Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Re: [Digital BW] re: film processing

Re: [Digital BW] re: film processing

2003-05-15 by Ken Carney

> and so when the new Artixscan came out with a scan depth
> of 4.8 I bought it at once, and this scanner can handle most of the
densest
> films.  If you are already making alt process negatives, this is the
scanner
> for you.

    Is this the 2500F?

> If you are shooting ordinary camera film and simply want good negs for
> scanning, I would recommend XTOL developer and real silver emulsion film,
> for example the Tmax line by Kodak.  I hesitate to recommend the
chromogenic
> B&W films because they will fade long before your career is over, just
like
> most color film (except Kodachrome) unless you can afford refrigerated
> storage for your processed negatives.  This is expensive, a suitable
Kenmore
> frost free refrigerator will cost about US$90 a year in electric bills.

    I am trying to downsize from 8x10 and 4x5 field cameras to 35mm and
maybe someday digital.  So far, the best 35mm film I have found is Kodak
Portra 400 b&w.  It scans well and looks like Plus X.  Do you have any info
as to its life refrigerated vs. frozen?

> One final note is grain, since this is a component of artistic expression
in
> fine art printing.  Starting with Tmax, film was coated under a magnetic
> field to align the grain. The result as far as scanning goes depends
largely
> on your scanning technique and specific equipment.  If you are using a
glass
> carrier in a slide scanner, you may notice a big difference.  If you are
> using open carriers to hold your film, the heat from the scanning bulb
> usually causes enough motion of the film from heat expansion to render the
> grain somewhat unsharp, but of course this is individual to each setup and
> you will have to see for yourself.

    This is news.  What about a 35mm scanner using LEDs such as the Nikon
4000?

Re: [Digital BW] re: film processing

2003-05-15 by Truman Prevatt

Ken Carney wrote:

>>and so when the new Artixscan came out with a scan depth
>>of 4.8 I bought it at once, and this scanner can handle most of the
>>    
>>
>densest
>  
>
>>films.  If you are already making alt process negatives, this is the
>>    
>>
>scanner
>  
>
>>for you.
>>    
>>
>
>    Is this the 2500F?
>
>  
>
>>If you are shooting ordinary camera film and simply want good negs for
>>scanning, I would recommend XTOL developer and real silver emulsion film,
>>for example the Tmax line by Kodak.  I hesitate to recommend the
>>    
>>
>chromogenic
>  
>
>>B&W films because they will fade long before your career is over, just
>>    
>>
>like
>  
>
>>most color film (except Kodachrome) unless you can afford refrigerated
>>storage for your processed negatives.  This is expensive, a suitable
>>    
>>
>Kenmore
>  
>
>>frost free refrigerator will cost about US$90 a year in electric bills.
>>    
>>
>
>    I am trying to downsize from 8x10 and 4x5 field cameras to 35mm and
>maybe someday digital.  So far, the best 35mm film I have found is Kodak
>Portra 400 b&w.  It scans well and looks like Plus X.  Do you have any info
>as to its life refrigerated vs. frozen?
>
8x10 is a bit large but 4x5 is about right. Aren't you going to miss the 
controls, the swings and tilts, the focus control and the depth of field 
control. I don't know about the next generation digital cameras, but I 
have been very disapointed in what I've seen so far as far is 
photographic controls with the current crop.

Truman



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

Re: [Digital BW] re: film processing

2003-05-15 by jimj1946

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Truman Prevatt 
<tprevatt@m...> wrote:


> 8x10 is a bit large but 4x5 is about right. Aren't you going to 
miss the 
> controls, the swings and tilts, the focus control and the depth of 
field 
> control. I don't know about the next generation digital cameras, 
but I 
> have been very disapointed in what I've seen so far as far is 
> photographic controls with the current crop.
> 
> Truman


I have been wondering about the whole digital camera thing too. 
Right now the Cannon 1Ds seems to be the "resolution" champ among 
affordable cameras. I have seen reports claiming that is rivals 645 
color negative film. But, I have also heard it said that B&W work is 
much more demanding than color negatives. I wonder the max size for 
really good B&W print from the 1Ds.

Re: [Digital BW] re: film processing

2003-05-15 by Julian Thomas

>
>     I am trying to downsize from 8x10 and 4x5 field cameras to 35mm and
> maybe someday digital.

Funny, I'm going the other way - first from 35mm to 6x6 and now to 5x4 and
10x8 - well, as soon as Phillips starts taking orders for a 10x8!

