 35mm drum scan
>> vs. what you can get with one of the 4000dpi dedicated film scanners and a
>> reasonably talented operator. Unless you just have some excess money you
>> need to get rid of, in which case feel free to give me a call.... ;-)
>> 
>> Doug
> 
> Doug,
> 
> Though I agree with you completely in principle, there are ways of getting
> amazing results from 35mm, and one is to use a tripod.  You won't get better
> than 40lp/mm from hand held no matter how hard you try...and that's usually
> the killer, more so than simply film grain.  The obvious other, is to use
> the best films you can, with careful exposure and development.  I get some
> absolutely amazing results from Delta 100 and Plus-X from 35mm film.
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
Absolutely, and consider using a rangefinder instead of an SLR (either 35 or
medium format).  I've recently started shooting a Mamiya 7II for some
landscape work.  Its really incredible what you can get handheld without a
giant mirror to rattle the works.  The mamiya 6x7 negs are just begging for
something bigger than my 7000.

Robert

On 10/10/02 9:08 AM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:

> I get some
> absolutely amazing results from Delta 100 and Plus-X from 35mm film.
> 
> Austin

Austin,

Can you remind me how you are shooting and developing your Delta 100.  I've
recently been shooting Delta 400 pulled to 250 with good success...but am
still looking for a good 100ASA option.  I recently tried some Fuji Neopan
Acros 100 which is a new film, shot at 64 and cooked in Microdol 1-1 for  10
min, but wasn't really happy with it...but have seen some nice results in
the recent past.

Robert

> > I get some
> > absolutely amazing results from Delta 100 and Plus-X from 35mm film.
> >
> > Austin
>
> Austin,
>
> Can you remind me how you are shooting and developing your Delta
> 100.

Hi Robert,

I shoot using a camera ;-), for 35mm, typically a Contax RTS III or a Leica
M6...and appropriate Zeiss or Leica lense...  I develop in D-76 1:1 in a
Jobo ATL-1500.  I have been ecstatic with D-76 1:1 for low grain noise.

The reason I like the Leica and Contax is they are HEAVY, and this reduces
the vibration and camera movement, and with proper handholding techniques, I
can get very sharp pictures, even at low shutter speeds.

Regards,

Austin

On 10/10/02 10:10 AM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:

> I shoot using a camera ;-), for 35mm, typically a Contax RTS III or a Leica
> M6...and appropriate Zeiss or Leica lense...  I develop in D-76 1:1 in a
> Jobo ATL-1500.  I have been ecstatic with D-76 1:1 for low grain noise.

Thanks, D-76 1:1 has been what I've been getting good results with using the
Delta 400.  Do you shoot the Delta 100 at 100...or lower?  How about cook
time...do you pull it out early for scanning?

Robert

Robert,

Look into Agfa 100(APX100) developed in Rodinal 1:75 or 1:100.  Smooth as
silk and very forgiving on highlights.  I have been using it in 120 for
years.  A lot of people use it for 35mm and swear by it.

There is a lot of Rodinal experts on the unblinkingeye.com.

Craig
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.craigsterling.com  "Photography with a Sense of Place"

> From: Robert Morrison <rmorrison@...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:43:19 -0700
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Film for scanning was Re: The State of Personal Scanner
> Technology
> 
> On 10/10/02 9:08 AM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:
> 
>> I get some
>> absolutely amazing results from Delta 100 and Plus-X from 35mm film.
>> 
>> Austin
> 
> Austin,
> 
> Can you remind me how you are shooting and developing your Delta 100.  I've
> recently been shooting Delta 400 pulled to 250 with good success...but am
> still looking for a good 100ASA option.  I recently tried some Fuji Neopan
> Acros 100 which is a new film, shot at 64 and cooked in Microdol 1-1 for  10
> min, but wasn't really happy with it...but have seen some nice results in
> the recent past.
> 
> Robert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/
>

> > I shoot using a camera ;-), for 35mm, typically a Contax RTS
> III or a Leica
> > M6...and appropriate Zeiss or Leica lense...  I develop in D-76 1:1 in a
> > Jobo ATL-1500.  I have been ecstatic with D-76 1:1 for low grain noise.
>
> Thanks, D-76 1:1 has been what I've been getting good results
> with using the
> Delta 400.  Do you shoot the Delta 100 at 100...or lower?  How about cook
> time...do you pull it out early for scanning?

Hi Robert,

I typically rate film for it's rating, so 100 at 100, 400 at 400...and
adjust my developing times so I get exactly what I want.

I don't know if I pull it out early or not, as I experiment to get my own
times.  I process at 75, and for Delta 100, I develop for 8 minutes D-76
1:1.

Regards,

Austin

You know what? I've been using Kodak Plus X, Tri X, T-max 100 and 400,
with Rodinal, T-max and D 76. I ended up with the age old combination of
Tri X and D 76 1 + 1. Couldn't work with T-max developer, Rodinal (maybe
I didn't use it properly) worked to contrasty and strong, and D 76 1 + 1
never lets me down. 
FWIW,
Ton Guiking

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Craig Sterling [mailto:craig@...] 
> Verzonden: donderdag 10 oktober 2002 20:21
> Aan: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Onderwerp: Re: [Digital BW] Film for scanning was Re: The 
> State of PersonalScanner Technology
> 
> 
> Robert,
> 
> Look into Agfa 100(APX100) developed in Rodinal 1:75 or 
> 1:100.  Smooth as silk and very forgiving on highlights.  I 
> have been using it in 120 for years.  A lot of people use it 
> for 35mm and swear by it.
> 
> There is a lot of Rodinal experts on the unblinkingeye.com.
> 
> Craig
> -----------------------------------------------------
> http://www.craigsterling.com  "Photography with a Sense of Place"
> 
> 
> > From: Robert Morrison <rmorrison@...>
> > Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:43:19 -0700
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Film for scanning was Re: The State 
> of Personal 
> > Scanner Technology
> > 
> > On 10/10/02 9:08 AM, "Austin Franklin" 
> <darkroom@...> wrote:
> > 
> >> I get some
> >> absolutely amazing results from Delta 100 and Plus-X from 
> 35mm film.
> >> 
> >> Austin
> > 
> > Austin,
> > 
> > Can you remind me how you are shooting and developing your 
> Delta 100.  
> > I've recently been shooting Delta 400 pulled to 250 with good 
> > success...but am still looking for a good 100ASA option.  I 
> recently 
> > tried some Fuji Neopan Acros 100 which is a new film, shot 
> at 64 and 
> > cooked in Microdol 1-1 for  10 min, but wasn't really happy with 
> > it...but have seen some nice results in the recent past.
> > 
> > Robert
> > 
> > 
>

Robert:
Amen. I'm scanning  my Mamiya 7ii images on an Imacon 848 and printing (40x60) on the EP10000archival. Magnificent quality (this from a long-time large format user)
Stan

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Robert Morrison 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 12:37 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: The State of Personal Scanner Technology


  On 10/10/02 9:08 AM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:

  >> [snip]
  >>> If you are scanning 35mm, and will
  >>> be making huge
  >>> prints on the Epson 10000, then you really have one choice- a Tango scan
  >>> mounted with Kami fluid on the drum. That film is just too
  >> small to get a
  >>> really good scan on anything
  >>> less.
  >>> 
  >> IMO, if you are regularly attempting to push 35mm beyond its limits (e.g.,
  >> huge prints), no amount of drum scanning, prayer or voodoo magic can help
  >> you. You should really be skipping the drum scans and putting that money
  >> toward a film format that CAN handle the gigantic prints.
  >> 
  >> As long as you respect the inherent limits of the film format and are able
  >> to get a decent exposure on film, I see no need to ever get a
  >> 35mm drum scan
  >> vs. what you can get with one of the 4000dpi dedicated film scanners and a
  >> reasonably talented operator. Unless you just have some excess money you
  >> need to get rid of, in which case feel free to give me a call.... ;-)
  >> 
  >> Doug
  > 
  > Doug,
  > 
  > Though I agree with you completely in principle, there are ways of getting
  > amazing results from 35mm, and one is to use a tripod.  You won't get better
  > than 40lp/mm from hand held no matter how hard you try...and that's usually
  > the killer, more so than simply film grain.  The obvious other, is to use
  > the best films you can, with careful exposure and development.  I get some
  > absolutely amazing results from Delta 100 and Plus-X from 35mm film.
  > 
  > Austin
  > 
  > 
  Absolutely, and consider using a rangefinder instead of an SLR (either 35 or
  medium format).  I've recently started shooting a Mamiya 7II for some
  landscape work.  Its really incredible what you can get handheld without a
  giant mirror to rattle the works.  The mamiya 6x7 negs are just begging for
  something bigger than my 7000.

