Digital BW, The Print

Many thanks to all who gave their valuable advise re. TechPan 
development.  I am also planning to do some testing with the ISO 100 
B&W films (i.e. Tmax, Delta and Neopan Acros) and would much 
appreciate to hear your views on which film/development combination 
offers the best negatives for scanning.
Marc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: marcsien77 [mailto:marcsien77@...]
> Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 10:35 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] ISO 100 B&W films for scanning
>
>
> Many thanks to all who gave their valuable advise re. TechPan
> development.  I am also planning to do some testing with the ISO 100
> B&W films (i.e. Tmax, Delta and Neopan Acros) and would much
> appreciate to hear your views on which film/development combination
> offers the best negatives for scanning.


Marc,

After ten years I'm still very happy with Ilford FP4+ in a pyro developer
such as PMK for both traditional and digital processes.

Your best bet in the long run is not to look for the "ideal" film and
developer combination but to choose something reasonable and stick with it.
Someone who becomes expert with their chosen materials will get much farther
than those who endlessly experiment.

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

I really believe in KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid).   Tech Pan is an
phenomenal film, but slow, fussy & very contrasty quite quickly.  Next best
thing, and grainless in an 8x10 print, is TMX100 developed in D76 1:1.  On
balance I feel it the best combination of speed, grain, sharpness, accutance
and easily printable contrast.  It does have to be exposed and developed
accurately but can give excellent results.   If you need more speed, go with
TMY400, a film I normally shoot at 200 and develop in D76 1:1 at 95%.   Both
scan great in my Nikon LS40.

Yes, I have used VP, PXP, FP4+, TX, HP5 extensively and they have a
beautiful classic look.  But you can get very close to that look in terms of
contrast with the Tmax films.  There is no question Tmax films have always
had finer grain.  Specific to TMX was the lack of sharpness issue which
Kodak now seems to have solved with the new manufacturing facility.

I will say that developing standard films such as PX, FP4, etc in PYRO
developer can give extraordinary results; but, I find this exotic.

Rick



----- Original Message -----
From: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 3:50 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Digest Number 1696


>
> 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.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There are 4 messages in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
>       1. Re: UltraTone Sepia hexset? -- Possible road map
>            From: "B. Alex Pettit Jr." <a_pettit_jr@...>
>       2. ISO 100 B&W films for scanning
>            From: "marcsien77" <marcsien77@...>
>       3. RE: choice of film
>            From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
>       4. RE: ISO 100 B&W films for scanning
>            From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 1
>    Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 05:26:06 -0000
>    From: "B. Alex Pettit Jr." <a_pettit_jr@...>
> Subject: Re: UltraTone Sepia hexset? -- Possible road map
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> How about a Selenium set for 4 color printers aka Epson 3000,
> or the formula for making such, please !
>
> Best,
> Alex
>
>
>
> >
> > >Paul Roark wrote:
> >
> > >>Since I'm still most interested in matte papers, I'm thinking of
> an
> > >>Eboni-based, matte-paper-only neutral/selenium gray based ink.
> Eboni is
> > >>less warm than the UT black inks.  As such less color pigment is
> needed to
> > >>make it into a neutral-toned ink.
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 2
>    Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 05:34:43 -0000
>    From: "marcsien77" <marcsien77@...>
> Subject: ISO 100 B&W films for scanning
>
> Many thanks to all who gave their valuable advise re. TechPan
> development.  I am also planning to do some testing with the ISO 100
> B&W films (i.e. Tmax, Delta and Neopan Acros) and would much
> appreciate to hear your views on which film/development combination
> offers the best negatives for scanning.
> Marc.
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 3
>    Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 00:19:33 -0700
>    From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
> Subject: RE: choice of film
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lovelipp [mailto:ArleneLoveL@...]
> > Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 8:17 AM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Digital BW] choice of film
> >
> >
> > I've used Kodak Portra and T400 CN and scan on a Canon 2710. In
> > scanning some old Fuji slides (provia 400), using channels and going
> > to grayscale, I find the results just as good IF NOT BETTER. Can
> > anyone confirm what I think I see?  My goal is the best bow I can
> > get, but I like the idea of having the color slides - just in case-
> > and also for ease of viewing my files. My work is sneaky street
> > photography.  Thanks. ArleneLoveL@...
> >
> Arlene,
>
> For optimum B&W I would suggest using B&W film. I have seen great prints
> from color transparency and the chromogenic "B&W" films but still prefer
to
> work with Ilford FP4+ and SFX and Kodak TMax 400 myself. The drawback with
> color transparency films is that they generally have less exposure
latitude
> than the CN type or B&W films. For what you are doing nothing like some
old
> standard Tri-X. The B&W negs will last indefinitely with good storage as
> well but the color materials are not so stable.
>
> From a shooting point of view I find it difficult to try and do color and
> B&W at the same time. I do better if I set out to shoot one or the other.
>
> Martin Wesley
> http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 4
>    Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 00:26:20 -0700
>    From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
> Subject: RE: ISO 100 B&W films for scanning
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: marcsien77 [mailto:marcsien77@...]
> > Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 10:35 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Digital BW] ISO 100 B&W films for scanning
> >
> >
> > Many thanks to all who gave their valuable advise re. TechPan
> > development.  I am also planning to do some testing with the ISO 100
> > B&W films (i.e. Tmax, Delta and Neopan Acros) and would much
> > appreciate to hear your views on which film/development combination
> > offers the best negatives for scanning.
>
>
> Marc,
>
> After ten years I'm still very happy with Ilford FP4+ in a pyro developer
> such as PMK for both traditional and digital processes.
>
> Your best bet in the long run is not to look for the "ideal" film and
> developer combination but to choose something reasonable and stick with
it.
> Someone who becomes expert with their chosen materials will get much
farther