Julian

Re: [Digital BW] re: film processing

2003-05-16 by Ken Carney

> 8x10 is a bit large but 4x5 is about right. Aren't you going to miss the
> controls, the swings and tilts, the focus control and the depth of field
> control. I don't know about the next generation digital cameras, but I
> have been very disapointed in what I've seen so far as far is
> photographic controls with the current crop.
>
> Truman

Yes, I do miss them.  But, with the 35mm RF cameras and today's lenses, able
to be used wide open, I get pictures that I could not get before.  DOF is
usually not an issue with the 35 - it's almost infinite compared to the view
camera.  And I miss the image on the ground glass, esp the 8x10.  But I can
travel more easily.  I have a Kodak MasterView 8x10 field camera that folds
up into a small package and has all the movements anyone could want --- but
the tripod is the rub, especially flying.  For me, it's a good trade.  As
you note, the jury is out on a digital camera.  I have an Olympus 4000CZ,
but only use it for infrared, which is surreal to begin with.  As nearly as
I can tell, a good digital SLR outfit is going to run $5-10,000, and I'm not
ready to do that given the state of the art and the short technology life.

 --Ken

Re: [Digital BW] re: film processing

2003-05-16 by Ken Carney

Thanks, Tom, for the excellent information.  Up until recently almost
everything I've done has been TriX in D76 1:1, or Bergger or TMax in pyro.
But, I really like the look of the Portra, and digital ice works with it
when needed.  I knew it wasn't archival, but -- I need to get off my duff
and get a fridge for it.

  --Jeb

>  Portra 400 b&w is not an archival film.  It is chromogenic.  When the
Great
> Yellow Father speaks of "Excellent Latent Image Keeping" in the sales
pitch,
> they are referring to the amount of time between exposure of the film and
> it's development.  The reason of course is nothing to do with Portra film
> itself, the problems of delayed processing of color emulsion film is
changes
> in color balance, and since Portra has no color this is not an issue.
This
> has been known by Kodak for years and is why there are "professional"
color
> films as well as amateur that are actually the same film, the only
> difference is the color balance of a professional color film is adjusted
in
> manufacture with the idea it will be frozen until use and developed
> promptly.  Amateur film is designed to be stored at room temperature and
in
> the camera up to six months.
>
> As for archival storage of processed chromogenic film, refrigeration (NOT
> freezing) is required in order for it to last, however I don't know of
> specific life expectancy charts for this particular film.  I would not be
> surprised to see a 3-10 year life for the color version of Portra (meaning
> 15% fade of least stable color layer).  A great analogy is the difference
> between dye and pigment printers, that is the difference between single
> layer color film marketed as B&W, compared to real silver emulsion B&W.
> Here is what Wilhelm has to say about the overall archival considerations
of
> chromogenic (pg 23) "Among the available color processes, chromogenic
films
> and prints as a group have the distinct limitation of being relatively
> unstable in dark storage.  While most classes of dyes are subject to light
> fading, chromogenic dyes are almost unique among commercially available
dyes
> in that many of them also have poor stability when stored in the dark
unless
> kept at refrigerated temperatures."  I might add here that EK knows all
> about this, and if Portra film had a good life expectancy rating you can
bet
> they would make a big deal about it.  For details of storage
recommendations
> for photographers, check Wilhelm's book chapter 19 "Frost-Free
Refrigerators
> for Storing Color and Black-and-White Films and Prints" or else just go
get
> a Kenmore true frost free (not cycle defrost). If you don't mind a used
one,
> they can be had at auctions for $100 or whatever.
>
> best regards,
> Tom Robinson
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Re: [Digital BW] re: film processing

2003-05-16 by Ken Carney

Don't overlook 4x10 -- that is a great format.  One of my favorite
photographers, Mary Ellen Mark, has made the trek you are on: 35 to 6x6 then
to 4x5.  For scanning, the 4x5 is excellent -- I'm just into portability and
more available light stuff these days.

 --Ken

----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 4:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] re: film processing


>
> >
> >     I am trying to downsize from 8x10 and 4x5 field cameras to 35mm and
> > maybe someday digital.
>
> Funny, I'm going the other way - first from 35mm to 6x6 and now to 5x4 and
> 10x8 - well, as soon as Phillips starts taking orders for a 10x8!
>
> Julian
>
>
>
> 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.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.