  Robert



        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 &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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

I used to use the Mamiya RB 67 almost exclusively. I'd set it on a 
tripod and operate it in the "mirror up" mode using a cable release most 
of the time. I normally used PanX and the pictures are alsolutely 
something to behold. After not doing much the past few years and getting 
back into photography seriously the past year or so, I find myself not 
using the RB much - less all the time - since when I do I miss the 
adjustments on my 4x5. The more I use the 4x5 the less I want to use the 
RB. In fact it's on Ebay right now. No use in it collecting dust since 
it still takes wonderful prictures. From my experience 2400 dpi scans on 
the 2450 of 4x5 give very good images to work with.

Truman

Shire,Stanley wrote:

> Robert:
> Amen. I'm scanning  my Mamiya 7ii images on an Imacon 848 and printing 
> (40x60) on the EP10000archival. Magnificent quality (this from a 
> long-time large format user)
> Stan

Ain't there any zonies left out there? I was taught to set the asa (for use in an individual camera) of a B&W film to the value that produces a densitiy of 0.08 to 0.1 above film base & fog. Then to set the development time to that which will produce a zone VIII print value from a zone VIII placement. This approach usually produces very printable negatives except when conditions require N+ or N- development (not too common an occurence in my limited experience).

Roger  

 -----Original Message-----
From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 1:25 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Film for scanning was Re: The State of PersonalScanner Technology


  > > I shoot using a camera ;-), for 35mm, typically a Contax RTS
  > III or a Leica
  > > M6...and appropriate Zeiss or Leica lense...  I develop in D-76 1:1 in a
  > > Jobo ATL-1500.  I have been ecstatic with D-76 1:1 for low grain noise.
  >
  > Thanks, D-76 1:1 has been what I've been getting good results
  > with using the
  > Delta 400.  Do you shoot the Delta 100 at 100...or lower?  How about cook
  > time...do you pull it out early for scanning?

  Hi Robert,

  I typically rate film for it's rating, so 100 at 100, 400 at 400...and
  adjust my developing times so I get exactly what I want.

  I don't know if I pull it out early or not, as I experiment to get my own
  times.  I process at 75, and for Delta 100, I develop for 8 minutes D-76
  1:1.

  Regards,

  Austin


        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]

I've always done this. I've been experimenting a bit lately. If a 
scanner is in the loop and it is a 16 bit scanner, I have been making 
sure zone 3 has good detail and have been developing a "bit soft" to 
make sure I have good highlights. By using 16 bits in the scaning 
process you have sufficient dynamic range to expand the highlights once 
in the computer. This seems to give very nice highlight detail and 
minimizies the chance of blowing out a the highlights in the development 
process.

Any thoughts or feedback?

Truman

Roger L Sopher wrote:

> Ain't there any zonies left out there? I was taught to set the asa 
> (for use in an individual camera) of a B&W film to the value that 
> produces a densitiy of 0.08 to 0.1 above film base & fog. Then to set 
> the development time to that which will produce a zone VIII print 
> value from a zone VIII placement. This approach usually produces very 
> printable negatives except when conditions require N+ or N- 
> development (not too common an occurence in my limited experience).
>
> Roger 
>

Hi Truman,

To be honest, I have done all of my B&W film calibration work via a wet darkroom and a borrowed densitometer. I have gone on the assumption that a good printable negative will also scan well. As long as I do my part and develop absolutely consistently then the negatives are generally predictable (not always good images and worth printing, however). I usually place the highlight I can't do without on Zone VIII (with a spot meter) and let the other stuff fall where it may. Anything beyond zone VIII is usually a specular highlight of some sort with no useful information to be had from it.

Roger

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Truman Prevatt [mailto:tprevatt@...]
  Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 3:18 PM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Film for scanning was Re: The State of PersonalScanner Technology


  I've always done this. I've been experimenting a bit lately. If a 
  scanner is in the loop and it is a 16 bit scanner, I have been making 
  sure zone 3 has good detail and have been developing a "bit soft" to 
  make sure I have good highlights. By using 16 bits in the scaning 
  process you have sufficient dynamic range to expand the highlights once 
  in the computer. This seems to give very nice highlight detail and 
  minimizies the chance of blowing out a the highlights in the development 
  process.

  Any thoughts or feedback?

  Truman

  Roger L Sopher wrote:

  > Ain't there any zonies left out there? I was taught to set the asa 
  > (for use in an individual camera) of a B&W film to the value that 
  > produces a densitiy of 0.08 to 0.1 above film base & fog. Then to set 
  > the development time to that which will produce a zone VIII print 
  > value from a zone VIII placement. This approach usually produces very 
  > printable negatives except when conditions require N+ or N- 
  > development (not too common an occurence in my limited experience).
  >
  > Roger 
  >




        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]

That's basically the way I worked when I was printing silver prints. And 
it works quite well. But given the extra control one has when the image 
is in the digital form, it makes me wonder if compressing the negative a 
bit, scanning and processing in 16 bits would not give better results. I 
don't know yet. When I finally get off my duff and get a printer, I can 
test this a little better.

Truman

Roger L Sopher wrote:

> Hi Truman,
>
> To be honest, I have done all of my B&W film calibration work via a 
> wet darkroom and a borrowed densitometer. I have gone on the 
> assumption that a good printable negative will also scan well. As long 
> as I do my part and develop absolutely consistently then the negatives 
> are generally predictable (not always good images and worth printing, 
> however). I usually place the highlight I can't do without on Zone 
> VIII (with a spot meter) and let the other stuff fall where it may. 
> Anything beyond zone VIII is usually a specular highlight of some sort 
> with no useful information to be had from it.
>
> Roger

Hi Truman,

Typically, when you scan in high bit mode, the data only occupies a small
portion of the actual 16 bits, for example, values 876 to 2982.  You can see
this by taking a raw scan into PhotoShop, and checking the histogram.
Remember, the histogram is only an 8 bit histogram (upper 8 bits of the 16
bits), but the actual data will only occupy a small portion of the overall
values.

Also, because you are using 16 bit data, doesn't mean the data is actually
16 bits...most scanners are only 12 or 14 bits at best...