> than those who endlessly experiment.
>
> Martin Wesley
> http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Marc,

> I am also planning to do some testing with the ISO 100
>B&W films (i.e. Tmax, Delta and Neopan Acros) and would much
>appreciate to hear your views on which film/development combination
>offers the best negatives for scanning.

I have not excluded the possibility that I'll go back to 100 ISO films
either.  When Tmax 100 and Neopan Acros 100 are developed in Xtol (1:1 is
easiest to deal with -- temp. control, one-shot, etc.), their grain is
almost as good as Tech Pan developed in any developer other than Xtol.  It
really is that good a developer.  (Too bad it's only sold in 5 liter
packages.  I mix -- with distilled water -- in a large kitchen pot and pour
into smaller bottles.)


The problems I ran into with my TP-Xtol approach was probably due to 2
things.  First, Xtol appears to be inconsistent with high dilutions
(anything over 1:1 appears to have been dropped from the Kodak
recommendations; see
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.jhtml
?&#table%201:%20processing%20roll%20films%20in%20small%20tanks).  The second
problem was probably that TP simply magnifies any inconsistencies there are,
whether they would affect normal film or not.

The bottom line is that Tmax or Neopan 100 in Xtol is still in the running
for me.

In general, while I used to go for sharpness, all of the films mentioned
above are fine even in soft Xtol.  What I now find most important is low
grain.

I also think that I get better scans if the B&W film is developed to a
higher than normal contrast.  The modern scanners are designed to handle
slide film's very high contrast and densities.  I think I get better results
when I take advantage of that capability.  I take the 2 end charts of my
13-stop test range and scan them (cut as appropriate) in the same "frame" of
the scanner.  Looking at the scanner software histogram, I want to see the
shoulder reasonably close to the end of the graph.  After the scan, I want
to see clear separation of the values and good quality (low noise) at both
ends of the scale.   So, the scanning/scanner is integrated into the test
evaluation.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

>I really believe in KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid).   Tech Pan is an
>phenomenal film, but slow, fussy & very contrasty quite quickly.  Next best
>thing, and grainless in an 8x10 print, is TMX100 developed in D76 1:1.  ...

There is a lot of merit in this recommendation.  I rejected TP and used Tmax
100 for years in a relatively traditional developer (in Microdol 1:3) --
very consistent and reliable.  I may end up taking this same approach again.

But the seductive siren song of ultra-fine grain keeps luring me onto the
rocks.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

I use a canon fs4000 for scanning and find it a good scanner. 
However,with b&w films it seems u can't always use all of the 
features available like it's digital clean for slides n such. With 
the chromo films this isn't a problem. I'm not sure if the nikon 
scanners r like that but it is a feature worth considering especially 
if u scan a lot of b&w's.



                           Tim



                www.portraitsofnature.net

I rejected TP and used Tmax
> 100 for years in a relatively traditional developer (in Microdol 
1:3) --
> very consistent and reliable.  I may end up taking this same 
approach again.
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com

Paul, 
If you do revisit Tmax-100 again with Microdol-X, please let us know. 
I've just been to the M.D.C. site and found the that dev. times for 
Tmax 100 (new) + Microdol-X are somewhat different from the old Tmax-
100

It could be a whole new ball game here!

