Digital BW, The Print

My LF negs for pt/pd are somewhat more difficult to scan, pyro negs
especially.   I have some PMK pyro negs developed for pt/pd that will scan,
but I have some Rollo pyro negs where I've never been able to crack the
code.  On the other hand, more "normal" negs such as TriX or especially
Polaroid 55PN scan very easily.  If the 4x5 will do it for you, I think my
best scans have been from the Polaroid.  I just expose so the positive is
somewhat light, then the neg has the right density.  The zone system is out
the window, but somehow it works OK.  Mostly.

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com



----- Original Message -----
From: "jimj1946" <jimj1946@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 6:18 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] film processing


> I am new here, and not sure if this is the right place to post this.
> I tried a couple of searches but I guess I didn't find the right key
> words.
>
> I would like to ask about the processing of black and white film,
> for ultimately scanning and printing on an ink jet printer. I am
> curious as to what kinds of negatives produce the best results.
> Would a denser negative, like for platinum printing or a thinner
> negative be better for scanning? If this is not the right place for
> this kind of question, could some one please point me in the right
> dirction? I went to a general photo forum, and people thought that I
> was crazy for wanting to waste a fine negative on an ink jet printer.
>
>
>
> 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 would like to ask about the processing of black and white film,
> for ultimately scanning and printing on an ink jet printer. I am
> curious as to what kinds of negatives produce the best results.
>...

I think you'll get differing opinions on this issue.  However, here is what
I've found.

As background, I used to enlarge my medium format negatives to 16x20 using
the usual Apo-Rodagon lenses, etc. that any sharpness/detail fanatic would
use.  I would use Agfapan 25 and then Tmax 100.  I developed for sharpness,
using Rodinal 1:100 and then Micro X 1:3, with very long agitation cycles to
enhance the edges.  All my shots were with my Rollei on a tripod.

I tried for some time to tame Technical Pan, but never managed to get low
contrast, wide dynamic range, smoothness and other characteristics all
together enough to compete with Agfapan and Tmax 100.

When I went digital, I found that the unsharp mask tool was great, but it
sharpened the grain also.  So, my negatives that had been developed for
sharpness now had too much grain.  I think it is easier to sharpen a
slightly soft negative than it is to lessen the grain of a grainy negative.

The good scanners today also can handle a much more contrasty negative than
the wet darkroom could.  After all, the scanners are made to handle chromes.

So, putting this all together, I now use Technical Pan, developed in Xtol
1:3 at 75 degrees f. for 18 min.  This makes a negative that is too
contrasty for the enlarger, but perfect for my Nikon 8000.  At this
contrast, the TP is more in its normal range.  So, the problems that
surfaced due to trying to make a high-contrast film suitable for the
enlarger are gone.

The bottom line is that my inkjet enlargements using this method are better
than any I could have made with the wet darkroom and my previous or
traditional processing.

Hope this gives you some ideas.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,
What E.I. are you using for Tech Pan ?
TIA
Andre

> So, putting this all together, I now use Technical Pan, developed 
in Xtol

> 1:3 at 75 degrees f. for 18 min.  
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com

>Paul,
>What E.I. are you using for Tech Pan ?

32

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com
_____________________________________


> So, putting this all together, I now use Technical Pan, developed
in Xtol
> 1:3 at 75 degrees f. for 18 min.
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.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/

At 07:25 PM 5/13/03 -0700, you wrote:

> >...
> > I would like to ask about the processing of black and white film,
> > for ultimately scanning and printing on an ink jet printer. I am
> > curious as to what kinds of negatives produce the best results.
> >...
>
>I think you'll get differing opinions on this issue.  However, here is what
>I've found.
>
>As background, I used to enlarge my medium format negatives to 16x20 using
>the usual Apo-Rodagon lenses, etc. that any sharpness/detail fanatic would
>use.  I would use Agfapan 25 and then Tmax 100.  I developed for sharpness,
>using Rodinal 1:100 and then Micro X 1:3, with very long agitation cycles to
>enhance the edges.  All my shots were with my Rollei on a tripod.
>
>I tried for some time to tame Technical Pan, but never managed to get low
>contrast, wide dynamic range, smoothness and other characteristics all
>together enough to compete with Agfapan and Tmax 100.
>
>When I went digital, I found that the unsharp mask tool was great, but it
>sharpened the grain also.  So, my negatives that had been developed for
>sharpness now had too much grain.  I think it is easier to sharpen a
>slightly soft negative than it is to lessen the grain of a grainy negative.
>
>The good scanners today also can handle a much more contrasty negative than
>the wet darkroom could.  After all, the scanners are made to handle chromes.
>
>So, putting this all together, I now use Technical Pan, developed in Xtol
>1:3 at 75 degrees f. for 18 min.  This makes a negative that is too
>contrasty for the enlarger, but perfect for my Nikon 8000.  At this
>contrast, the TP is more in its normal range.  So, the problems that
>surfaced due to trying to make a high-contrast film suitable for the
>enlarger are gone.
>
>The bottom line is that my inkjet enlargements using this method are better
>than any I could have made with the wet darkroom and my previous or
>traditional processing.
>
>Hope this gives you some ideas.
>
>Paul
>http://www.PaulRoark.com


Here's my  two cents worth:  I use the Epson 3200 and E2450 scanners. Their 
florescent lamps  work just like a cold light head on an enlarger to reduce 
grain, dust, and scratches.  So far I've had no problems with 35mm TX or 
other B/W films.  Chromogenic B/W film works very well too.  BTW I develop 
it in D76 at home.  I print with the piezo system.  Check out this taken 
with XP2 and processed with split D-76: 
http://www.panoramacamera.us/air_support.html  It has wide latitude and low 
grain, and printed like a charm.

AZ




Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book.
http://www.panoramacamera.us

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

From: "jimj1946" <jimj1946@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 4:18 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] film processing



> I would like to ask about the processing of black and white film,
> for ultimately scanning and printing on an ink jet printer. I am
> curious as to what kinds of negatives produce the best results.
> Would a denser negative, like for platinum printing or a thinner
> negative be better for scanning? If this is not the right place for
> this kind of question, could some one please point me in the right
> dirction? I went to a general photo forum, and people thought that I
> was crazy for wanting to waste a fine negative on an ink jet printer.

Jim,

Just to echo Clayton's remarks, any processing that will produce a good
negative for darkroom enlargement will scan well. Likewise a negative that
is too thick or too thin to print well with traditional methods will give
you problems with scanning too.

As you can see there is no better consensus on "ideal" film processing for
scanning than there is for enlarging. <G> (I swear by Ilford FP4+ and TMax
400 in Pyro.)

A very appropriate question by the way and welcome to the group.

Martin Wesley

Thanks for the input everyone. I realize that ulitimately it will 
come down to trying several different things, and seeing which one 
works best for me personally, but I do appreciate the ideas I have 
gotten here. I can use them as starting points for my own trials. 
Thanks again.