Regards,

Austin

> I've always done this. I've been experimenting a bit lately. If a
> scanner is in the loop and it is a 16 bit scanner, I have been making
> sure zone 3 has good detail and have been developing a "bit soft" to
> make sure I have good highlights. By using 16 bits in the scaning
> process you have sufficient dynamic range to expand the highlights once
> in the computer. This seems to give very nice highlight detail and
> minimizies the chance of blowing out a the highlights in the development
> process.
>
> Any thoughts or feedback?
>
> Truman
>
> Roger L Sopher wrote:
>
> > Ain't there any zonies left out there? I was taught to set the asa
> > (for use in an individual camera) of a B&W film to the value that
> > produces a densitiy of 0.08 to 0.1 above film base & fog. Then to set
> > the development time to that which will produce a zone VIII print
> > value from a zone VIII placement. This approach usually produces very
> > printable negatives except when conditions require N+ or N-
> > development (not too common an occurence in my limited experience).
> >
> > Roger
> >

Hi Roger,

Why do you believe there aren't?  I always shoot using "the Zone System"
(which means different things to different people) and compensation
development (if it's needed)...but I specifically cram all the tonality from
the scene into the film as best I can!

Austin

>
> Ain't there any zonies left out there? I was taught to set the
> asa (for use in an individual camera) of a B&W film to the value
> that produces a densitiy of 0.08 to 0.1 above film base & fog.
> Then to set the development time to that which will produce a
> zone VIII print value from a zone VIII placement. This approach
> usually produces very printable negatives except when conditions
> require N+ or N- development (not too common an occurence in my
> limited experience).
>
> Roger
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...]
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 1:25 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Film for scanning was Re: The State of
> PersonalScanner Technology
>
>
>   > > I shoot using a camera ;-), for 35mm, typically a Contax RTS
>   > III or a Leica
>   > > M6...and appropriate Zeiss or Leica lense...  I develop in
> D-76 1:1 in a
>   > > Jobo ATL-1500.  I have been ecstatic with D-76 1:1 for low
> grain noise.
>   >
>   > Thanks, D-76 1:1 has been what I've been getting good results
>   > with using the
>   > Delta 400.  Do you shoot the Delta 100 at 100...or lower?
> How about cook
>   > time...do you pull it out early for scanning?
>
>   Hi Robert,
>
>   I typically rate film for it's rating, so 100 at 100, 400 at 400...and
>   adjust my developing times so I get exactly what I want.
>
>   I don't know if I pull it out early or not, as I experiment to
> get my own
>   times.  I process at 75, and for Delta 100, I develop for 8 minutes D-76
>   1:1.
>
>   Regards,
>
>   Austin

> As long as you respect the inherent limits of the film format and are able
> to get a decent exposure on film, I see no need to ever get a 35mm drum scan
> vs. what you can get with one of the 4000dpi dedicated film scanners and a
> reasonably talented operator.


Is the Nikon 4000 state of the art?  Anything cheaper?  Essentially what
you're saying, as I understand it, is that for considerably less than two
grand I can the best setup available for 35mm lightroom work.  (I shoot
Leica and Contax, and have been known to use a tripod.)

Sorry for these neophytic questions...



Douglas Cooper
www.dysmedia.com

I believe that. Even the best digital recievers only use about 3/4s of 
the dynamic range. Even at that we are taking 11 or 12 bits. If you scan 
a 8 bits you probably get 6 bits dynamic range.

But 876 to 2982 in your example is 11 bits quantization and is much 
better than most photgraphic papers and inkjet printers are capable of 
separating. So I would think that compressing the max amout of detail 
into the dynamic range of the negative is still the way to go.

Truman

Austin Franklin wrote:

> Hi Truman,
>
> Typically, when you scan in high bit mode, the data only occupies a small
> portion of the actual 16 bits, for example, values 876 to 2982.  You 
> can see
> this by taking a raw scan into PhotoShop, and checking the histogram.
> Remember, the histogram is only an 8 bit histogram (upper 8 bits of the 16
> bits), but the actual data will only occupy a small portion of the overall
> values.
>
> Also, because you are using 16 bit data, doesn't mean the data is actually
> 16 bits...most scanners are only 12 or 14 bits at best...
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin

Hi Truman,

> I believe that. Even the best digital recievers only use about 3/4s of
> the dynamic range. Even at that we are taking 11 or 12 bits. If you scan
> a 8 bits you probably get 6 bits dynamic range.

Actually, if your scanner is, say a 12 bit scanner, and you scan at 8 bits,
it still scans at 12 bits...then takes the setpoints and curves you apply in
the scanner interface software, and gives you adjusted 8 bit files, that are
actually full 8 bits of dynamic range.

> But 876 to 2982 in your example is 11 bits quantization and is much
> better than most photgraphic papers and inkjet printers are capable of
> separating. So I would think that compressing the max amout of detail
> into the dynamic range of the negative is still the way to go.

Yes, you are absolutely correct!  That's one of the issues I have always had
with discussing things like this.  We humans can only see between 100 to 200
distinct tones, but...as has been mentioned, you really need some larger
number of tones to get smooth tonal transitions...though you can't
"distinguish" them, they are still visible, and give that "smoothness" to
the image.  Now, how many is debatable ;-)

Regards,

Austin

In audio not many people can determine the difference of a pure tone 
quantizied to 6 bits vs. 8 bits much less 16 bits. Actually I have heard 
claims that 4 bits is sufficient. A long time ago we did a study on 
this. We were remoting receivers back stateside and we were concerned 
with the minimum bandwidth we could get away with.

But if you now ask the question of a complex audio like a piece of music 
- while you might not be able to hear the quantization noise, you sure 
can tell the difference between Mozart played at 8 bits and Mozart 
played at 16 bits. The extra dynamic range shows up and by making the 
music much "fuller" and more robust - what ever the hell that means.

The same I think holds for our eyes when you consider a complex image 
like a B&W photograph.

Truman

Austin Franklin wrote:

> Hi Truman,
>
> > I believe that. Even the best digital recievers only use about 3/4s of
> > the dynamic range. Even at that we are taking 11 or 12 bits. If you scan
> > a 8 bits you probably get 6 bits dynamic range.
>
> Actually, if your scanner is, say a 12 bit scanner, and you scan at 8 
> bits,
> it still scans at 12 bits...then takes the setpoints and curves you 
> apply in
> the scanner interface software, and gives you adjusted 8 bit files, 
> that are
> actually full 8 bits of dynamic range.
>
> > But 876 to 2982 in your example is 11 bits quantization and is much
> > better than most photgraphic papers and inkjet printers are capable of
> > separating. So I would think that compressing the max amout of detail
> > into the dynamic range of the negative is still the way to go.
>
> Yes, you are absolutely correct!  That's one of the issues I have 
> always had
> with discussing things like this.  We humans can only see between 100 
> to 200
> distinct tones, but...as has been mentioned, you really need some larger
> number of tones to get smooth tonal transitions...though you can't
> "distinguish" them, they are still visible, and give that "smoothness" to
> the image.  Now, how many is debatable ;-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>

Douglas, I have a Nikon 4000 and like it a lot.  Although I haven't tried it, I'm confident it isn't as good as, say, a Tango scan.  But, it's good enough, $1,600 or so and fits on your desktop easily.  I haven't read prior posts on this, but I think the key is being able to live with the limitations of a 35mm neg, i.e., how much are you going to get out of it under the best circumstances?  I normally scan 4x5 or 8x10 negs, but I'm pretty amazed at the quality of fine grain film and the Nikon.  A good large format scan is always better, but it's a balance - I'm tired of lugging around the LF stuff, especially flying these days.  If you're OK with 35mm, I don't think you can miss with the Nikon

--Ken

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Douglas Anthony Cooper 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 6:32 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: The State of Personal Scanner Technology


  > As long as you respect the inherent limits of the film format and are able
  > to get a decent exposure on film, I see no need to ever get a 35mm drum scan
  > vs. what you can get with one of the 4000dpi dedicated film scanners and a
  > reasonably talented operator.


  Is the Nikon 4000 state of the art?  Anything cheaper?  Essentially what
  you're saying, as I understand it, is that for considerably less than two
  grand I can the best setup available for 35mm lightroom work.  (I shoot
  Leica and Contax, and have been known to use a tripod.)