BTW, thanks for all your inputs on digital b&w. I'm now a convinced 
user of Ultra-Tones.
Cheers,
Andre

I used to love the old Kodak Pan X. It gave smooth grain and was 
actually a little faster than advertised in the old Zone VI developer. 
But alas that film is not with us any longer.

Since I shoot only 4x5 slow films present a problem since smaller 
apertures are required which means very slow shutter speeds or very 
little DOF. So I seem to keep coming back to good old Tri-X. I tried 
TMax 400 but it left me feeling a little hollow.

But I guess that is why we have the choice of so many different film and 
developers.

Truman

Paul Roark wrote:

>>I really believe in KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid).   Tech Pan is an
>>phenomenal film, but slow, fussy & very contrasty quite quickly.  Next best
>>thing, and grainless in an 8x10 print, is TMX100 developed in D76 1:1.  ...
>>    
>>
>
>There is a lot of merit in this recommendation.  I rejected TP and used Tmax
>100 for years in a relatively traditional developer (in Microdol 1:3) --
>very consistent and reliable.  I may end up taking this same approach again.
>
>But the seductive siren song of ultra-fine grain keeps luring me onto the
>rocks.
>
>Paul
>http://www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
>
>  
>


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

Truman,

Like you, I am a long time 4 x 5 shooter, and also like you, I long for the
good old days of Pan-X developed in Microdol-X.
And like many 4 x 5 photographers, I've used the Polaroid Type 55 P/N film
in my 4 x 5 cameras for years. What I didn't know, until
recently is, the negative material in type 55 Polaroid is in fact Pan-X
film!! So, I've been using Pan-X film for years and didn't even know it. The
negatives one gets from type 55 are gorgeous, full tone range that scan well
and make beautiful prints, both in the darkroom and digital also. This film
is a little more delicate than other films, it is much easier to scratch for
example. You don't have to develop the film using the regular 'instant'
Polaroid process, where you pull the film through the film holder and then
peal apart the pack to reveal the print and negative. This takes a little
skill, but one can, in the darkroom (total darkness) take apart the film
pack, being careful not to rupture the chemical pack. Once removed from the
package, the type 55 negative material can be developed in any black and
white film developer one likes.

I like using type 55 Polaroid with the normal instant development. This
allows me to make very fine grain 4 x 5 negatives, without a darkroom that I
then scan and print using my 'digital darkroom'. I think this is in keeping
with Paul Roark's KISS ( keep it simple stupid) philosophy.

Is there anybody else out there using type 55 in this way? I'd be interested
in knowing how this works for others.
Best Regards,

David R. Spielman

-----Original Message-----
From: Truman Prevatt [mailto:tprevatt@...]
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 7:11 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] re: ISO 100 B&W films for scanning


  I used to love the old Kodak Pan X. It gave smooth grain and was
  actually a little faster than advertised in the old Zone VI developer.
  But alas that film is not with us any longer.

  Since I shoot only 4x5 slow films present a problem since smaller
  apertures are required which means very slow shutter speeds or very
  little DOF. So I seem to keep coming back to good old Tri-X. I tried
  TMax 400 but it left me feeling a little hollow.

  But I guess that is why we have the choice of so many different film and
  developers.

  Truman

  Paul Roark wrote:

  >>I really believe in KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid).   Tech Pan is an
  >>phenomenal film, but slow, fussy & very contrasty quite quickly.  Next
best
  >>thing, and grainless in an 8x10 print, is TMX100 developed in D76 1:1.
...
  >>
  >>
  >
  >There is a lot of merit in this recommendation.  I rejected TP and used
Tmax
  >100 for years in a relatively traditional developer (in Microdol 1:3) --
  >very consistent and reliable.  I may end up taking this same approach
again.
  >
  >But the seductive siren song of ultra-fine grain keeps luring me onto the
  >rocks.
  >
  >Paul
  >http://www.PaulRoark.com
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >


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


        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]

Paul, the TMX in Microdol 1:3 is an excellent call.  I shy away from it
because of the longer development times and the slightly sharper grain at
the loss of finer grain when comparing D76 1:1 to Microdol-X 1:3.   But I
have seen excellent results with your combination and I forgot to mention
that.  The contrast should be flatter in Microdol also, which may make
scanning even easier.