  Sorry for these neophytic questions...



  Douglas Cooper
  www.dysmedia.com


        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]

Hi Austin,

I admit to being both an old fart and a traditionalist and insist that if you describe something, such as the Zone System, it has specific meaning. Different isn't the same. Most of the manipulations that I have seen described in an attempt at getting a "scanable" negative simply don't fit the criterea, at least as I was taught them. Just for argument sake I would suggest that if people having problems with their negatives were to go through the exercise of determining their "personal" ASA and development time they would have far fewer problems. Learning a film-developer combination until one can predict just how it will act under varying circumstances is a side benefit. Constantly changing this or that in search of the grail simply doesn't work and ends up in utter confusion. I used Tri-X and HC110 almost exclusively for 35, 120 and 4X5 and never felt I could blame my negatives for bad shots.

I don't know what you mean by cram. If the negative has zones I through VIII then it contains (under normal circumstances) all of the printable information that has information in it other than pure white (using wet print criterea). Zone IX is usually specular reflections and the like. There are times when a scene requires N+ or N- development but I usually find it isn't worth the effort to try to squeeze a good image out of bad lighting but there certainly are exceptions. We wouldn't have Moonrise over Hernandez New Mexico if AA only took ideal shots. For that matter, I don't know how a roll film photographer successfully can develop for N+ or N- exposures if there are normal exposures on the same roll. No problem with a view camera but with a 35mm or 120??

No question that a good scanner can reach into shadows and via manipulation bring out something that may be concealed in the murk. That doesn't necessarily make for a better image.

End of rant

Roger

 -----Original Message-----
From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 4:47 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Film for scanning was Re: The State of PersonalScanner Technology


  Hi Roger,

  Why do you believe there aren't?  I always shoot using "the Zone System"
  (which means different things to different people) and compensation
  development (if it's needed)...but I specifically cram all the tonality from
  the scene into the film as best I can!

  Austin


  >
  > Ain't there any zonies left out there? I was taught to set the
  > asa (for use in an individual camera) of a B&W film to the value
  > that produces a densitiy of 0.08 to 0.1 above film base & fog.
  > Then to set the development time to that which will produce a
  > zone VIII print value from a zone VIII placement. This approach
  > usually produces very printable negatives except when conditions
  > require N+ or N- development (not too common an occurence in my
  > limited experience).
  >
  > Roger


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

Zone Good: Soft enveloping light, light overcast.  Expose and develop normally.

Zone Bad: Dark, overcast, maybe a little drizzle.  Use a higher EI and add about 20% or so to development.

Zone Ugly: Sun, no clouds.  Use a lower EI and reduce development about 20% or more.

Zone Butt-ugly: Bright sun, squinting.  Go see a movie.

(not original with me, but I don't know to whom to attribute)

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Austin Franklin 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:46 PM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Film for scanning was Re: The State of PersonalScanner Technology


  Hi Roger,

  Why do you believe there aren't?  I always shoot using "the Zone System"
  (which means different things to different people) and compensation
  development (if it's needed)...but I specifically cram all the tonality from
  the scene into the film as best I can!

  Austin


  >
  > Ain't there any zonies left out there? I was taught to set the
  > asa (for use in an individual camera) of a B&W film to the value
  > that produces a densitiy of 0.08 to 0.1 above film base & fog.
  > Then to set the development time to that which will produce a
  > zone VIII print value from a zone VIII placement. This approach
  > usually produces very printable negatives except when conditions
  > require N+ or N- development (not too common an occurence in my
  > limited experience).
  >
  > Roger
  >
  >
  >  -----Original Message-----
  > From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...]
  > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 1:25 PM
  > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Film for scanning was Re: The State of
  > PersonalScanner Technology
  >
  >
  >   > > I shoot using a camera ;-), for 35mm, typically a Contax RTS
  >   > III or a Leica
  >   > > M6...and appropriate Zeiss or Leica lense...  I develop in
  > D-76 1:1 in a
  >   > > Jobo ATL-1500.  I have been ecstatic with D-76 1:1 for low
  > grain noise.
  >   >
  >   > Thanks, D-76 1:1 has been what I've been getting good results
  >   > with using the
  >   > Delta 400.  Do you shoot the Delta 100 at 100...or lower?
  > How about cook
  >   > time...do you pull it out early for scanning?
  >
  >   Hi Robert,
  >
  >   I typically rate film for it's rating, so 100 at 100, 400 at 400...and
  >   adjust my developing times so I get exactly what I want.
  >
  >   I don't know if I pull it out early or not, as I experiment to
  > get my own
  >   times.  I process at 75, and for Delta 100, I develop for 8 minutes D-76
  >   1:1.
  >
  >   Regards,
  >
  >   Austin


        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]

> If you're OK with 35mm, I don't think you can miss with the Nikon


I still shoot mostly 35mm, although I do spend a fair bit of time with a
Rolleiflex TLR.  I get a decent scan out of 6x6 transparencies on my fairly
ancient Epson 600U.  I say ancient, but the truth is it seems to work almost
as well as the 1640U, which is really only 800 dpi.

I take it the new Epson 2450 is a quantum leap in quality.  Is the 2450 with
medium or large format still relatively dire compared to a Tango scan?

Oh, and while we're talking equipment and film...  My latest contraption is
a poor man's panoramic:  a Super Graphic with a Horseman 6x12 back.  The
Horseman back is expensive, but you still end up with a kit which permits
almost full movements and interchangeable lenses, for a fraction of what a
dedicated panoramic would cost.  And you get both a viewfinder and a ground
glass.  You can even shoot handheld, if you make your own viewfinder mask.
(I tried this, with mixed results.)

As for films for scanning, I've had the most success with Provia F and
Scala, although my experience is pretty limited.


Douglas Cooper
www.dysmedia.com

Hi Roger,

> I admit to being both an old fart and a traditionalist and insist
> that if you describe something, such as the Zone System, it has
> specific meaning.

Yes, but someone may use different aspects of "The Zone System" as they
need.

> Just for argument sake I would suggest that if
> people having problems with their negatives were to go through
> the exercise of determining their "personal" ASA and development
> time they would have far fewer problems.

That is called "calibrating your system" and something I always do, as well
as encourage others to do as well.

> Learning a
> film-developer combination until one can predict just how it will
> act under varying circumstances is a side benefit. Constantly
> changing this or that in search of the grail simply doesn't work
> and ends up in utter confusion.

Hence my standardization of few films and two developers.

> I don't know what you mean by cram. ... There are times when a scene
> requires N+ or N- development but I usually find it isn't worth
> the effort to try to squeeze a good image out of bad lighting but
> there certainly are exceptions.

It's not always bad lighting.  When the exposure range of the scene exceeds
the exposure range the film can contain, you adjust your exposure and
development to "cram" those extra stops on the film.  It is not uncommon to
get 12 stops on standard B&W film.  This, of course, reduces the tonal
discernability, but since the film contains more tones than can be used,
this isn't an issue.

> I don't know how a roll film photographer successfully
> can develop for N+ or N- exposures if there are normal exposures
> on the same roll. No problem with a view camera but with a 35mm or 120??

I do it no problem.  I have multiple backs, one for normal, one for N+1 and
one for N-1 (or what ever).  I use a 205FCC Hasselblad, which has a built-in
Zone compensation metering system.

> No question that a good scanner can reach into shadows and via
> manipulation bring out something that may be concealed in the
> murk. That doesn't necessarily make for a better image.

Of course not, but for me it more than not does.

Regards,

Austin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Truman Prevatt" <tprevatt@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Film for scanning was Re: The State of
PersonalScanner Technology


> That's basically the way I worked when I was printing silver prints. And
> it works quite well. But given the extra control one has when the image
> is in the digital form, it makes me wonder if compressing the negative a
> bit, scanning and processing in 16 bits would not give better results. I
> don't know yet. When I finally get off my duff and get a printer, I can
> test this a little better.
>

Truman,

My thoughts were running parallel to yours on development but I recently
read that scanners can read some pretty high densities. Epson 1640 - 2.6,
Nikon 8000 - 2.8, Imacon Flextight III - 2.7, Howtek HR8000 - 3.3, Howtek
D4500 - 3.5. From Ansel Adams, The Negative, he puts Zone X densities of a
negative in the 1.5 to 2.2 range with plus developments rising to 2.5 and
minus developments falling to 1.0. So it would appear that scanners have the
capability to handle the highlights in normally developed negatives.

However it is not just density but the fact that film starts to "block up"
due to the vigorous crystal formation in the more highly exposed portions of
the negative resulting in a loss of sharpness and detail.

On the other end of the scale the old "0.10 + Base Film + Fog" rule may not
apply since scanners can reach down much lower and extract usable info. I
have heard 0.02 quoted as the limit. You also have the ability to expand the
density range when you scan. This suggests that shifting the range down on
film may then make sense. A little less exposure and development knowing you
can get more out of the shadows and bring your maximum Zone (VIII, IX,
whatever you use) down a bit to increase detail in the highlights.


Martin Wesley

http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



>
> Roger L Sopher wrote:
>
> > Hi Truman,
> >
> > To be honest, I have done all of my B&W film calibration work via a
> > wet darkroom and a borrowed densitometer. I have gone on the
> > assumption that a good printable negative will also scan well. As long
> > as I do my part and develop absolutely consistently then the negatives
> > are generally predictable (not always good images and worth printing,
> > however). I usually place the highlight I can't do without on Zone
> > VIII (with a spot meter) and let the other stuff fall where it may.
> > Anything beyond zone VIII is usually a specular highlight of some sort
> > with no useful information to be had from it.
> >
> > Roger
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

Hi Austin,

So far as what the Zone system is or is not we will have to agree to disagree. I will, however, restate that different is not the same....

Certainly having a stable of backs for a Hassy would give you the ability to have an N+1, N+2 back etc. How do you do that with your Contax or Leica :-)

Your description of expansion and contraction are valid, however, the thing that generally requires one to use them is less than optimal lighting of a scene and the result may not produce a negative that is a keeper. I generally found that after proofing I ended up discarding a large percentage of the negatives since they were not worth the time, effort and expense to try and  produce a fine print.  

You, obviously, understand the need for consistancy. However, there are more than a few photographers that are constantly changing film, developer, etc etc in a forlorn search for perfection rather than mastering one or two combinations. 

Different problems require different solutions. The B&W film and developers I used for artsy stuff was very different from what I used for photomicrography. For art I used tri-x, for photomicrography I used techpan. But I knew what each was capable of. 

There is still enough of the professor in me that I enjoy a good argument. Fun discussion.

Roger

 -----Original Message-----
From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 7:12 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Zone System, was: Film for scanning was Re: The State of PersonalScanner Technology







        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]

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

From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:03 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Film for scanning was Re: The State of
PersonalScanner Technology

(snip)


> We humans can only see between 100 to 200
> distinct tones, but...as has been mentioned, you really need some larger
> number of tones to get smooth tonal transitions...though you can't
> "distinguish" them, they are still visible, and give that "smoothness" to
> the image.

Austin,

At least you finally agree you need more "steps" than the range divided my
the minimum discernable difference. You are making progress. <<G>> (Sorry.
Couldn't resist.)

>  Now, how many is debatable ;-)

I'll sit this round out <G> but if someone is looking for a doctor thesis
topic I am sure a value or range of values could be arrived at through
scientific investigation.

Martin Wesley
http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html

At some point the film response to light goes nonlinear which results in 
the "toe" and the "shoulder". My initial thoughts - yet to be tested end 
to end without a good printer - was if you kept the image mostly within 
the linear portion of the film response you could expand it to get both 
shadow detail and hightlight detail.

I think if you use film and a scanner there is another calibration step 
to the zone system - camera, film, developer and scanner.

Truman

Martin Wesley wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Truman Prevatt" <tprevatt@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Film for scanning was Re: The State of
> PersonalScanner Technology
>
>
> > That's basically the way I worked when I was printing silver prints. And
> > it works quite well. But given the extra control one has when the image
> > is in the digital form, it makes me wonder if compressing the negative a
> > bit, scanning and processing in 16 bits would not give better results. I
> > don't know yet. When I finally get off my duff and get a printer, I can
> > test this a little better.
> >
>
> Truman,
>
> My thoughts were running parallel to yours on development but I recently
> read that scanners can read some pretty high densities. Epson 1640 - 2.6,
> Nikon 8000 - 2.8, Imacon Flextight III - 2.7, Howtek HR8000 - 3.3, Howtek
> D4500 - 3.5. From Ansel Adams, The Negative, he puts Zone X densities of a
> negative in the 1.5 to 2.2 range with plus developments rising to 2.5 and
> minus developments falling to 1.0. So it would appear that scanners 
> have the
> capability to handle the highlights in normally developed negatives.
>
> However it is not just density but the fact that film starts to "block up"
> due to the vigorous crystal formation in the more highly exposed 
> portions of
> the negative resulting in a loss of sharpness and detail.
>
> On the other end of the scale the old "0.10 + Base Film + Fog" rule 
> may not
> apply since scanners can reach down much lower and extract usable info. I
> have heard 0.02 quoted as the limit. You also have the ability to 
> expand the
> density range when you scan. This suggests that shifting the range down on
> film may then make sense. A little less exposure and development 
> knowing you
> can get more out of the shadows and bring your maximum Zone (VIII, IX,
> whatever you use) down a bit to increase detail in the highlights.
>
>
> Martin Wesley
>
> http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
>
>
>
> >
> > Roger L Sopher wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Truman,
> > >
> > > To be honest, I have done all of my B&W film calibration work via a
> > > wet darkroom and a borrowed densitometer. I have gone on the
> > > assumption that a good printable negative will also scan well. As long
> > > as I do my part and develop absolutely consistently then the negatives
> > > are generally predictable (not always good images and worth printing,
> > > however). I usually place the highlight I can't do without on Zone
> > > VIII (with a spot meter) and let the other stuff fall where it may.
> > > Anything beyond zone VIII is usually a specular highlight of some sort
> > > with no useful information to be had from it.
> > >
> > > Roger
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=212804.2460941.3878106.2225242/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182:HM/A=810327/R=0/*http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info?.refer=blrecs> 
>
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=212804.2460941.3878106.2225242/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182:HM/A=810327/R=1/*http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info?.refer=blrecs> 
>
>
>
> 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service 
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.




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

Martin,

Where did you read this? I'd love to get my hands on it.

Thanks,
Peter Lindman




on 10/10/02 6:45 PM, Martin Wesley at mwesley250@... wrote:

> Truman,
> 
> My thoughts were running parallel to yours on development but I recently
> read that scanners can read some pretty high densities. Epson 1640 - 2.6,
> Nikon 8000 - 2.8, Imacon Flextight III - 2.7, Howtek HR8000 - 3.3, Howtek
> D4500 - 3.5. From Ansel Adams, The Negative, he puts Zone X densities of a
> negative in the 1.5 to 2.2 range with plus developments rising to 2.5 and
> minus developments falling to 1.0. So it would appear that scanners have the
> capability to handle the highlights in normally developed negatives.
> 

> 
> Martin Wesley
> 
> http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
>

Please excuse the blatant self-promotion but I've just mounted a small show
of photographs at Pushdot Studio, a gallery in Portland OR. I put together a
somewhat rudimentary web gallery at:

http://home.attbi.com/~plindman/index.htm

All the images in the show were printed with PiezoTone Selenium inks on
Photorag with an Epson 1280 printer and the Piezo plug-in. (The web gallery
images are from files only; not scanned Piezo prints.) People have been very
interested in the nature of the prints and process. I always refer them to
this forum.