Perhaps Xtol will work better with the "new" TMX100.  I thought it one of
the worst developers with the original TMX, giving mushy grain and a
decidedly soft look.   I'm glad to hear Kodak has discontinued recommending
Xtol at dilutions great then 1:1.   If you go back over past posts in
rec.photo.darkroom, you will consistently find people who have occasional
inconsistent and poor results with Xtol, even experienced darkroom workers.
I sometimes think it to be "The VooDoo Developer From Hell".

Rick


>I really believe in KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid).   Tech Pan is an
>phenomenal film, but slow, fussy & very contrasty quite quickly.  Next best
>thing, and grainless in an 8x10 print, is TMX100 developed in D76 1:1.  ...

There is a lot of merit in this recommendation.  I rejected TP and used Tmax
100 for years in a relatively traditional developer (in Microdol 1:3) --
very consistent and reliable.  I may end up taking this same approach again.

But the seductive siren song of ultra-fine grain keeps luring me onto the
rocks.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Hi Epson 2100 / 2200 users,

I have been using the EPSON 2100 with Apple OS 9.
Now I am switching to OSX (10.2.6)

Have downloaded Epson latest printerdriver.

It prints but I have some problems.
However I can define custom paper sizes it does not print to these sizes.
(Always switches back to the A4 default).

Any OS X users who have solved this problem?

Best regards,

Jo Brunenberg
www.jobrunenberg.com

Rick,

>Paul, the TMX in Microdol 1:3 is an excellent call.  I shy away from it
>because of the longer development times and the slightly sharper grain ...

I won't go back to my old standard, because I, too, am now concerned more
with grain than sharpness.  In the old darkroom, that was not the case.

>Perhaps Xtol will work better with the "new" TMX100.

I have not tried the new Tmax.  I have quite a lot of the old stuff in the
freezer.

> I thought it one of
>the worst developers with the original TMX, giving mushy grain and a
>decidedly soft look.

I would have agreed when I was doing direct enlargement.  However, while it
looks soft, the detail is all there on the film and scans fine.  Unsharp
mask then makes it as sharp as needed.

The grain is extremely fine with Xtol.  Now that is an attraction for me.

>... Xtol, ... I sometimes think it to be "The VooDoo Developer From Hell".

But I love those grainless 22 x 28" prints made from a medium format TP-Xtol
negative.  Some 4x5 shooters thought I most be using an 8x10 camera.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

____________________________________


>I really believe in KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid).   Tech Pan is an
>phenomenal film, but slow, fussy & very contrasty quite quickly.  Next best
>thing, and grainless in an 8x10 print, is TMX100 developed in D76 1:1.  ...

There is a lot of merit in this recommendation.  I rejected TP and used Tmax
100 for years in a relatively traditional developer (in Microdol 1:3) --
very consistent and reliable.  I may end up taking this same approach again.

But the seductive siren song of ultra-fine grain keeps luring me onto the
rocks.

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/

Techpan in Xtol????  How????

mark

...
> But I love those grainless 22 x 28" prints made from a medium 
format TP-Xtol
> negative.  Some 4x5 shooters thought I most be using an 8x10 camera.
...

Delta 100 looks great in Xtol and about as good when pushed to 200.

mark

Jo,

Someone (sorry I can't remember who) advised that you could use custom 
sizes if you printed you image via OS X's PREVIEW.  I just tried it on 
a 9 x 6 color image via Gimp-Print (the Gimp-Print printer) and it 
worked.  So, it should also work when printing to the QuadTone RIP cups 
printer.

By the way,  this is the first time I have printed a color image via 
Gimp-Print and I am impressed...I think it may be better than the 
standard Epson driver.

Hope this helps (and works).

David

On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 02:16  AM, Jo Brunenberg wrote:

>
> Hi Epson 2100 / 2200 users,
>
> I have been using the EPSON 2100 with Apple OS 9.
> Now I am switching to OSX (10.2.6)
>
> Have downloaded Epson latest printerdriver.
>
> It prints but I have some problems.
> However I can define custom paper sizes it does not print to these 
> sizes.
> (Always switches back to the A4 default).
>
> Any OS X users who have solved this problem?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jo Brunenberg
> www.jobrunenberg.com
>
>
<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 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]

Hello David,

For some reason when I use "Preview" automatically Acrobat 6 which I have installed starts up.
Acrobat does not show up the chosen custom paper size.

I do not know Gimp-print. Is it an alternative for the Epson printer driver?