Pushdot would like to exhibit more inkjet-produced work for anyone
interested. The web link is:

http://www.pushdotstudio.com/

Thanks
Peter Lindman

> I think if you use film and a scanner there is another calibration step 
> to the zone system - camera, film, developer and scanner.

Hi Truman,

Yes, that's exactly what I do...and then from scanner to printer.

Austin

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

From: "Truman Prevatt" <tprevatt@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Film for scanning was Re: The State of
PersonalScanner Technology


> At some point the film response to light goes nonlinear which results in
> the "toe" and the "shoulder". My initial thoughts - yet to be tested end
> to end without a good printer - was if you kept the image mostly within
> the linear portion of the film response you could expand it to get both
> shadow detail and hightlight detail.

Truman,

None of the modern films has a shoulder to speak of and density is linear to
exposure. However there are other limiting factors and experience tells me
that the thinnest possible negative that retains all the desired detail
yields the better print. There is latitude but I think that this may still
hold for digital as well and is a function of the chemical nature of film.
The toe does remain though but I wonder if PS doesn't give us a way to
straighten out a good portion of it.
>
> I think if you use film and a scanner there is another calibration step
> to the zone system - camera, film, developer and scanner.

Exactly. Which also speaks to the benefits of doing and controlling your own
scanning. In all fairness though I have not had any problems scanning
negatives that yielded good prints in the darkroom. So while additional
optimization can be done, I don't think that we are too far off the mark.

Martin Wesley

>
> Martin Wesley wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Truman Prevatt" <tprevatt@...>
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:39 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Film for scanning was Re: The State of
> > PersonalScanner Technology
> >
> >
> > > That's basically the way I worked when I was printing silver prints.
And
> > > it works quite well. But given the extra control one has when the
image
> > > is in the digital form, it makes me wonder if compressing the negative
a
> > > bit, scanning and processing in 16 bits would not give better results.
I
> > > don't know yet. When I finally get off my duff and get a printer, I
can
> > > test this a little better.
> > >
> >
(snip earlier)

Hi Martin,

> At least you finally agree you need more "steps" than the range divided my
> the minimum discernable difference. You are making progress. <<G>> (Sorry.
> Couldn't resist.)

Ah, you know that wasn't what the debate was about...it was the claim of
"thousands" or something like that, that simply wasn't physically possible.

> >  Now, how many is debatable ;-)
>
> I'll sit this round out <G> but if someone is looking for a doctor thesis
> topic I am sure a value or range of values could be arrived at through
> scientific investigation.

Four.

;-)

Austin

Roger,

> Certainly having a stable of backs for a Hassy would give you the
> ability to have an N+1, N+2 back etc. How do you do that with
> your Contax or Leica :-)

Using compensation development with a 35mm is not something that I tend to
do.

> Your description of expansion and contraction are valid, however,
> the thing that generally requires one to use them is less than
> optimal lighting of a scene

Why do you say that?  I find scenes that have nothing to do with "non
optimal lighting", they are simply scenes that have a very wide image
density range...such as part of the image is inside a shack, and the other
is outside in the sun.  Believe me, they are keepers, and the extended
tonality really adds to the images.

> I generally found that after proofing
> I ended up discarding a large percentage of the negatives since
> they were not worth the time, effort and expense to try and
> produce a fine print.

Absolutely true.

> You, obviously, understand the need for consistancy. However,
> there are more than a few photographers that are constantly
> changing film, developer, etc etc in a forlorn search for
> perfection rather than mastering one or two combinations.

Yes, I've seen that quite a lot, and I discourage it...

> There is still enough of the professor in me that I enjoy a good
> argument. Fun discussion.

Aw, come on...have at it.  This wasn't much of an "argument"...when we agree
on most all of it! Pick some insignificant issue, like how I spell lense,
and harp on that for a while, showing vast web references that shows how
much of an idiot I am for using such an ignorant spelling, and I'll produce
many web references that show that it is a valid spelling etc.  OOps,
sorry...I just gave away a good argument in a nutshell... ;-)

Regards,

Austin

Martin Wesley wrote:

>
>
> Truman,
>
> None of the modern films has a shoulder to speak of and density is 
> linear to
> exposure. However there are other limiting factors and experience tells me
> that the thinnest possible negative that retains all the desired detail
> yields the better print. There is latitude but I think that this may still
> hold for digital as well and is a function of the chemical nature of film.
> The toe does remain though but I wonder if PS doesn't give us a way to
> straighten out a good portion of it.

PS will allow you to strighten out the toe if the scanner has enough 
levels so the quantization effects don't become an issue. I think all in 
all the minimal exposure for the details and develop to expand into the 
highlights into the full dynamic range of the film is still the best - 
wet or digital. After all the zone system just wraps numbers and 
procedure around this simple concept.

Truman

Martin,

I would make an interesting test to shoot a target with texture in zones 
I, II and V and see if you can dig the detiails out of the shadows. 
Actually this what I have started doing and it seems to be working 
fairly well.

Truman

Martin Wesley wrote:

>
>
> Truman,
>
> My thoughts were running parallel to yours on development but I recently
> read that scanners can read some pretty high densities. Epson 1640 - 2.6,
> Nikon 8000 - 2.8, Imacon Flextight III - 2.7, Howtek HR8000 - 3.3, Howtek
> D4500 - 3.5. From Ansel Adams, The Negative, he puts Zone X densities of a
> negative in the 1.5 to 2.2 range with plus developments rising to 2.5 and
> minus developments falling to 1.0. So it would appear that scanners 
> have the
> capability to handle the highlights in normally developed negatives.
>
> However it is not just density but the fact that film starts to "block up"
> due to the vigorous crystal formation in the more highly exposed 
> portions of
> the negative resulting in a loss of sharpness and detail.
>
> On the other end of the scale the old "0.10 + Base Film + Fog" rule 
> may not
> apply since scanners can reach down much lower and extract usable info. I
> have heard 0.02 quoted as the limit. You also have the ability to 
> expand the
> density range when you scan. This suggests that shifting the range down on
> film may then make sense. A little less exposure and development 
> knowing you
> can get more out of the shadows and bring your maximum Zone (VIII, IX,
> whatever you use) down a bit to increase detail in the highlights.
>
>
> Martin Wesley
>
> <http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html>




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

> You, obviously, understand the need for consistancy. However,
> there are more than a few photographers that are constantly
> changing film, developer, etc etc in a forlorn search for
> perfection rather than mastering one or two combinations.


Of course, as soon as you do that in this day and age' they either change or
discontinue the film... :-)

> 
> Is the Nikon 4000 state of the art?  Anything cheaper?  Essentially what
> you're saying, as I understand it, is that for considerably less than two
> grand I can the best setup available for 35mm lightroom work.  (I shoot
> Leica and Contax, and have been known to use a tripod.)
> 
> Sorry for these neophytic questions...
> 
> 
> 
> Douglas Cooper
> www.dysmedia.com

Douglas,
To my knowledge the specs of the Nikon 4000, et al have not been topped yet
in a 35mm standalone. There is a Microtek Artixscan(?) that is similar, as
well as a Polaroid. Not sure if those have Digital ICE though, which to me
is a big plus for color or the C41 black & white films. See the archives
from a couple months back for a more detailed discussion of these scanners.