Best regards,

Jo Brunenberg
 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,Internet writes:
>Jo,
>
>Someone (sorry I can't remember who) advised that you could use custom 
>sizes if you printed you image via OS X's PREVIEW.\ufffd I just tried it on 
>a 9 x 6 color image via Gimp-Print (the Gimp-Print printer) and it 
>worked.\ufffd So, it should also work when printing to the QuadTone RIP cups 
>printer.
>
>By the way,\ufffd this is the first time I have printed a color image via 
>Gimp-Print and I am impressed...I think it may be better than the 
>standard Epson driver.
>
>Hope this helps (and works).
>
>David
>
>On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 02:16\ufffd AM, Jo Brunenberg wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Epson 2100 / 2200 users,
>>
>> I have been using the EPSON 2100 with Apple OS 9.
>> Now I am switching to OSX (10.2.6)
>>
>> Have downloaded Epson latest printerdriver.
>>
>> It prints but I have some problems.
>> However I can define custom paper sizes it does not print to these 
>> sizes.
>> (Always switches back to the A4 default).
>>
>> Any OS X users who have solved this problem?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Jo Brunenberg
>> www.jobrunenberg.com



Met vriendelijke groeten,

Jo Brunenberg
Senior technology consultant Prepress / ICT
LOGIC USE BV
(member of Roto Smeets De Boer)
phone: ++31 (0)6 22 807 599
fax: ++31 (0)495 570 280
e-mail: jo.brunenberg@...
adress: P.O. Box 17  6000 AA - Weert - The Netherlands
www: www.logicuse.com  - www.rotosmeets.com - www.rsdb.com

Mark,

>Techpan in Xtol????  How????

Kodak originally recommended it with a 1:5 dilution.  For the last 2 years,
I had Xtol that worked extremely well at a 1:3 dilution (18 min. 75 degrees
F).  This year and with 2 new batches of new (and different production
numbers) Xtol, produced very high contrast with the 1:3 approach.  The new
Xtol seems to be close with a 1:5 ratio, but even there the curve shape and
speed are not what they were with the older batches of the developer.

Part of what led me back to TP is the scanner's ability (perhaps preference)
for higher contrast/dynamic range films.  TP is easier to control and often
gives better results when the contrast is higher than what I'd want to print
in the darkroom.

At any rate, my wonderful TP-Xtol combination turned out to be
inconsistent -- probably due to Xtol's inconsistencies.   It's a shame,
because the Xtol softness gave the best evenness of 120 development I've
ever seen and the finest grain, with an ISO of about 32.

I'm assuming Xtol at 1:1 with normal film is consistent enough to be
useable, but even that may be optimistic.  If Xtol and Tmax or Neopan 100
are consistent, then their grain is close to TP in other developers.
Photoshop's unsharp masking can kick the detail contrast up as needed --
there is sufficient information on the film and in the scans.  However, TP
still has enough of an edge in the combined grain and sharpness, especially
with an orange or red filter, that I'm going to see if I can use TD-3 or
another developer and get consistent results, but it's a much closer
question than it was last year.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

___________________________________________

...
> But I love those grainless 22 x 28" prints made from a medium
format TP-Xtol
> negative.  Some 4x5 shooters thought I most be using an 8x10 camera.
...



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 Monday, August 18, 2003, at 11:50  AM, Jo Brunenberg wrote:

> Hello David,
>
> For some reason when I use "Preview" automatically Acrobat 6 which I 
> have installed starts up.
> Acrobat does not show up the chosen custom paper size.
>
> I do not know Gimp-print. Is it an alternative for the Epson printer 
> driver?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jo Brunenberg

Jo,

Sorry for the confusion, I am now doing my color and b&w printing with 
Gimp-Print and Ghostscript which are Unix software tools for 
controlling printers which are now available for OS X.

I started on this path when I discovered QuadTone RIP which is raster 
image printing software for Mac OS X.  Go to http://www.harrington.com 
and look for the QuadTone RIP link at the bottom of the page.  All you 
need to know about installing QuadTone, Gimp-Print and Ghostscript for 
OS X are described in the web article with links to the required 
software which is also free.

The effort is well worth it.  It is by using Preview in connection with 
Gimp-Print (either alone or with Quadtone) that you can control paper 
sizes.  I just proved this to my self today by making 4in x 6in 
settings and getting exactly those measurements on the print.  I think 
any time you ask for a preview on OS X after you have enter the PRINT 
screens you will get the preview in Adobe Acrobat.  If anyone reading 
this knows hot to change this to Preview I would like to hear from them!