I've been very pleased with my Nikon in almost 2 years of use now. That's
not to say that everything is perfect right out of the box, but with a
little practice you can get quite a lot out of the scanner. While drum scans
are technically "better", 99% of the time I find them a lot of money for a
very small improvement that is IMO not worth it. Put it this way--if I get a
bad print these days, I can't blame it on the scan. ;-)

Doug

Doug,

> To my knowledge the specs of the Nikon 4000, et al have not been
> topped yet
> in a 35mm standalone.

Well, what part of the specs?  I don't believe the density range was
actually measured, but is merely a statement of what the number of bits in
the A/D could provide...so to say that hasn't been "topped" is really
comparing apples and oranges.

In no way am I saying it isn't a great scanner, as I don't know...but simply
comparing specs won't tell you much about how well it really performs.

Austin

On Friday, October 11, 2002, at 07:44 AM, Austin Franklin wrote:

> Doug,
>
> > To my knowledge the specs of the Nikon 4000, et al have not been
> > topped yet
> > in a 35mm standalone.
>
> Well, what part of the specs?  I don't believe the density range was
> actually measured, but is merely a statement of what the number of 
> bits in
> the A/D could provide...so to say that hasn't been "topped" is really
> comparing apples and oranges.
>
> In no way am I saying it isn't a great scanner, as I don't know...but 
> simply
> comparing specs won't tell you much about how well it really performs.
>
> Austin
>
No, specs won't; but what counts is whether the results are something 
oneself and/or others would want to hang on the wall or otherwise use. 
Doug has said that basically, a drum scan is not worth the incremental 
increase in quality with respect to the perceived increase in cost. 
Actually, a drum scan is not that expensive when one counts all the 
time one spends getting from the "box" to slightly less than drum scan 
quality.

I am having fun with my digital lightroom. If I NEED top quality, West 
Coast Imaging will get the job done. (smile)

Jim
San Diego
>
<image.tiff>
>
>
> 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

Thank you for all the responses.  I'm convinced that I probably require a
Nikon 4000, to complete my lightroom.  If anyone has one to trade for Leica
equipment, I'd love to talk.  (One piece I'm trading away is a recent chrome
90/2.8 Elmarit-M...)



Douglas Cooper
douglas@...

>  > You, obviously, understand the need for consistancy. However,
>>  there are more than a few photographers that are constantly
>>  changing film, developer, etc etc in a forlorn search for
>>  perfection rather than mastering one or two combinations.
>
>
>Of course, as soon as you do that in this day and age' they either change or
>discontinue the film... :-)
>
EK has just done this with the TMAX family, TX, and PX. Newbase, new 
times, new boxes.

Enjoy:-)
-- 
Bruce C. Kinch
Associate Professor of Photography
The Art Institute of Boston at Lesley University

>Martin wrote-
>
>None of the modern films has a shoulder to speak of and density is linear to
>exposure.

I'm afraid this is incorrect. Characteristic curves for virtually all 
films are available on the manufacturers' web sites, and comparisons 
are informative. (I know this because I just went through this with a 
class, where we plot curves and compare to the "official" version). 
Tri X Pan, Agfa 400, and Delta 400 all demonstrate classic S shape 
curves. Fuji Neopan 400 is unique, with a pronounced 
shoulder-excellent shadow separation and blow out proof highlights. 
EK has just changed TMAX 100, and the new curve does show less 
shoulder. HP-5 and FP-4 are pretty linear. TMAX 400 has no 
straightline-it is all extended toe, with increasing contrast with 
increasing exposure. Fuji Acros 100 can look kind of similar. Tri-X 
Professional 120 is the worst in this regard, extremely "scooped 
out", with much higher highlight contrast than shadow contrast.

While the curves can be modified somewhat by different developers, 
the differences are real, and obvious on comparison prints (I have my 
4x5 students shoot TMY and HP-5 in the same filmholder). There are 
obvious implications for scanning, as toggling through all 
Silverfast's Nega Fix profiles on a single image quickly 
demonstrates. 8 bit scanning software clearly makes assumptions about 
a (given) film's tonal characteristics, but those assumptions are 
obviously not based on the photographer's actual preferred EI, 
developer, and time.

>However there are other limiting factors and experience tells me
>that the thinnest possible negative that retains all the desired detail
>yields the better print.

Certainly true for condenser enlarger printing of small format negs. 
Large format, not so clear.

>There is latitude but I think that this may still
>hold for digital as well and is a function of the chemical nature of film.
>The toe does remain though but I wonder if PS doesn't give us a way to
>straighten out a good portion of it.

Yes, the "screen"  blending mode works wonders.

>  >
>>  I think if you use film and a scanner there is another calibration step
>>  to the zone system - camera, film, developer and scanner.
>
>Exactly. Which also speaks to the benefits of doing and controlling your own
>scanning.

And another argument for scanning 16 bit.

>In all fairness though I have not had any problems scanning
>negatives that yielded good prints in the darkroom. So while additional
>optimization can be done, I don't think that we are too far off the mark.

The suggestion of cutting back development (N-1) makes sense, as does 
avoiding overdevelopment (especially with TMY and TXPro).

I always calibrated my Zone System times for grade 2 paper by contact 
or diffusion head enlarger. That produces a fairly robust negative, 
and vibrant prints. But as I get more involve with digital, I expect 
to re-calibrate to grade 3 in order to have slightly thinner, more 
scannable negatives.


-- 
Bruce C. Kinch
Associate Professor of Photography
The Art Institute of Boston at Lesley University

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

From: "Bruce Kinch" <pvx@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Film for scanning was Re: The State of
PersonalScanner Technology


> >Martin wrote-
> >
> >None of the modern films has a shoulder to speak of and density is linear
to
> >exposure.
>
> I'm afraid this is incorrect.

Bruce,

I was talking about the higher density end of the curve, specifically the
shoulder. At what is normally considered maximum densities of 1.2 to 2.0 for
Zone X, I don't see any significant non-linear behavior with modern films
from Zone II to IX. Push them far enough and they will break down but I
think you will have lost any useable detail before you get that far. They
all have a toe of course and I was not suggesting they didn't. Overall, if a
film was significantly non-linear I suspect we wouldn't use it much.
Different films do have different characteristics but this is due to more
than just the different density vs. exposure relationship.

> Characteristic curves for virtually all
> films are available on the manufacturers' web sites, and comparisons
> are informative. (I know this because I just went through this with a
> class, where we plot curves and compare to the "official" version).
> Tri X Pan, Agfa 400, and Delta 400 all demonstrate classic S shape
> curves. Fuji Neopan 400 is unique, with a pronounced
> shoulder-excellent shadow separation and blow out proof highlights.
> EK has just changed TMAX 100, and the new curve does show less
> shoulder. HP-5 and FP-4 are pretty linear. TMAX 400 has no
> straightline-it is all extended toe, with increasing contrast with
> increasing exposure. Fuji Acros 100 can look kind of similar. Tri-X
> Professional 120 is the worst in this regard, extremely "scooped
> out", with much higher highlight contrast than shadow contrast.
>
> While the curves can be modified somewhat by different developers,
> the differences are real, and obvious on comparison prints (I have my
> 4x5 students shoot TMY and HP-5 in the same filmholder). There are
> obvious implications for scanning, as toggling through all
> Silverfast's Nega Fix profiles on a single image quickly
> demonstrates. 8 bit scanning software clearly makes assumptions about
> a (given) film's tonal characteristics, but those assumptions are
> obviously not based on the photographer's actual preferred EI,
> developer, and time.
>
> >However there are other limiting factors and experience tells me
> >that the thinnest possible negative that retains all the desired detail
> >yields the better print.
>
> Certainly true for condenser enlarger printing of small format negs.
> Large format, not so clear.

I have not found extra image density to be of any help with 4x5 in a cold
light enlarger either.
>
> >There is latitude but I think that this may still
> >hold for digital as well and is a function of the chemical nature of
film.
> >The toe does remain though but I wonder if PS doesn't give us a way to
> >straighten out a good portion of it.
>
> Yes, the "screen"  blending mode works wonders.
>
> >  >
> >>  I think if you use film and a scanner there is another calibration
step
> >>  to the zone system - camera, film, developer and scanner.
> >
> >Exactly. Which also speaks to the benefits of doing and controlling your
own
> >scanning.
>
> And another argument for scanning 16 bit.
>
> >In all fairness though I have not had any problems scanning
> >negatives that yielded good prints in the darkroom. So while additional
> >optimization can be done, I don't think that we are too far off the mark.
>
> The suggestion of cutting back development (N-1) makes sense, as does
> avoiding overdevelopment (especially with TMY and TXPro).

I will probably drop my own development times a bit, shoot for awhile and
see how I like the negs.
>
> I always calibrated my Zone System times for grade 2 paper by contact
> or diffusion head enlarger. That produces a fairly robust negative,
> and vibrant prints. But as I get more involve with digital, I expect
> to re-calibrate to grade 3 in order to have slightly thinner, more
> scannable negatives.

Just recalibrate to your digital output. <G>

Martin Wesley

>
>  > >Martin wrote-


>I was talking about the higher density end of the curve, specifically the
>shoulder. At what is normally considered maximum densities of 1.2 to 2.0 for
>Zone X, I don't see any significant non-linear behavior with modern films
>from Zone II to IX.

For photographers not used to "reading" characteristic curves (not 
meaning Martin here, of course), the graphs provided by the 
manufacturers can be confusing. The "original" Zone System defined 
the lightest shade of gray as Zone VIII, later iterations as Zone IX 
(due to the greater precision of spotmeters). Zone I is taken as the 
darkest possible gray above black (the printable threshold of the 
toe). The X axis on the graphs is in log exposure units, which means 
nothing to most photographers. Or my students, I'm afraid. They think 
a logarithm is a polka for lumberjacks. But each .3 units represents 
one stop, so the "printable" exposure range for normal development is 
roughly 3 log units (ten stops/zones). More for "contractions", less 
for "expansions". Virtually all films show non-linearity over that 
range with normal development (Zone VIII or XI densities around 1.3).

The differing non-linearities are mostly what gives each film (Tech 
Pan, TMY, Plus-X, Fuji 400 for example) the tonal flavor that some 
love and some hate. However, as few photographers have densitometers, 
most evaluate film characteristics by printing negatives on paper. 
Not very helpful, as they are "overlaying" the film's non-linear 
shoulder with the paper's non-linear toe. Welcome to art as crap 
shoot. Multigrade's toe (i.e. highlights), for example, is designed 
around Ilford's film shoulder curves, and is one of the reasons T-MAX 
developed T-MAX 400 is so tough to print on it.

It is very illustrative to shoot "Zone Rulers" (that is, exposing a 
uniform surface at each Zone in sequence to create your own 
stepwedge) for several films and contacting (or scanning) them 
together.

>  Push them far enough and they will break down but I
>think you will have lost any useable detail before you get that far.

No, detail (tonal separation) continues (increasing with TMY and 
TXPro 120, decreasing with most other films) for several stops above 
Zone X.

>  They
>all have a toe of course and I was not suggesting they didn't. Overall, if a
>film was significantly non-linear I suspect we wouldn't use it much.

I think most of us do, most of the time. We associate the highlight 
and shadow compression of a silver print as "photographic", and we 
filter, dodge and burn to enhance that. Not so, platinum printing, 
which is much more linear. Probably why Jon Cone compares Piezo's 
shadow separation to platinum. And why he tried to increase the Dmax 
of the "Selenium" inkset (which is what selenium toner does on a 
silver print).

>Different films do have different characteristics but this is due to more
>than just the different density vs. exposure relationship.

Yes, color sensitivity affects skin tones, green vegetation, and blue 
sky rendition. That can be more important to some photographers. And 
grain structure, acutance, halation, response to a favored developer, 
and so on.

>
>  > Certainly true for condenser enlarger printing of small format negs.
>>  Large format, not so clear.
>
>I have not found extra image density to be of any help with 4x5 in a cold
>light enlarger either.

Bruce Barnbaum's revisionist Zone System thinking includes placing 
shadows on Zone IV or higher, to avoid the toe and increase low value 
separation, so his negs get dense. Of course, he's a roots and rocks 
guy.

Enlargers differ. I use an Ilford tungsten bulb VC head for MF 
and4x5, a classic single contrast fluorescent cold light for 5x7 and 
8x10, a Focomat with a colorhead for 35mm BW. My school has Beseler 
condenser and color heads, Cachet/Seagull and Aristo VC diffusion 
heads. Each has a distinct tonality, but all the diffusion heads 
require more highlight density (or film contrast) to match the 
condenser units on graded paper. On VC paper, all but the very blue 
standard cold light unit need more contrast to match. Classic cold 
light starts at around grade 4 on VC, and needs significant yellow 
filtration to print grade 2. So if you print cold light on VC papers, 
I'd agree.


>  >
>  >
>>  I always calibrated my Zone System times for grade 2 paper by contact
>>  or diffusion head enlarger. That produces a fairly robust negative,
>>  and vibrant prints. But as I get more involve with digital, I expect
>>  to re-calibrate to grade 3 in order to have slightly thinner, more
>>  scannable negatives.
>
Just recalibrate to your digital output.

Actually, what seems to work well with the 2450 I use for MF/4x5 is 
calibrating the scan. I drilled two holes in the film holder between 
the two openings. One has a ND filter, usually 2.5. I set my black 
and white points there and go. I see this as equivalent to using a 
standard developing time, and allows the scanner/software to map each 
negative over the same range.

Regards,

Bruce
-- 
Bruce C. Kinch
Associate Professor of Photography
The Art Institute of Boston at Lesley University

Nikon is excellent, so is the Canon 4000 filmscanner, and a lot less
expensive. Try em both out before you buy.

Jerry




Douglas Anthony Cooper wrote:

> 
> > As long as you respect the inherent limits of the film format and are able
> > to get a decent exposure on film, I see no need to ever get a 35mm drum scan
> > vs. what you can get with one of the 4000dpi dedicated film scanners and a
> > reasonably talented operator.
> 
> Is the Nikon 4000 state of the art?  Anything cheaper?  Essentially what
> you're saying, as I understand it, is that for considerably less than two
> grand I can the best setup available for 35mm lightroom work.  (I shoot
> Leica and Contax, and have been known to use a tripod.)
> 
> Sorry for these neophytic questions...
> 
> Douglas Cooper
> www.dysmedia.com
> 
> 
> 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/

on 10/14/2002 7:17 PM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

>> Is the Nikon 4000 state of the art?  Anything cheaper?  Essentially what
>> you're saying, as I understand it, is that for considerably less than two
>> grand I can the best setup available for 35mm lightroom work.  (I shoot
>> Leica and Contax, and have been known to use a tripod.)
>> 
>> Sorry for these neophytic questions...
>> 
>> Douglas Cooper
>> www.dysmedia.com
>> 

Douglas,

I have a Nikon LS-2000 on sale on ebay.  It's not quite state of the art,
but works well for 13x19 epson color and quad prints. And it's very
affordable. I replaced it to scan 6x9 film, but was quite satisfied with
it's performance for 35mm.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2060590850


 
-Bruce

Visit my website at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~smthopr