Frankly, I think printing color on the 2200/2100 Epson via Gimp-Print 
is just as good as using the latest Epson drivers.  However, only the 
latest Epson driver will allow roll paper, but GimpPrint/QuadTone only 
supplements the Epson drivers.  You still have the Epson setup 
available in PRINT CENTER.

The beauty of QuadTone RIP for B&W printing is that you have two 
printer curves available for the 2200/2100, a cool and a warm curve, 
that can be blended to achieve intermediate tones.  IT WORKS!  You can 
keep using the Epson Ultrachrome inkset and still get quality B&W 
prints.

David


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

right click or ctrl+click on a pdf. Get info. "open with" menu choose  
preview. click default for all pdf documents - back to preview being  
the default.

Likely when you installed AR 6 it changed the preferences.

On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 04:26  PM, David M. dorn wrote:

>
> On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 11:50  AM, Jo Brunenberg wrote:
>
>> Hello David,
>>
>> For some reason when I use "Preview" automatically Acrobat 6 which I
>> have installed starts up.
>> Acrobat does not show up the chosen custom paper size.
>>
>> I do not know Gimp-print. Is it an alternative for the Epson printer
>> driver?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Jo Brunenberg
>
> Jo,
>
> Sorry for the confusion, I am now doing my color and b&w printing with
> Gimp-Print and Ghostscript which are Unix software tools for
> controlling printers which are now available for OS X.
>
> I started on this path when I discovered QuadTone RIP which is raster
> image printing software for Mac OS X.  Go to http://www.harrington.com
> and look for the QuadTone RIP link at the bottom of the page.  All you
> need to know about installing QuadTone, Gimp-Print and Ghostscript for
> OS X are described in the web article with links to the required
> software which is also free.
>
> The effort is well worth it.  It is by using Preview in connection with
> Gimp-Print (either alone or with Quadtone) that you can control paper
> sizes.  I just proved this to my self today by making 4in x 6in
> settings and getting exactly those measurements on the print.  I think
> any time you ask for a preview on OS X after you have enter the PRINT
> screens you will get the preview in Adobe Acrobat.  If anyone reading
> this knows hot to change this to Preview I would like to hear from  
> them!
>
> Frankly, I think printing color on the 2200/2100 Epson via Gimp-Print
> is just as good as using the latest Epson drivers.  However, only the
> latest Epson driver will allow roll paper, but GimpPrint/QuadTone only
> supplements the Epson drivers.  You still have the Epson setup
> available in PRINT CENTER.
>
> The beauty of QuadTone RIP for B&W printing is that you have two
> printer curves available for the 2200/2100, a cool and a warm curve,
> that can be blended to achieve intermediate tones.  IT WORKS!  You can
> keep using the Epson Ultrachrome inkset and still get quality B&W
> prints.
>
> David
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  
> ---------------------~-->
> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
> Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US &  
> Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LIdGAA/qnsNAA/ucIolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ~->
>
> 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/
>
>
>
Regards,

Loring Palleske
Creative Imaging
416.301.1711

David,

I have been shooting and scanning Type 55 for a few years now. I also
develop it via the standard chemical pack, but got even more lazy a few
years ago and bought one of the Pro+ (or, whatever they call it) backs that
even times the development for you. It very conveniently starts the timing
sequence once the film is pulled through the rollers, then beeps at the end.
The total development time is adjusted based on the ambient temp of the
holder, too! A very nice upgrade to the standard holder.

I've actually found that I get better B&W prints from this material via the
digital lightroom, then I ever did in the chemical darkroom. Also, I find it
helpful that this film can be developed just about anywhere--a motel room,
for example--as a visual check of work progress for the day. Never could
wait to see my negs, anyway.... ;>)

Happy shooting...glad to hear that a few of us (actually quite a few on this
list, I believe) are still shooting LF. Now if I could only convince my son
to lug the 8x10!

Regards,
Alan Huntley

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David R. Spielman" <david@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 9:30 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] re: ISO 100 B&W films for scanning


> I like using type 55 Polaroid with the normal instant development. This
> allows me to make very fine grain 4 x 5 negatives, without a darkroom that
I
> then scan and print using my 'digital darkroom'. I think this is in
keeping
> with Paul Roark's KISS ( keep it simple stupid) philosophy.
>
> Is there anybody else out there using type 55 in this way? I'd be
interested

> in knowing how this works for others.
> Best Regards,
>
> David R. Spielman